Webb
(PC) Alarcon v. Webb
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JEAN ALARCON, No. 2:20-cv-1201 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING
ORDER
E. WEBB, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On May 10, 2021, defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. Despite diligence, defendants’ counsel was unable to schedule plaintiff’s deposition prior to the discovery deadline. “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)…