JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

(SECOND REQUEST)

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff CAROL GAONA and defendants/cross-defendants J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. fka J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION ("JCP"), DOW ROOFING SYSTEMS, LLC fka JPS ELASTOMERICS CORPORATION dba STEVENS ROOFING SYSTEMS ("DOW"), and JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. ("JOHNSON"), by and through their attorneys of record, respectfully submit this joint stipulation and proposed order to extend the dates in connection with this civil action. Pursuant to Local Rule 144 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

On May 10, 2016, this Court issued its Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order. (Doc. 41.) The Order requires all fact discovery completed by June 15, 2017, and specified that "completed" means that all depositions shall have been taken and any discovery disputes resolved. (Doc. 41 at p.2). The Order also stated, "Counsel are instructed to complete all discovery of expert witnesses in a timely manner in order to comply with the Court's deadline for filing dispositive motions." (Doc. 41 at p. 4.) The deadline to designate expert witnesses, including any expert witnesses' written reports, is August 18, 2017. (Doc. 41 at p.2) The deadline to file a dispositive motion is December 14, 2017. (Doc. 41 at p. 4.)

After receiving the Order, the parties met and conferred and mutually agreed to complete all expert discovery by November 9, 2017. On July 14, 2016, the parties submitted a Stipulation and Order for Deadline to Complete All Expert Discovery specifying that "all expert discovery will be completed by November 9, 2017." On July 28, 2016, this Court issued its Order that all expert discovery was to be completed by November 9, 2017. (Doc. 47).

On May 26, 2017, the parties, after having met and conferred, mutually agreed that additional time was needed to complete the necessary discovery and filed a joint stipulation to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order.

On May 31, 2017, this Court ordered the scheduling deadlines modified as follows:

The parties disclosed eighteen (18) retained experts by the September 22, 2017 deadline, and since those disclosures the parties have worked diligently toward completing discovery and attempted to schedule and take the depositions of many of the disclosed experts. Due to the logistical difficulties involved in scheduling feasible deposition dates, the parties require additional time to complete discovery and the parties agree that the interests of all parties are best served by continuing many of the dates in this action by approximately 30 days.

The Pretrial Scheduling Order may be modified by leave of court upon a showing of good cause. (Doc. 41 at 11). The parties agree that good cause exists to extend the deadlines in this case. Over the course of this litigation, a total of eighteen (18) expert witnesses have been retained in connection with this action, and the parties have sought to depose most of those. In the spirit of cooperation, all parties have been very accommodating in order to schedule the various experts retained, but some experts, including Dr. Seidenwurm, Dr. Cassini, and Mr. Murphy, will likely not be deposed by the December 1, 2017 deadline. Additionally, a short extension to the expert discovery deadline will necessarily require a corresponding extension of some following deadlines to allow the parties adequate time to prepare. For these reasons, good cause exists to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order.

The parties also take this opportunity to inform this Court that the parties have reviewed the available evidence and arguments that resulted from discovery and have mutually come to the conclusion that a proper adjudication of this matter will very likely exceed the 4-7 trial days set for this case. In the parties' considered and agreed-upon opinion, this civil action will likely require between 10-14 trials days to resolve. The parties wish to give notice to this Court regarding the anticipated number of trial days this civil action will require in the event that the increase in requested trial days affects either the current trial date of May 14, 2018, or the parties' requested continuation of various deadlines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order, or both.

The parties agree to the amended schedule, and agree that no party will be prejudiced if the requested relief is granted. Parties also request that, in the event that the trial date is continued in light of the anticipated number of trial days necessary to adjudicate this matter, the dates for Dispositive Motions, the Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement, and the Final Pretrial Conference be continued accordingly.

STIPULATION

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that good cause exists to modify the current scheduling deadlines as follows:

With respect to the trial date an associated pretrial conference deadlines, the parties request the Court's guidance on whether those dates should remain on calendar or be rescheduled given the parties' agreement that the trial will likely take 10-14 days rather than the 4-7 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.