STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION DATES

ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Marisol Topete and Rosalba Maldonado and Defendant Furniture Deals, Inc. dba Ramos Furniture, by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. On August 16, 2016, this Court issued its Scheduling Conference Order that all non-expert discovery regarding the class/entity be completed by February 28, 2017, and that the Motion for Class Certification was to be filed on March 31, 2017. Further, this Court scheduled the trial in this matter to begin on August 14, 2018. (Doc. 82.) Plaintiffs Marisol Topete and Rosalba Maldonado ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Furniture Deals, Inc. dba Ramos Furniture ("FDI") (collectively "the Parties") believe there is good cause to extend the non-expert discovery cut-off (class/entity) and Motion for Class Certification dates, and pursuant to paragraph IX of the Scheduling Conference Order, request that both dates be extended 90 days or as otherwise is convenient for this Court.

2. There is good cause to make this request based on the following: On February 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against Defendant Ramos Furniture in the District Court for the Northern District of California. (Doc. 1.) Discovery commenced, and on December 21, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint to add Defendants FDI and Dimas Manual, Inc., as well as additional allegations, which was scheduled to be heard on February 22, 2016. (Docs. 46, 48.) On February 10, 2016, the Northern District Court took the matter under submission and the hearing date was vacated. (Doc. 59.) Prior to the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, the deposition of Isidro Ramos, a person produced as a person most qualified by FDI to answer questions about categories identified by Plaintiffs, commenced. Soon thereafter, the Parties met and conferred and determined that the more appropriate venue for the litigation was in the District Court for the Eastern District of California in Fresno, California, and filed a stipulation to transfer the case. (Doc. 62.) On February 11, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to Transfer and Proposed Order, which was granted by the Northern District on February 25, 2016, and the case was transferred to the Eastern District Court in Fresno the next day. (Doc. 63.) No decision on Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint was issued prior to the transfer, and the initial scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge Synder was scheduled for June 1, 2016. The Parties appeared at the scheduling conference, but no schedule was ordered due to the impending vacation of the bench by Magistrate Judge Snyder who believed it was more efficient to wait for this Court to take up scheduling, including ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, which was granted by this Court. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on August 10, 2016, naming Defendants FDI and Manual Dimas, Inc. FDI filed its answer to the Amended Complaint in September, 2016, and the Court issued its Scheduling Conference Order on August 14, 2016. (Doc. 82.) During the time in which the case was being transferred, the Parties were meeting and conferring about various objections made by FDI to discovery being sought by Plaintiffs, including special interrogatories and requests for documents, and the scope of such discovery since it was uncertain whether additional parties and allegations were going to be added. Upon the Amended Complaint being filed, and through continued meet and confer efforts regarding the outstanding discovery, FDI agreed to provide much of the discovery being sought regarding the proposed class. However, during at least the past four months, the person for FDI most knowledgeable about these records and information needed to respond to the interrogatories, Mr. Ramos, was battling personal mental and physical challenges that prevented him from being able to be engaged in providing and gathering this information. Counsel for FDI, Paul J. Bauer, kept counsel for Plaintiffs, Daniel P. Kopfman, informed of these issues, which Mr. Ramos made known, in part, to Mr. Kopfman during Mr. Ramos' deposition. With the discovery cut-off and Motion for Class Certification dates looming, Mr. Kopfman advised Mr. Bauer that Plaintiffs needed to proceed with filing a motion to compel further discovery responses to protect Plaintiffs' interests, and in compliance with the rules of court, Mr. Kopfman requested an informal discovery dispute conference before this Court to request permission to file a motion if the parties could not otherwise work out their differences. Approximately one hour before the conference on December 1, 2016, Mr. Kopfman and Mr. Bauer discussed the impending conference and Mr. Bauer advised Mr. Kopfman that he received information from FDI hours during the previous evening that responded, in part, to discovery requests propounded by Plaintiffs that could be produced in response to certain discovery requests. FDI expects to provide this information and additional documents to Plaintiff this month. This information will not only be responsive to the outstanding discovery requests, but will make it more likely that the Parties will engage in private mediation. Now that information can be facilitated between the Parties, the Parties request that these two dates be continued to permit a more complete analysis of the information and to schedule and attend a private mediation. If the Court would like more information about the reason Mr. Ramos has been unable to engage in the discovery process, FDI is willing to provide such to the Court.

3. This is the first request to change any of the dates provided in the Scheduling Conference Order by either party and neither party will be prejudiced by doing so. Moreover, there remains sufficient time to keep the remaining dates scheduled in the Order, including the trial date that is not until August, 2018.

4. Based on the above, the Parties believe there is good cause pursuant to paragraph IX of the Scheduling Conference Order to continue these two dates and hereby request that the February 28, 2017, date by which non-expert discovery (class/entity) and the Motion for Class Certification scheduled to be filed on March 31, 2017, be continued 90 days therefrom or as otherwise appropriate for this Court's calendar.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

ORDER

The parties having submitted a Stipulation requesting to continue the non-expert discovery (class/entity) cut-off currently on February 28, 2017, and the Class Certification Motion currently scheduled to be filed on March 31, 2017. Good cause appearing from the Stipulation, the deadlines are hereby continued to the following dates:

FDI's Opposition to Class Certification Motion shall be filed on July 28, 2017 and any Reply thereto shall be filed on August 11, 2017.

The remainder of the schedule is unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.