Clays

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 2:19-cv-2208 KJM KJN P MARK McBOUNDS, [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 D. CLAYS, et al., Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On February 23, 2023, defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. Plaintiff failed to respond to written discovery, and at plaintiff’s deposition the parties met and conferred concerning plaintiff’s required discovery responses. As a result, the discovery and scheduling order requires modification, and plaintiff does not oppose the motion. (ECF No. 50 at 2.) “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…