(PC) Ackerson v. Elliott

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA E LTON ACKERSON, ) ) CASE NO: 2:21-cv-2205 WBS KJN P 11 Plaintiff, ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER 12 ) vs. ) 13 ) ) ELLIOTT, et al., 14 Defendants. ) ) 15 ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On February 28, 2023, defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order in light of newly received medical records.

20 Defendants seek additional time to produce the records to plaintiff and to review such records.

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 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 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

1 Good cause having been shown, defendants’ motion is granted, and the current deadline || for filing dispositive motions is extended from March 6, 2023, to April 20, 2023. In all other || respects, the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 21), as modified (ECF No. 32) remains in || effect.

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Defendant5s’ motion (ECF No. 37) is granted; and 7 2. The pretrial motions deadline is continued to April 20, 2023. In all other respects, the 8 discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 21) remains in effect.

9 || Dated: March 1, 2023 11 KENDALL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE acke2205.16b2