Palagummi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FRANCOIS GIVENS, No. 2:19-cv-0017 DAD KJN P Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ORDER

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On December 29, 2022, the parties filed a second stipulation to modify the court’s scheduling order to extend the discovery deadlines. (ECF No. 91.) The parties have been attempting to resolve discovery disputes and need additional time to do so. “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.…