AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

[SECOND REQUEST]

CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, PROF-2013-S3 Legal Title Trust IV, by U.S. Bank National Association, as Legal Title Trustee (hereinafter "PROF"), Defendant/Counterclaimant, REO Investment Advisors V, LLC (hereinafter "REO"), and Defendant, El Dorado Neighborhood Second Homeowners Association ("HOA") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective counsels of record, hereby submit the following Stipulation and Order to extend the discovery deadlines for sixty (60) days.

A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE:

PROF served its Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents on May 17, 2017, disclosed its expert witness on August 15, 2017, and served its Supplemental Disclosures on November 14, 2017. HOA served its Initial Disclosure of Witnesses and Documents on November 17, 2017. PROF also propounded written discovery on REO and HOA, and served a deposition subpoena duces tecum to Terra West Collections Group, LLC d/ba Assessment Management Services ("HOA Trustee"). PROF also completed the deposition of HOA Trustee on November 8, 2017. PROF also scheduled the depositions of REO and HOA for November 21 and November 27, 2017, respectively.

B. DISCOVERY ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED IN THE FUTURE:

PROF has the deposition of HOA scheduled for November 27, 2017. PROF and REO are working to reschedule the deposition of REO's corporate designee after the designee's depositions previously scheduled for October 23, 2017 and November 21, 2017, did not go forward. PROF also expects to disclose additional documents pursuant to the stipulated protective order granted on November 21, 2017.

C. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY SHOULD BE EXTENDED:

Regarding the requested extension of discovery, good cause exists to extend the discovery deadline 60 days. Good cause to extend the discovery cutoff exists "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, PROF noticed the deposition of REO within the discovery period, however, REO's corporate designee, at the last minute on two occasions, notified PROF's counsel they would not be able to attend the scheduled deposition. Further, PROF expects to disclose additional documents prior to the end of the discovery period that should be received by PROF's counsel shortly. PROF's failure to seek an extension sooner is also the result of excusable neglect as PROF timely noticed the deposition of REO but REO did not appear at two scheduled depositions, requiring rescheduling. This is the parties' second request for this extension and is not intended to cause any delay or prejudice to any party.

D. PROPOSED DISCOVERY EXTENSION:

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.