JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATED JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; AND ORDER

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

I. PRESENTLY SCHEDULED DATES AND REQUESTED MODIFIED DATES

Plaintiff Irene Porter ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. ("TPMG") and Michelle White (collectively "Defendants"), having met and conferred, hereby jointly request, based on the showing of good cause discussed herein, that the Court modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order issued on August 10, 2016 (Docket #11) by:

II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

On August 8, 2016, the parties submitted a Joint Status Report. (See Docket #10.) On August 10, 2016, this Court issued its Pretrial Scheduling Order. (See Docket #11.) This Pretrial Scheduling Order established the deadline to file and the date to hear dispositive motions, the deadline to complete discovery, and the deadline to designate expert witnesses and disclose supplemental and rebuttal expert witnesses. The Pretrial Scheduling Order also set the date of the final pretrial conference and the jury trial.

The parties diligently litigated the case within the deadlines originally scheduled. On September 29, 2017, however, Plaintiff's prior counsel, Grant Winter of Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C., filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. (See Docket #15.) Defendants did not oppose the withdrawal, but nevertheless filed an Opposition to the Motion for the purpose of formally requesting the continuance of the aforementioned dates and deadlines in light of the withdrawal and the difficulties in conducting and completing discovery that immediately preceded the withdrawal. (See Docket #17.)

At the same time Plaintiff's prior counsel was seeking to withdraw, TPMG was seeking to compel Plaintiff's deposition and further discovery responses, and had set a conference with the assigned Magistrate Judge. (See Docket #18.)

On October 31, 2017, the Court granted Mr. Winter's Motion to Withdraw. (See Docket #19.) In the accompanying Minute Order, however, the Court declined to extend any dates or deadlines, instead ordering that the case be stayed for 60 days, until January 2, 2018. The Court indicated it would then "revisit the request for an extension of the discovery deadlines after the stay expires." The Court issued a similar order that same day (October 31, 2017) indicating that there would be no prejudice to "counsel's ability to raise their discovery issues before the Court after the stay expires." (See Docket #22.)

The assigned Magistrate Judge deemed the set discovery conference vacated because of the stay. (See Docket #22.)

On December 20, 2017, Plaintiff retained new counsel, Sean Gavin of Foos Gavin Law Firm, P.C., who in turn submitted a Substitution of Attorney form to the Court. Following that, Mr. Gavin and counsel for Defendants met and conferred about the outstanding discovery still to be completed, as well as the trial and other related dates and deadlines contained in the Pretrial Scheduling Order. Given Mr. Gavin's recent retention, as well as the difficulty in conducting and concluding discovery both immediately preceding and during the pendency of Mr. Winter's Motion to Withdraw and the subsequent stay of the matter, the parties and their counsel therefore believe and submit that good cause exists for a modification of the current Pretrial Scheduling Order. The modification will allow both parties to proceed with reasonable diligence to take all steps necessary to prepare and bring the matter to trial. Plaintiff has agreed to appear for deposition, and the parties are currently scheduling the deposition in the coming weeks.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff and Defendants jointly request the Court modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order to (1) vacate and reset the deadline to file and the date to hear dispositive motions, the deadline to complete discovery, and the deadline to designate expert witnesses and disclose supplemental and rebuttal expert witnesses; and (2) vacate and reset the respective dates of the final pretrial conference and the jury trial. The Parties have proposed specific new dates, but they do not object to the Court picking its own dates close in time to their proposed dates. Alternatively, the Parties will make themselves available if the Court prefers to hold a status or scheduling conference.

ORDER (AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT)

Good cause appearing, the Court hereby modifies the Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows:

All other aspects of the Pretrial Scheduling Order remain unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.