JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES Action Filed: April 1, 2016 Expert Witness Disclosures: July 27, 2017

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, Bill Barker, Tab Bachman, and William Yingling ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant, Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC ("Swift") pursuant to USDC EDCA Local Rule 143 stipulate and agree as follows:

On September 6, 2016, this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and the Rule 26(f) Conference Statement of the parties, issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order setting the discovery cut-off deadline for June 1, 2017 (ECF No. 15). On May 31, 2017, the Court entered an Order moving the discovery cut-off to July 31, 2017 pursuant to the parties' stipulation to extend the discovery cut-off for sixty days (ECF No. 22). On September 14, 2017, the Court entered an order extending the discovery cut-off to September 21, 2017 for the limited purpose of resolving the ongoing discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs' challenged discovery responses and Defendant's Third Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents, Set One (ECF No. 31). And on September 22, 2017, the Court extended the same deadline to October 27, 2017 (ECF No. 35).

The parties mediated the case with the Honorable Charles McCoy (Ret.) on October 20, 2017, but were unable to resolve the case at the mediation. Although Plaintiffs have made progress and have acted with diligence in gathering the documents and information necessary to complete their discovery responses, they have not yet been able to produce the requested discovery but have advised that they will do so on October 27, 2017. The parties, therefore, respectfully request a two-week extension on the discovery cut-off deadline for the limited purpose of resolving the ongoing discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs' challenged discovery responses and, if necessary, for Defendants to file a discovery motion. Neither party will be prejudiced by this extension.

The parties jointly propose that the deadlines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order previously set forth by the Court be revised as follows, or set on such other date as the Court determines:

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED and AGREED between the parties that all other provisions of the Pretrial Scheduling Order of September 6, 2016 and subsequent orders will remain in effect. This Stipulation may be signed in counterparts and any facsimile or electronic signature will be valid as an original signature.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, and pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, the deadlines in the Scheduling Order previously set forth by the Court are revised as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.