STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND CLASS CERTIFICATION DEADLINES

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.

The parties respectfully request an extension of the deadlines in this case. They have worked diligently and amicably to resolve issues regarding the scope of discovery, production of electronically stored information, the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order, and the coordination of this matter with a related case filed in the Northern District of California, Sherida Johnson et. al. v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00517 (N.D. Cal. Filed Feb. 1, 2017).

One particular challenge has been the scheduling of the deposition of a witness from Japan-based Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. ("NML"), which is a named-but-unserved defendant in the Lohr case. (The only served defendant in Lohr is Nissan North America, Inc. ("NNA").) The parties have agreed through a stipulation entered in the Johnson case (in which NML is also unserved) that certain discovery to NML may be served on counsel for NNA, and further that such discovery may be used by Plaintiffs in both Lohr and Johnson. The NML deponent, however, is unavailable for deposition until November 8, 2018. The current Lohr deadline of December 3, 2018 for Plaintiffs to file their class certification papers and expert reports is now highly compressed.

The parties have coordinated with counsel in Johnson, and the proposed extension of deadlines set forth below, if entered, would place both Lohr and Johnson on the same track for class briefing, class-related expert reports, and class-related expert depositions.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This proposed class action involves allegations that panoramic sunroofs installed in seven models of Nissan vehicles suffer from a uniform defect. Nissan denies these allegations.

On July 16, 2017, the Court adopted its first scheduling order based on dates the parties proposed in a Joint Status Report. Dkt. No. 47. That Order set class-related deadlines beginning with a May 25, 2018, deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert disclosures. Id. On March 28, 2018, the Court amended the scheduling order following a joint request from the parties premised on the status of document collection, review, and production. The amended schedule set class-related deadlines beginning with a December 3, 2018, deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert disclosures. Dkt. 62.

The parties have engaged in written discovery, document production, and third-party discovery. Deposition scheduling also is currently underway. Plaintiffs wish to depose a corporate representative from NNA's parent company, NML, which is located overseas and has never been served in this case or in the Johnson case. The parties in Johnson, however, entered into a stipulation that permits plaintiffs in that case to serve discovery requests directed to NML on counsel for NNA, in exchange for extended response time obligations. See Johnson, Case No. 3:17-cv-00517 (N.D. Cal.), at Dkt. 39, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The parties have further agreed that Plaintiffs in Lohr may access and use this NML discovery.

To date, NML has responded to written discovery in Johnson, and the parties are in the process of scheduling a corporate deposition of NML. The NML deponent, however, is committed to business obligations in Europe and elsewhere and is not available for deposition until November 8, 2018. Moreover, because NML's role as it relates to this litigation primarily relates to pre-production design and testing, the parties are in agreement that it makes sense to depose NML before deposing NNA, meaning that the NNA deposition would not occur until the week of November 12, 2018. Given the current Lohr deadline of December 3, 2018, for Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion and expert reports the parties jointly seek to push the current Lohr deadlines by a little more than a month, with Plaintiffs' new class certification deadline falling on January 15, 2018.

By way of background, the parties in Johnson are seeking entry of a similar scheduling order. If this Court and the Johnson court approve these requests, then the two cases will be on parallel tracks that hopefully would provide some economies.

The parties will continue to work diligently and cooperatively to complete document discovery, schedule and complete depositions, and resolve any disputes that may arise promptly and without court intervention.

For these reasons, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows.

II. STIPULATION

Whereas, the parties jointly request that the Court amend the scheduling order as follows:

III. ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.