101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

Case 4:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 330 Filed 09/18/12 Page 1of4 Page ID #:14623

1 | 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) 3 LEVINE & MILLER 550 West C Street, Suite 1810 g || San Diego, CA 92101-8596 Telephone: (619) 231-9449 10 || Facsimile: (619) 231-8638

11 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, 12 | and MURIEL SPOONER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 | JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE CLASS ACTION

HOWLETT, and MURIEL ” SPOONER, on behalf of themselves CASE NO.: CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx)

19 |} and all others similarly situated, Formerly Case No.: 3:10-cv -04852 ae JSW from Northern District of CA 20 Plaintiffs, JOINT STIPULATION TO 21 Vi; CONTINUE THE DEADLINE FOR

WRITTEN DISCOVERY, AND TO 22 | LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF | ABATE THE DATES SET FORTH

IN THE SECOND AMENDED eet ea Ae aia PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER IF A RULE 23(F) PETITION IS 24 FILED Defendant.

JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND ABATE THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULE ase No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx)

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP

101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

Cas

2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 330 Filed 09/18/12 Page 2of4 PageID #:14624

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, Plaintiffs Joyce Walker, Kim Bruce Howlett, and Muriel Spooner (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest (“LSW’’) (collectively, the “parties’’), by and between their undersigned counsel, submit the following stipulation:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, all written discovery must be served by Friday, September 21, 2012;

WHEREAS, the Court may take Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (and the parties’ papers and arguments related thereto) under submission following the September 18, 2012 hearing, such that the Court may not enter a final ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification until later in the week of September 18, 2012 or thereafter;

WHEREAS, the parties expect to propound additional written discovery following the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which written discovery may rely on and be influenced by how the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification;

WHEREAS, certain additional deadlines set forth in the Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order may need to be continued following the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification to provide for sufficient time to prepare a class notice, obtain Court approval thereof, disseminate a class notice, and receive any opt-out requests and responses thereto;

WHEREAS, following the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, a petition with the Ninth Circuit to appeal the Court’s ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) may be filed;

WHEREAS, it likely would take several months for the Ninth Circuit to issue a decision granting or denying any such Rule 23(f) petition;

WHEREAS, the parties met and conferred regarding the deadlines in the Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, including the impact of any Rule 23(f) petition before the Ninth Circuit;

JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND ABATE THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULE Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) 1

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP

101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

Cas

2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 330 Filed 09/18/12 Page 3of4 PageID #:14625

WHEREAS, good cause exists to continue the September 21, 2012 deadline for written discovery, and to modify the dates in the Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order in order to conserve the resources of the parties and the Court;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties:

1. The September 21, 2012 deadline for written discovery shall be continued until 21 days after the Court enters an order on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, unless a Rule 23(f) petition is filed with the Ninth Circuit (in which case the deadline for written discovery shall be abated pending resolution of the petition) (see infra, {5).

2, If no Rule 23(f) petition is filed following the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and a class has been certified, the parties will promptly meet and confer regarding the dates in the Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order and will file a new proposed scheduling order or orders with the Court that will provide for sufficient time to prepare a class notice, obtain Court approval of a class notice, to disseminate that class notice, and to receive any opt- out requests and responses thereto.

SF If, following the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, a Rule 23(f) petition is filed with the Ninth Circuit to appeal the Court’s ruling, all dates set forth in the Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order shall be abated.

4. If a Rule 23(f) petition is filed, the parties will proceed with previously propounded written discovery (excluding depositions) and any motions to compel related thereto.

a All other discovery, including depositions and written discovery not previously propounded, will be deferred until the Ninth Circuit rules on any Rule 23(f) petition that is filed. All discovery may proceed if and at the time the Ninth

Circuit denies any such petition. Within fourteen days of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling

JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND ABATE THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULE Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx) 2

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP

101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

Casq|2:10-cv-09198-JVS -RNB Document 330 Filed 09/18/12 Page4of4 Page ID #:14626

2 2 4 Fe 6

denying any such petition, the parties will file a new proposed scheduling order or

orders with the Court.

6. If the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (in whole

or in part), the parties will meet and confer regarding a mutually acceptable class

notice while any Rule 23(f) petition is pending so that the class notice may be

submitted, or any disputes related thereto resolved, promptly following the Ninth

Circuit’s ruling on the Rule 23(f) petition.

DATED: September 18, 2012

KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP

By: /s/ Charles N. Freiberg Charles N. Freiberg

Attorneys For Plaintiffs

JOYCE WALKER, KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, and MURIEL SPOONER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP

By: /s/ Jonathan A. Shapiro Jonathan A. Shapiro

Attorneys For Defendant LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST

JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND ABATE THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULE

Case No. CV 10-9198 JVS (RNBx)