STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULING ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

This Stipulation is submitted by Plaintiffs, Jesus Silva Rodriguez and Rigoberto Zepeda Loa and Defendants RCO Reforesting, Inc. and Roberto Ochoa, by and through their respective counsel of record herein. The parties respectfully submit this Stipulation to modify the case scheduling order and continue non-expert discovery and motions deadlines, as well pre-trial conference and trial dates, as follows:

This stipulated request is made pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for good cause as stated herein.

Good Cause Exists for Entry into This Stipulation and Amendment of the Scheduling Order

1. Defendants' counsel, PALMER KAZANJIAN WOHL HODSON LLP, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record which came on for hearing on April 30, 2018. Doc. 54. During the course of that hearing, Lawrence Kazanjian, counsel for Defendants, informed the court that he was willing to stay on as counsel of record, for the purpose of representing the Defendant in settlement efforts. Based on this information, the court stayed discovery, dropped the motion to withdraw from the calendar, and referred the matter to Hon. Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, for settlement conference. See Doc. 58. At that time responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for production of documents served on Defendants were pending and responses were stayed as part of the Court's Order.

2. Settlement conferences took place on June 21, 2018, July 24, 2018, August 25, 2018, and September 4, 2018 (by telephone). However, a settlement has not been reached. At the September 4, 2018 Settlement Conference, Nikki Farris, attorney at law, appeared and represented that she had been retained by Defendant Ochoa for the purpose of determining whether bankruptcy was a viable option, but confirmed that no bankruptcy has been filed, or is imminent.

3. Counsel for all parties, including Ms. Farris, agreed that it would be fruitful to conduct at least one more settlement conference to determine whether the matter could be resolved. Magistrate Brennan agreed to conduct one more settlement conference, which is set for September 25, 2018. See Doc. 79.

4. Plaintiffs diligently pursued both written discovery and depositions and have noticed the depositions of Defendant Robert Ochoa and various employees of RCO Reforesting, Inc. The depositions of Mr. Ochoa, one foreman, and one superintendent have been completed, but depositions for three other key witnesses have been stayed. Responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and additional document demands were also stayed.

5. Plaintiffs' counsel intend to file a motion for partial summary judgment under Fed R. Civ. P. 56(a) on a number of issues which, they believe, will establish the liability as to one or all of the Defendants and dispose of a significant portion of the litigation. That intent has been communicated to Defendants' counsel, and to Magistrate Judge Brennan consistently during settlement negotiations. It is Plaintiffs' counsel's opinion that it would be premature, and a waste of resources, to file such a motion prior to September 25, 2018 given the agreement to conduct one final settlement conference. This is particularly true given that it is likely that if settlement is not reached, Defendants' counsel will renew their motion to withdraw, which would likely delay any decision on the Rule 56(a) motion.

6. Plaintiffs did not previously request an amendment of the scheduling order to push back the dispositive motion date, or trial date, because of their desire to keep the current trial date of December 4, 2018. However, given the timing of the final settlement conference, and the likelihood that a motion to withdraw will be filed if settlement is unsuccessful, it is no longer possible to comply with the discovery, pre-trial conference or trial dates.

7. The dates selected for trial were based on the trial schedule of lead counsel for Plaintiff, Cynthia L. Rice, who currently has a multi-day bench trial set for January 7, 2019 in the Kern County Superior Court and a separate multi-day jury trial set for trial on March 18, 2019 in the Kern County Superior Court.

8. The parties also agree that, in the event that settlement is not reached, it is in the best interest of all parties that the current stay as to discovery be lifted and Defendants' counsel be allowed to proceed, if they wish to do so, to renew their motion to withdraw immediately thereafter.

Prior Modifications of the Scheduling Order

The case schedule has been modified on four prior occasions: (1) to extend the discovery and other deadlines and reset the trial date (Doc. 48); (2) to extend the opt-in period for the FLSA action (Doc. 51); (3) to extend discovery and dispositive motion deadlines to accommodate Defendants' request for an extension of discovery response dates (Doc. 56); and (4) to again extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, as well as the pretrial conference date, to facilitate settlement negotiations (Doc. 68). On all occasions the Court granted the modifications based on a showing of good cause.

For reasons stated above, the Parties believe that the good cause standard of Rule 16(b) is met and hereby stipulate as follows:

1. That the current deadline for completing non-expert discovery be extended to December 1, 2018;

2. That the current dispositive motions deadline be extended to December 17, 2018;

3. That the current Final Pretrial Conference be continued to January 28, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.;

4. That the current jury trial date be continued to April 2, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.; and that

5. In the event that the parties do not reach agreement on September 25, 2019, and no further settlement conferences are ordered by the Court, the stay on discovery shall be lifted effective October 2, 2018, and Defendants' counsel may renew their motion to withdraw as of that date.

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The case scheduling order is modified as follows: