1 JEREMY PASTERNAK, BAR NO. 181618 jdp@pasternaklaw.com 2 DEANNA L. MAXFIELD, BAR NO. 291913 dm@pasternaklaw.com 3 LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK 354 Pine Street, Fifth Floor 4 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.693.0300 5 Fax No.: 415.693.0393

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

THOMAS ROLL

7

KARA L. JASSY, BAR NO. 198846

8 kjassy@littler.com

LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.

9 633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor 10 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.443.4300 11 Fax No.: 213.443.4299 12 Attorneys for Defendants WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and 13 WALMART INC. 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 17 THOMAS ROLL, an individual, Case No. 2:21-CV-01927-WBS-DNC 18 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE 19 SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER v. 20 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware 21 Corporation, WALMART INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-20, inclusive, Complaint Filed: September 16, 2021 22 Trial Date: September 12, 2023 Defendants. 23 24 Plaintiff THOMAS ROLL (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. 25 and WALMART INC.. (“Defendants” or “Wal-Mart”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through 26 their respective counsel of record, hereby agree and respectfully stipulate as follows: 27 28 1 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 16, 2021 in Tehama County 2 Superior Court. Thereafter, Defendant timely removed this Action to this Court on October 15, 3 2021; 4 WHEREAS, on February 24, 2022, this Court vacated the initial Case Management 5 Conference and in light of the Parties’ Joint statement, adopted the following Scheduling Order: 6 Last Day to Designate Experts December 30, 2022 7 Close of Fact Discovery February 28, 2023 8 Dispositive Motion Deadline May 1, 2023 9 Final Pretrial Conference July 17, 2023 10 Jury Trial September 12, 2023 11 WHEREAS, immediately thereafter, the Parties propounded and responded to written 12 discovery requests, and engaged in informal settlement discussions. The Parties have yet to take 13 depositions and exhaust written discovery efforts, but have made headway toward a resolution, and 14 have agreed to submit this matter to private mediation before mediator Laurie Quigley Saldana on 15 April 5, 2023; 16 WHEREAS, however, quickly approaching deadlines, including the discovery cut off and 17 dispositive motion deadline, are hindering the Parties’ ability to submit to mediation and negotiate a 18 reasonable settlement without incurring the time and costs in preparing a dispositive motion and 19 retaining expert witnesses for trial. 20 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that a 180-day continuance of the Court’s current Scheduling 21 Order is necessary to allow the Parties to engage in meaningful settlement discussions in an effort to 22 finally resolve this matter without need for Defendant to file, and Plaintiff to oppose Defendant’s 23 summary judgment motion, as well as prepare for trial, should this matter not be summarily 24 dismissed. 25 WHEREAS, good cause exists to modify the Court’s scheduling Order as follows: 26 The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation…” 27 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 28 quotation marks omitted). “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 1 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see e.g. Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 F.2d 339, 343 2 (5th Cir. 1990) (court impliedly granted motion to modify scheduling order by allowing summary 3 judgment motion after pretrial motion cut-off date). 4 To establish “good cause,” parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must generally 5 show that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the order’s timetable. Johnson, 6 supra, 975 F.2d at 609; see e.g., Hood v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 7 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting request for modification that was promptly made when it became 8 apparent that compliance with the scheduling order was not possible). In determining “good cause,” 9 courts also consider the importance of the requested modification, the potential prejudice in allowing 10 the modification, and, conversely, whether denial of the requested modification would result in 11 prejudice. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) 12 (involving amendment of pleadings). 13 Here, good cause exists for a modification of the Court’s scheduling order given the Parties’ 14 inability to complete necessary discovery within the current Scheduling Order’s timetable, and 15 further engage in final, meaningful settlement discussions without the need to spend any unnecessary 16 time and money moving for/opposing summary judgment and otherwise retaining experts and 17 preparing for trial. Given the current time constraints of the current Scheduling Order, the Parties 18 will need a reasonable continuance to allow the Parties time to engage in mediation to continue good 19 faith settlement negotiation efforts and potentially negate the need for a dispositive motion and/or 20 trial. 21 THEREFORE, upon good cause shown, the Parties stipulate to modify and continue the 22 Scheduling Order out by a minimum of 180 days so as to allow the Parties additional time to allow 23 the Parties time to engage in private mediation and potentially negate the need for a dispositive 24 motion and/or trial. Accordingly, the Parties propose the following modified scheduling order: 25 Last Day to Designate Experts June 28, 2023 26 Close of Fact Discovery August 28, 2023 27 Dispositive Motion Deadline October 30, 2023 28 Final Pretrial Conference January 22, 2024 1 Jury Trial March 12, 2024 2 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 3 Dated: January 19, 2023 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 4 5 By: /s/Nathaniel H. Jenkins Kara L. Jassy 6 Nathaniel H. Jenkins Attorneys for Defendants 7 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. AND

WALMART INC

8 9 Dated: January 19, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK 10 11 By: /s/ Deanna Maxfield (as approved on 1/19/23)_ Jeremy Pasternak 12 Deanna L. Maxfield Attorneys for Plaintiff 13 THOMAS ROLL

14 15 ATTESTATION OF FILER

16 I, NATHANIEL H. JENKINS, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been 17 obtained from each of the other Signatories, which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on the 18 document. 19 Signed this 19th day of January, 2023.

20

21 /s/Nathaniel H. Jenkins 22 NATHANIEL H. JENKINS

23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, and upon good cause shown, the Court sets 3 | forth the following modified Scheduling Order: 4 Last Day to Designate Experts June 28, 2023 5 Close of Fact Discovery August 28, 2023 6 Dispositive Motion Deadline October 30, 2023 7 Final Pretrial Conference January 29, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. 8 Jury Trial March 12, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. ° he Lhe aK. Dated: January 20, 2023 (et.t-— 10 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 4864-1793-8763.1 / 080000-4217 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joint Stip to Modify Scheduling Order 5 2:21-CV-01927-WBS-DNC