Romero

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FRANCISCO ROMERO, Case No.: 19-CV-2138-JAH(WVG)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

v. PARTE MOTION TO MODIFY THE

SCHEDULING ORDER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Modify the Scheduling Order filed on May 12, 2022 (“Ex Parte Motion”). (Doc. No. 39.) Pursuant to the Court’s Civil Chamber Rules VI, Defendant Merrick B. Garland (“Defendant”) filed his Opposition to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Modify Scheduling Order (“Opposition”) on May 13, 2022. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion requested the Court extend the fact discovery deadline, mandatory settlement conference, and mandatory settlement statement deadline by 60 days. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion is DENIED. Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 16(b)(4)”) governs when a Court may …