Palagummi

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCOIS GIVENS, No. 2:19-cv-0017 DAD KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ORDER

CORRECTIONS AND

15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On November 21, 2022, the parties 19 stipulated to modify the court’s scheduling order to extend the discovery deadlines. (ECF No. 20 87.) 21 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 22 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 23 quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 24 cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 25 ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 26 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 27 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). 28 //// ] …