Lotersztain
(PC) Witkin v. Lotersztain
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL WITKIN, Case No. 2:19-cv-0406 DJC KJN P 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER AND REVISED DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING v. ORDER 14 MARIANA LOTERSZTAIN, M.D.,
WAYNE SCOTT, M.D., NONATO
LARGOZA, M.D., MARTIN KUERSTEN,
J. LIN, M.D., SARA GATES, et al.,
17 Defendant.
19 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner. The parties stipulated to modify the discovery and 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 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)…