STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

Plaintiffs James Lathrop, Julie McKinney, Jonathan Grindell, Sandeep Pal, Jennifer Reilly, and Justin Bartolet (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on February 27, 2015 (Dkt. No. 25);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served their first set of document requests on May 21, 2015;

WHEREAS, Defendant served objections to that discovery on June 22, 2015, objecting on a variety of grounds, including objecting in light of the then-pending motion to dismiss;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served their first set of interrogatories on June 15, 2015;

WHEREAS, Defendant responded to that discovery on July 14, 2015;

WHEREAS, on July 19, 2015, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 49);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs also served two additional sets of interrogatories on July 30, 2015 and August 7, 2015 respectively and an additional set of document requests on July 30, 2015;

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs met and conferred with then-Counsel for Defendant on numerous occasions—both in writing and via telephone—about discovery;

WHEREAS, on August 6, 2015, Defendant served its first document production;

WHEREAS, on August 10, 2015, Plaintiffs' counsel proposed search terms for ESI discovery and Defendant agreed to those search terms with no revisions;

WHEREAS, on or about September 10, 2015, counsel for Plaintiffs learned that Uber was substituting its counsel. Uber filed its Notice of Consent to Substitution of Counsel on September 14, 2015. (Dkt. No. 59). This Court entered an order substituting counsel on September 15, 2015 (Dkt. No. 60). Upon their entry into the case, substituted counsel for Defendant requested a two-week extension to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery, which Plaintiffs agreed to;

WHEREAS, on or about September 24, 2015, Plaintiffs initiated service of a subpoena on Uber's vendor, third party Twilio, Inc. Twilio, Inc. served its responses—largely objections—to that subpoena on October 14, 2015;

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant have been diligently working to complete discovery in this matter and, thus far, have managed their discovery-related disagreements without Court intervention;

WHEREAS, on September 28, 2015, and pursuant to the Parties' agreement, Defendant served: (1) amended responses to Plaintiffs' first set of document requests, (2) responses to Plaintiffs' second set of document requests, (3) responses to Plaintiffs' second and third sets of interrogatories, and (4) an additional document production;

WHEREAS, for the past month, counsel for the Parties have been meeting and conferring on a very regular basis about a number of discovery issues, including the ongoing discovery of ESI, the additional documents requested by Plaintiffs, and the timing of depositions;

WHEREAS, while Defendant has produced documents to date, and pursuant to the ongoing meet and confer process, Defendant is continuing the process of searching for additional responsive documents, including any additional electronic discovery;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' position is that they cannot proceed to prepare and serve their expert report(s) — which, according to the current Scheduling Order, are due November 13, 2015 — until such time as they finish meeting and conferring about the production of documents, receive any additional document production, review the documents, and take related deposition testimony;

WHEREAS, the Parties do not seek to unduly delay this case. Indeed, both Parties desire a prompt resolution of this matter and have worked together to reach such a resolution;

WHEREAS, the Parties have also been discussing the parameters of pursuing Mediation and are in the process of selecting a mediator. The additional time afforded by the proposed amended schedule will also be used to facilitate the mediation;

WHEREAS, Defendant's counsel has informed Plaintiffs' counsel that it intends to file a Motion to Stay this case pending appeal of the FCC's Omnibus Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Case No. 15-1211) and the Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v. Robins, 135 S.Ct. 1892 (2015). To date, Defendant has filed such Motions to Stay in two other pending TCPA cases, Vergara v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 15-6942 (Dkt. No. 12), pending in the Northern District of Illinois and Kolloukian v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 15-2856 (Dkt. No. 41), pending in the Central District of California. Those motions are currently in the process of being briefed;

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that an extension of time for Plaintiffs to serve their expert designation is reasonable under the above-described circumstances, and that commensurate extensions should be made to the other deadlines.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

The Parties agree, subject to Court approval, to amend the deadlines as follows:

Currently, May 25, 2016 is the next Case Management Conference. The Parties are conscious the Court will want sufficient time to review and analyze the Parties' class certification briefing and evidence, and that the requested amendments to the briefing schedule may impact the Court's preparation for the hearing. As such, the Parties respectfully request that the Court advise them of a new date and time for the hearing and further Case Management Conference.

Additionally, the parties recognize that these dates are subject to the decision on Defendant's yet-to-be-filed Motion to Stay and the outcome of the proposed mediation.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-2(a), attached as Exhibit A is a joint declaration in support of this Stipulation.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.