Lotersztain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL WITKIN, No. 2:19-cv-0406 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING

ORDER

M LOTERSZTAIN,, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On May 17, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. Plaintiff seeks a one-week extension of the discovery deadline to allow his final set of discovery requests to be timely under the scheduling order. “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…