1 ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3402 2 TRACY A. EGLET, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6419 3 || DANIELLE C. MILLER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9127 4 || EGLET ADAMS 400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400 5 || Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 450-5400; Fax: (702) 450-5451 6 || eservice @egletlaw.com -and- 7 || MATTHEW L. SHARP, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 4746 8 || MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. 432 Ridge Street ? || Reno, NV 89501 10 (775) 324-1500; Fax: (775) 284-0675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0 I DISTRICT OF NEVADA < 13 14 |} BRUCE GREENFIELD, JOHNNY TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly Case No.: 2:21-cv-0057 1-RFB-BNW 15 situated, 16 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED Plaintiffs, ORDER EXTENDING rl 17 || vs. DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AMENDED !8 || PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPLAINT 19 COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE 20 || CLASSIC INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL CASUALTY 21 || COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE DIRECT 92 || INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE MAX INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE 23 || NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, 4A PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE 25 || PERFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES | through 10, 26 47 Defendants. 28 /// ///

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR | PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT □□□□□□□□□□ 2 Plaintiffs BRUCE GREENFIELD and JOHNNY TRUJILLO, by and through thei 3 || counsel of record, Robert T. Eglet, Esq., Tracy A. Eglet, Esq., and Danielle C. Miller, Esq. of th 4 || law firm EGLET ADAMS and Matthew L. Sharp, Esq. of the law firm MATTHEW L. SHARF 5 |]LTD., and Defendants PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, □□ 6 || PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY (collectively, “Progressive”), by an 7 || through their counsel of record, D. Lee Roberts, Esq. and Ryan T. Gormley, Esq. of the law firn 8 ||) WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC, for good cause shown, hereb 9 || stipulate and agree as follows: wm 10 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court for □□□□□ 11 || County, Nevada, Case No. A-21-829908-B. Progressive removed this action to this Court o: 12 || April 7, 2021. 13 2. Progressive filed their Motion to Dismiss on May 28, 2021 [ECF No. 21]. 14 3. Plaintiffs filed their Response to Progressive’s Motion on June 28, 2021 [ECF Nc 15 |} 22]. 16 4. Progressive filed a Reply in support of the Motion on July 16, 2021 [ECF No. 26] 17 5, That on February 9, 2021, the Honorable Richard F. Boulware, II hear 18 || Progressive’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims except the breach o 19 || implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, tortious bad faith claim, and the Deceptiv: 20 || Trade Practices Act claim, which were dismissed without prejudice. The Court granted Plaintiff 21 || leave to file an Amended Complaint with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims that were dismissed withou 22 || prejudice on or before Friday, March 11, 2022 [ECF No. 28]. 23 6. Because the claims that were dismissed without prejudice must be pled □□□ 24 || particularity, Plaintiffs need additional time to review Plaintiffs’ e-mail correspondence, records 25 || and bank statements going back at least two (2) years, to the beginning of the COVID-1' 26 || pandemic. Given how much time has passed and given the burden of pleading Plaintiffs’ claim 27 || with particularity, Plaintiffs need additional time to thoroughly review their records to obtain thi 28 || information. Plaintiffs will also have to request some of this information from third parties, whic!

1 || may take additional time. 2 7. Thus, the Parties hereby stipulate that Plaintiffs shall have an additional sixty (60 3 || days to file an Amended Complaint. 4 8. That Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint shall be due on or before May 11, 2022. 5 9. That Progressive shall have an extension of thirty (30) days to file a Motion t 6 || Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. 7 10. The Parties agree that discovery remains stayed pending Plaintiffs filing ai 8 || Amended Complaint and resolution of Defendant’s anticipated Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs 9 || Amended Complaint. DY 10 11. In this District, requests to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) the pendin; 11 || motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided withou 12 || additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of th 13 || potentially dispositive motion. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2011) 14 || In doing so, the court must consider whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of th 15 || entire case, and whether that motion can be decided without additional discovery. See Federa 16 || Housing Finance Agency v. GR Investments LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-03005-JAD-EJY,

|| 2798011 at *3 (D. Nev. May 29, 2020) (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution o 18 || potentially dispositive motion for summary judgment); see also Mintun v. Experian Informatio 19 || Solutions, Inc., 2:19-cv-00033-JAD-NJK,

at **1-2 (D. Nev. May 15, 2019 20 (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive motion t 21 || dismiss). 22 12. The Parties agree that Progressive’s Motion to Dismiss raises potentiall 23 || dispositive legal and jurisdictional defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims concerning Progressive’s aut 24 || insurance rates during the COVID pandemic. 25 13. Pending resolution of Progressive’s Motion to Dismiss, the Parties agree an 26 || stipulate to a stay of discovery including, but not limited to, any discovery obligations set fortl 27 || in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and LR 26-1. 28 14. If the Court denies Progressive’s Motion to Dismiss, in whole or in part, the Partie

1 || agree to submit a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within thirty (30) days after entry of th 2 || Court’s Order on the Motion. 3 15. The Parties respectfully suggest that good cause exists to enter the stipulated sta 4 || of discovery to preserve judicial and party resources and based on application of the factors se 5 || forth in paragraph 11, above. 6 16. The Parties represent that this stipulation is sought in good faith, is not interpose 7 || for delay, and is not filed for an improper purpose. 8 DATED this 10" day of March, 2022. DATED this 10% day of March, 2022. EGLET ADAMS WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, WD 10 GUNN & DIAL, LLC 11 Robert T. Eglet, Esq. __ /s/ D. Lee Roberts, Jr. ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. D. LEE ROBERTS, JR., ESQ. 12 || Nevada Bar No. 3402 Nevada Bar No. 8877 Q DANIELLE C. MILLER, ESQ. RYAN T. GORMLEY, ESQ < 13 || Nevada Bar No. 9127 Nevada Bar No. 13494 14 || ERACY A. EGLET, ESQ. 6385 South Rainbow Blvd., Suite 400 Nevada Bar No. 6419 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 15 400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400 -and- Lo Las Vegas, NV 89101 KYMBERLY KOCHIS, ESQ. 16 -and- (admitted pro hac) MATTHEW L. SHARP, ESQ. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLANDUUS) LLP 17 |! Nevada Bar No. 4746 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor 1g || MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. New York, NY 10036 432 Ridge a TRACEY LEDBETTER, ESQ. 19 |)Reno, NV 89501 (admitted pro hac) 50 Attorneys for Plaintiffs EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2300 1 Atlanta, GA 30309 Attorneys for Defendants 22 3 ORDER 4 Based upon the Parties’ stipulation and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, I 45 IS SO ORDERED: %6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 conte ll 38 United States District Court DATED this 10th day of March, 2022.