Burkhart

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 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 15 OFFICER BURKHART, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On March 14, 2024, defendant filed a motion 19 to modify the scheduling order to accommodate plaintiff’s deposition following his recent prison 20 transfer. Defendant seeks to extend the discovery and motion to compel deadline by thirty days. 21 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 22 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 23 quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 24 cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 25 ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 26 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 27 …