JOINT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Diana Ellis, James Schillinger and Ronald Lazar ("Plaintiffs") and JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., for itself and as the successor by merger to Chase Home Finance ("Chase" or "Defendants") (together, the "Parties") respectfully submit: (i) a Joint Statement summarizing the status of the litigation and apprising the Court of the need for a brief modification of the remaining pretrial deadlines relating to mediation and expert disclosures only; and (ii) an accompanying proposed form of order (the "Proposed Order").1 None of the proposed changes to the case schedule will move any currently-set hearing dates or court-filing deadlines.

I. JOINT STATEMENT

Although the Parties have engaged in diligent efforts to gather and analyze voluminous and complex loan transaction data ("loan level data") concerning the number of property inspections Chase charged to borrowers and the amounts paid by such borrowers on millions of Chase loans, the Parties agree that certain pending pretrial dates relating to mediation, expert disclosures, and expert discovery should be briefly extended in order to allow the Parties' experts sufficient time to analyze such information in connection with the preparation of their expert reports. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully propose a brief extension of the following dates, none of which affect any hearing date or court filing deadline:

The Parties believe that the requested modification to the case schedule is warranted for the following reasons:

As of early November 2014, Chase had produced loan level data for approximately 1.5 million loans dating back to 2008. Additionally, on January 27, 2015, pursuant to Judge Spero's October 29, 2014 Order (Dkt. 119), Chase produced additional loan level data dating back to 2001. Finally, over the course of the past 60 days, Chase performed certain validation and testing of its loan level data and produced to Plaintiffs certain additional, updated loan level data files. However, within the past week, Chase's counsel informed Plaintiffs' counsel that Chase has located some additional loan level data concerning a bank acquired by Chase, and that Chase will complete its production of such data by February 11, 2015.

On November 13, 2014, Plaintiffs took the deposition of Chase's person most qualified, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), with respect to the loan level data that Chase had produced as of that date. That deposition revealed, among other things, the challenges and difficulty in reconciling Chase' loan level data as a result of various "heritage" systems — historical systems used by a series of predecessor institutions — which used different software codes, transactional codes and methods of recording property inspections fees assessed and paid. As a result of that deposition, the Parties agreed that Chase would produce additional data and an additional witness to testify on Chase's behalf once Chase completed production of the loan level data ordered by Judge Spero. In that regard, on February 5, 2015, Plaintiffs took the continued deposition of Chase's 30(b)(6) designee with respect to Chase's loan level data. Again, challenges with respect to the integration of the various heritage systems became apparent and, based on the testimony provided during the February 5 deposition, Plaintiffs have requested, and Chase has agreed, to produce additional data concerning the property inspection fees paid by borrowers.

As a result of the above, the Parties and their experts will essentially have less than two weeks to analyze all of Chase's loan level data housed on various "heritage" systems for millions of loans before the current initial expert report deadline of February 20, 2015. Therefore, a modest extension to the expert disclosure and expert discovery dates will ensure that each of the Parties' experts, and the Court, will have the best available information concerning the number of property inspection fees Chase charged to borrowers and the amounts paid by those borrowers. Providing the Parties' experts with a thorough opportunity to analyze such information for purposes of their expert witness reports serves the best interests of all involved, including the Court and, ultimately, the trier of fact.

II. CONCLUSION

For all of the following reasons, the Parties respectfully request that the following deadlines set in the December 2, 2014 Order (ECF No. 134) be extended as follows:

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having reviewed the contents of the Parties' Joint Statement, and finding good cause therein, hereby orders that the following deadlines set in the December 2, 2014 Order (ECF No. 134) be extended as follows: