JOINT STIPULATION AND CONSENT [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on August 17, 2017 and their First Amended Complaint on April 12, 2018;

WHEREAS, on December 13, 2017, the Court entered a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (ECF No. 10);

WHEREAS, discovery commenced in December 2017 and continues to date, but has moved more slowly than anticipated:

1. On December 6, 2017, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories on Defendant. On January 5, 2018, Defendant served written responses and objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories. After Plaintiffs raised issues with Defendant's responses and objections and the parties conferred, Defendant served Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production on January 26, 2018. Certain documents and information responsive to Plaintiffs' requests implicated confidentiality and privacy concerns of Defendant. After the parties agreed to a Stipulated Protective Order which was presented to the Court and issued by the Court on February 23, 2018, Defendant served further Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories on June 5, 2018.

2. On February 28, 2018, Defendant made his first production of documents in response to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production. Defendant has not yet completed his production in response to Plaintiffs' December 6, 2017 document requests.

3. On May 5, 2018, Plaintiffs served their Second Set of Requests for Production, seeking, among other things, documents regarding Defendant's financials. Defendant served written responses and objections on June 7, 2017. Defendant has not yet produced documents in response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production.

4. On May 18, 2018, Defendant served his First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, responses to which are due June 21, 2018.

WHEREAS, on March 29, 2018, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order Consolidating Related Cases (ECF No. 16) to consolidate with this action a related action, Elsevier, Inc., et al. v. Stolyarchuk, Case No. 18-cv-00593-WBS-FEB, that had recently been transferred to this Court from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The stipulation to consolidate was made in the interest of promoting efficiency by avoiding the litigation of separate related actions. The parties advised in their Stipulation and Order Consolidating Related Cases that "a short extension of the dates in [the] scheduling order [would] be required" and are now requesting the same.

WHEREAS, expert reports are currently due June 29, 2018. Plaintiffs intend to serve expert reports opining on the alleged counterfeit nature of certain books, including some or all of a pallet of suspect books that Defendant agreed to provide to Plaintiffs and which Defendant provided on May 22, 2018. According to Defendant, this shipment contained over 1,100 individual books, including over 85 separate titles. Given the recent date of that production and the number of books provided, along with the consolidation of the related action and delays in discovery, June 29, 2018 does not provide sufficient time for Plaintiffs' experts to review, opine and draft their reports.

WHEREAS, the parties have also discussed their mutual willingness to engage in settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs have indicated, however, that settlement negotiations cannot be reasonably framed unless and until Defendant provides further discovery, including financial information. Additionally, Defendant believes that litigation expenditures prior to the opportunity to engage in settlement negotiations may create additional financial barriers to resolution which may complicate future efforts to resolve this dispute. Thus, Defendant believes that the short extension of dates and deadlines requested will facilitate resolution by allowing the parties to complete the necessary discovery for settlement negotiations while permitting time to conduct further fact and expert discovery should settlement negotiations fail.

WHEREAS, in light of the above, the parties agree that additional time is necessary for further discovery in hopes of setting a framework for meaningful settlement discussions, including, if the parties later agree, through Local Rule 271's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program,

WHEREAS, this is the parties' first request for an extension of any deadline in the Court's Pre-Trial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 10).

THE PARTIES JOINTLY CONSENT TO and request that the Court enter an order modifying certain dates in the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 10), as follows:

All other dates listed in the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 10) shall remain in place.

IT IS SO ORDERED.