Pringle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 AL PRINGLE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00468-BAM

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION

TO FURTHER MODIFY SCHEDULING

v. ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDCE

WALMART DISTRIBUTION CENTER, et al., (Doc. No. 26) 13 Defendants.

14 Currently before the Court is the parties’ stipulation filed on July 16, 2020, seeking to 15 vacate the Scheduling Order in this case. (Doc. No. 27.) According to the stipulation, 16 Plaintiff’s counsel has indicated that he can no longer represent his client in this case and 17 intends to file a petition to be relieved as counsel. (Id.) As a result, the parties request that the 18 Court vacate all deadlines in the Scheduling Order, including discovery cutoff dates as well as 19 the pretrial motion deadline. (Id.) 20 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified 21 only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Johnson v. 22 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975…