Webb

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEAN ALARCON, Case No. 2:20-cv-01201 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER v. 14 E. WEBB, et al., Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Defendants seek to modify the scheduling order because plaintiff’s transfer to a different prison prevented the June 22, 2021 deposition of plaintiff from proceeding as scheduled. “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)…