STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTION

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge.

1. Pursuant to FRCP 16, Plaintiff Behrouz Shokri and Defendant The Boeing Company (collectively, "the Parties"), respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiff an additional week to file his discovery motion pursuant to this Court's August 24, 2017 Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The Parties have conferred and jointly represent that good cause exists for this extension, making Plaintiff's motion to compel due on September 22, 2017, so that Plaintiff can evaluate Defendant's recent supplementation to determine what issues remain to be heard by this Court.

A. STATEMENT OF FACTS

2. Plaintiff filed his Complaint for Damages on July 22, 2016. Dkt. 1. The current trial date is January 22, 2018, the discovery cutoff is September 25, 2017, and the deadline for filing discovery motions was August 25, 2017. Dkt. 12.

3. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery and Production of Documents on July 6, 2017. Dkt. 15.

4. On August 24, 2017, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion, but also ordered the following:

Further, the Court recognizes that the discovery motion deadline in this matter is August 25, 2017 . . . Accordingly, should Plaintiff determine that a Motion to Compel is necessary after an additional conference with Defendant as directed in this Order, he will be allowed to file such a motion no later than September 15, 2017. Dkt. 42.

5. On September 6, the Parties held an additional discovery conference in compliance with this Court's order.

6. Defendant provided Plaintiff with supplemental production and supplemental answers on September 13. This gave Plaintiff insufficient time to adequately evaluate the remaining deficiencies and file a motion to compel by September 15, particularly because his Lead Counsel is in a deposition in this case, tomorrow, September 15.

7. The Parties conferred on September 14, 2017, and have agreed that Plaintiff has good cause for a one-week extension to assess the remaining deficiencies and, in turn, to move the deadline for a motion to compel to September 22, 2017.

8. The Parties also contacted the chambers of The Honorable Ricardo Martinez and spoke to the Docket Clerk to inform the Court that this stipulated motion was forthcoming.

B. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

The Parties rely upon this Motion and the pleadings, files and records in this proceeding.

C. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT

This Motion is based upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, corresponding case law, and the Court's power to control its calendar. Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a showing of "good cause." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing FRCP 16(b)). Here, "good cause" exists for the Court to move the deadline for Plaintiff's motion to compel by one week. As discussed in the Statement of Facts, the Parties stipulate that moving the deadline by one week would give Plaintiff the necessary time to evaluate the production and answers received two days before the deadline for his motion to compel, set by the Court. The Parties jointly represent that good cause exists for the Court to extend the deadline for Plaintiff's motion to compel by one week, making it due September 22, 2017.

D. CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, the Parties respectfully request that the Court grant their Stipulated Motion allowing Plaintiff an additional week to file a motion to compel, as described above.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.