STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PARTIES TO FILE A DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 31, 2017 (Sixth Request)

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.

Plaintiff THE HACKETT MILLER COMPANY, INC. ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants GFOUR PRODUCTIONS, LLC and SPOTLIGHT RIGHTS LLC ("Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to a sixth extension of time of 7 days up to and including June 23, 2017, for the parties to file a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order with the Court pursuant to the Court's Minute Order dated March 31, 2017 (ECF No. 29).

On March 30, 2017, the Court denied without prejudice Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for (1) Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, (2) Failure to Join a Necessary Party, and (3) Improper Venue, and (4) Request to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 22) and ordered the parties to engage in jurisdictional discovery for a period of 60 days commencing March 31, 2017, and to submit a joint proposed discovery/scheduling order within one week from March 31, 2017.

On April 7, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the time to file a discovery plan for 14 days (ECF No. 30) because the parties had reached a settlement framework which would dismiss the action entirely and wanted additional time to allow the parties to finalize settlement in the form of a formal written settlement agreement. On April 10, 2017, the Court granted the stipulation of the parties (ECF No. 31).

While Plaintiff's counsel diligently prepared a draft written settlement agreement for Defendants' review, Plaintiff's counsel was unable to obtain client approval on the draft due to vacation travel plans by Plaintiff's principals until April 17, 2017. Defendants' counsel provided proposed revisions to the settlement agreement on April 20, 2017. Because Plaintiff's counsel required additional time to review and discuss Defendants' proposed changes prior to the revised deadline to submit a discovery plan, the parties, on April 21, 2017, filed a second stipulation to extend the time to file a discovery plan for another 14 days (ECF No. 32) to May 5, 2017, which the Court granted on May 2, 2017 (ECF No. 33).

On April 24, 2017, the parties' counsel discussed Defendants' latest revisions to the draft settlement agreement. While Defendants' revisions raised some additional issues from Plaintiff's side, counsel for both parties believed that such issues could be worked out among the parties and agreed to continue trying to work towards a mutually acceptable settlement agreement. While Plaintiff's counsel worked diligently on further revisions to the settlement agreement that would address Plaintiff's concerns, Plaintiff's counsel was not able to get client approval on the revised draft prior to sending it back to Defendants' counsel because Plaintiff's primary principal, whom Plaintiff's counsel had been working with in connection with these settlement negotiations, became severely ill and was unable to review and approve the proposed settlement agreement. Plaintiff's counsel also was scheduled to be outside the country from May 5th through May 18th on a two-week vacation that was scheduled back in February (and about which Defendants' counsel was informed by Plaintiff's counsel on March 30, 2017). For these reasons, on May 3, 2017, the parties filed a third stipulation to extend the time to file a discovery plan for another 21 days to May 26, 2017, as well as a first stipulation to extend the time for the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery by 30 days to June 30, 2017 (ECF No. 34), which the Court granted on May 8, 2017 (ECF No. 35).

On May 11, 2017, Defendants' counsel wrote back to Plaintiff's counsel with additional revisions to the draft settlement agreement. Because Plaintiff's counsel was traveling overseas at this time, Plaintiff's counsel was unable to respond to Defendants' counsel comments about the revised draft agreement until May 17, 2017. Defendants' counsel prepared a detailed point-bypoint response to each of the issues raised in the correspondence from Plaintiff's counsel. Defendants' counsel, after having the chance to discuss with Defendants the points raised by Plaintiff's counsel, responded to Plaintiff's counsel with another revised draft on May 22, 2017. While most of the issues to be worked out between the parties were relatively minor and both sides were optimistic that a middle ground could be reached, the parties were not able to agree on the issue of choice of venue despite Plaintiff's counsel proposing several alternatives as compromises. Counsel for both parties agreed to try and work towards having the agreement in final form in all other respects except for the issue of choice of venue and to address that issue after all other issues had been satisfactorily addressed. On May 23, 2017, after conferring with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel emailed Defendants' counsel a revised settlement agreement making some additional minor changes. On May 25, 2017, Defendants' counsel discussed with Plaintiff's counsel a proposed compromise on the choice of venue issue.

In order to give the parties additional time to incorporate language into the agreement which would be acceptable to both sides as well as to finalize and execute the final written agreement, the parties on May 26, 2017, filed a fourth stipulation to extend the time to file a discovery plan for another 14 days to June 9, 2017 (ECF No. 36), which as of the filing of this Stipulation has not yet been granted by the Court.

On May 30, 2017, Defendants' counsel e-mailed to Plaintiff's counsel an updated revised settlement agreement making some additional revisions to the agreement, including Defendants' proposed language to incorporate the parties proposed compromise on the choice of venue issue. Plaintiff's counsel reviewed and revised the language proposed by Defendants and that same day e-mailed the updated agreement to Plaintiff for review and approval. Unfortunately, as of June 9, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel had not been able to get client approval on the revised draft prior to sending it back to Defendants' counsel. Despite multiple follow-up e-mails by Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff's primary principal, whom Plaintiff's counsel had been working with in connection with these settlement negotiations, has indicated that she has been so busy attending to various personal and business obligations, including graduation, final exams, an emergency pet surgery, and business projects with hard deadlines, that to date she has not been able to review the latest revised agreement.

Because the parties have been focused primarily on settlement efforts and needed to work out specific timeframes and deadlines for the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, Defendants' counsel on June 9, 2017, agreed to a one week extension of the deadline to submit a discovery plan and scheduling order, but only to allow the parties time to focus on preparing and filing a discovery plan and scheduling order by no later than June 16, 2017. On June 9, 2017, the parties filed a fifth stipulation to extend the time to file a discovery plan for another 7 days to June 16, 2017 (ECF No. 37), which as of the filing of this Stipulation has not yet been granted by the Court.

Subsequently, on June 14, 2017, the parties were able to agree upon and finalize all terms of the written settlement agreement that the parties had been negotiating. However, the parties have not yet formally signed the circulated execution version of the settlement agreement and require additional time to obtain signatures and then prepare and file a dismissal of this case with the Court.

By this Stipulation, the parties request that the deadline to file a joint proposed discovery plan/scheduling order be extended by 7 days to June 23, 2017. This is the sixth request for an extension of time by both parties to file the joint proposed discovery/scheduling order.

Good cause exists for this request because while the parties have agreed upon and memorialized in writing all terms and conditions of a settlement agreement to resolve this litigation, the parties still require additional time to obtain signatures from the parties. For these reasons, this stipulated request is made for good cause and not for purposes of delay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.