8105071v1 11/9/2011 4:24 PM 8105071v1 11/9/2011 4:24 PM 8105071v1 11/9/2011 4:24 PM 8105071v1 11/9/2011 4:24 PM

[PROPOSED] AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx)

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

8089739v2 4/46/2011 32:1815 PM

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP CHARLES N. FREIBERG (SBN 70890) BRIAN P. BROSNAHAN (SBN 112894) JACOB N. FOSTER (SBN 250785) 101 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 421-6140 Facsimile: (415) 398-5030 LEVINE & MILLER HARVEY R. LEVINE (SBN 61879) CRAIG A. MILLER (SBN 116030) LEVINE & MILLER 550 West C Street, Suite 1810 San Diego, CA 92101-8596 Telephone: (619) 231-9449 Facsimile: (619) 231-8638 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, and MURIEL SPOONER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, and MURIEL SPOONER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, a Texas corporation, Defendant.

CLASS ACTION CASE NO.: CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) Formerly Case No.: 3:10-cv -04852 JSW from Northern District of CA AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 117 Filed 11/09/11 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:3735

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 277-4 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:12403

[PROPOSED] AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) 1

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

Having reviewed Plaintiffs Joyce Walker’s, Muriel Lynn Spooner’s, and

Kim Bruce Howlett’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Modify the Pretrial Scheduling

Order (the “Motion”) and the parties’ papers filed in connection therewith, the

Court issues the following Order.

Plaintiffs seek a modification of the Scheduling Order, extending a number

of relevant deadlines and hearing dates approximately four months. A party

seeking such a modification must satisfy the standard set forth in Rule 16(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Under Rule 16(b), a party must show “good

cause” for relief from a scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good

cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The court may grant relief from a

scheduling deadline if the deadline could not “reasonably be met despite the

diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. While a court may consider

prejudice to the opposing party, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving

party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id.

Here, Plaintiffs were diligent in serving their document production requests,

diligent in attempting to resolve the disputes between the parties without resort to

this Court’s intervention, and diligent in presenting their Motions to Compel to the

Magistrate Judge. (See generally Foster Decl.) Despite this diligence, engaging in

that process took several months to complete, and now that production has begun

in earnest, both sides appear to agree that several thousand documents have been

and/or will be produced by Defendant and must be reviewed by Plaintiffs.

(Compare Opp’n at12 (noting that under the current production schedule, it is

employing “forty-five attorneys to review as many as 100,000 documents per

week”) with Reply at 1 (referencing actual production by Defendant of 7,391

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 117 Filed 11/09/11 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:3736

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 277-4 Filed 07/31/12 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:12404

[PROPOSED] AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) 2

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

documents consisting of 81,355 pages).) Defendant argues it will be prejudiced by

the modification sought by Plaintiffs because it ramped up its document review

and production in reliance on the existing, expedited discovery schedule at

tremendous cost. However, Defendant fails to explain how denying the present

Motion will alleviate the burdens associated with document production. Moreover,

the costs to which Defendant refers appear to the Court to flow from the Magistrate

Judge’s Order regarding production rather than by Plaintiffs’ action in seeking

relief from the deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the Motion and

AMENDS the Scheduling Order as follows:

1. The trial date is set for January 22, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. The pretrial

conference will take place on January 14, 2013, at 11:00 a.m.

2. Class and merits discovery shall not be bifurcated and shall proceed

simultaneously. Fact discovery will remain open until November 5, 2012.

3. Pursuant to the Trial Order, all interrogatories, requests for

documents, and requests for admission shall be served no later than September 21,

2012, and all depositions shall commence no later than October 29, 2012.

4. Expert discovery will remain open until November 5, 2012. In

accordance with Rule 26(a)(2), the parties shall submit their expert disclosures no

later than September 10, 2012, any rebuttal expert disclosures no later than

October 1, 2012, and any reply expert disclosures no later than October 22, 2012.

5. Plaintiffs may take 3 days of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, which shall

count as one deposition against the limit of 10 depositions permitted under Rule

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 117 Filed 11/09/11 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:3737

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 277-4 Filed 07/31/12 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:12405

[PROPOSED] AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) 3

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

30. Plaintiffs may request that the Court modify this order to permit additional

time if needed to fairly examine the 30(b)(6) deponents.

6. The last date for hearing motions will be seven weeks before the trial

date, or December 3, 2012, hearing to be noticed for 1:30 p.m. The Court orders

that all motions shall be served and filed in accordance with the schedule set forth

in the Local Rules. Briefing schedules shall be in accordance with Local Rules,

unless the parties stipulate and the Court approves an alternative schedule in

advance of the filing deadlines set by the Local Rules.

7. Pursuant to the Trial Order and in compliance with Local Rule 6, all

motions in limine shall be filed and served no later than December 19, 2012, four

weeks prior to the scheduled pretrial date of January 14, 2013.

8. Pursuant to and in compliance with Local Rule 16, the parties’ Pretrial

Conference Order shall be lodged no later than January 4, 2013.

9. Pursuant to and in compliance with Local Rule 16, all Memoranda of

Contentions of Fact and Law, Exhibit Lists, and Witness Lists shall be submitted

no later than December 21, 2012, three and a half weeks prior to the scheduled

pretrial date.

10. The parties will participate in a non-judicial dispute resolution

proceeding, Settlement Procedure Number 3 under Local Rule 16-15.4. The last

date for completion of this Settlement Procedure shall be no later than the close of

fact discovery.

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 117 Filed 11/09/11 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:3738

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 277-4 Filed 07/31/12 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:12406

[PROPOSED] AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) 4

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

11. Plaintiffs will file their motion for class certification on or before May

14, 2012. The hearing date shall be determined in accordance with Local Rules,

unless the parties stipulate and the Court approves an alternative date and briefing

schedule in advance of the class certification motion deadline.

12. The parties may seek modification of this Order at any time and for

good cause shown.

The Court finds that oral argument would not be helpful in this matter and

vacates the November 14, 2011, hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 09, 2011

__________________ _________ Honorable James V. Selna United States District Judge

***Note changes by the Court.***

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 117 Filed 11/09/11 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:3739

Case 2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 277-4 Filed 07/31/12 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:12407