JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

JOINT STIPULATION

COME NOW the parties jointly through their respective attorneys of record and stipulate as follows:

1. The Court recently conducted a telephonic conference regarding a discovery dispute in this case (Doc. 40). The dispute concerns Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' notice of deposition of the City of Bakersfield pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) with an accompanying request for documents. Following the conference, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer further regarding the records that can be generated from the Blue Team software program (Doc. 41).

2. The parties met and conferred on April 5, 2018. Prior to the meeting, the Defendants' counsel investigated and gathered information concerning the Blue Team software and its functions. The parties discussed the Blue Team software and Defendants proposed to produce Brent Stratton to testify regarding the Blue Team software.

3. The parties discussed how best to proceed in terms of minimizing the expenditure of unnecessary time and resources with respect to this dispute. There a substantial number of subject matters identified in Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) notice to which the Defendants have agreed to produce a witness subject to their objections. There are a number of additional categories that Plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw. With respect to other categories, the parties may be able to agree on a narrowed compromise. The proposal to produce Brent Stratton is expected to help refine the disputes concerning the Blue Team software.

4. Accordingly, the parties propose to proceed with convening the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, with a plan to meet and confer afterwards to see what (if any) issues remain in dispute. It is hoped that proceeding in this way will eliminate or at least narrow significantly the issues that would need to be litigated in terms of this dispute. The parties propose to proceed this way with the understanding that it does not imply a waiver of Defendants objections, nor does it imply a waiver of Plaintiff's right to bring a motion to compel as to the categories that remain in dispute.

5. The current non-expert discovery cutoff is May 29, 2018. The parties propose to extend that deadline for a number of reasons. First, extending the deadline will give the parties additional time to explore compromises with respect to the disputes concerning the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. In the event an informal compromise is not possible, additional time will allow the Plaintiffs the option of pursuing the desired discovery using other avenues while ensuring that sufficient time remains for any remaining disputes to be litigated.

6. Another factor favoring an extension is the move, now in progress, of Plaintiff's attorney Neil K. Gehlawat from the firm of Chain Cohn Stiles in Bakersfield to AlderLaw, P.C. in Los Angeles. In addition, Defendants' counsel will be in trial in Tucson, Arizona starting on April 17, 2018 which is expected to take two weeks. In addition, Defendants' counsel has another trial starting on May 22, 2018 before the Honorable Judge Ishii. These trials will likely affect the scheduling of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

7. In addition, there are four to six additional percipient witnesses whose depositions have to be completed. Some of these witnesses were previously scheduled but were unable to make their depositions. Plaintiffs are going to attempt to produce these witnesses without need for a subpoena; however, some of them may still need to be served to secure their deposition testimony.

8. The parties submit that, in light of the above, good cause exists to grant this request. The parties submit that they have diligently pursued discovery in this matter and that no previous requests have been made concerning the schedule. The proposed adjustment to the schedule is as follows.

The above referenced dates will not adversely impact the trial date.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefor:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Scheduling Order be modified as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.