Burkhart

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IMMANUEL PRICE, Case No. 2:22-cv-2306 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER 13 v. 14 OFFICER BURKHART, Defendant. 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On March 14, 2024, defendant filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to accommodate plaintiff’s deposition following his recent prison transfer. Defendant seeks to extend the discovery and motion to compel deadline by thirty days. “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) (quoting 27 …