(PC) Taylor v. Lynch

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CODY RICHARD TAYLOR, No. 2:21-cv-2413 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JEFF LYNCH, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, with an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s renewed motion to modify the scheduling order is before the court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is partially granted. Governing Standards “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.…