(PC) Ackerson v. Elliott

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELTON ACKERSON, ) CASE NO: 2:21-cv-2205 WBS KJN P ) ) Plaintiff, ) [PROPOSED] ORDER ) vs. ) ) ) ELLIOTT, et al., ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On April 19, 2023, defendants filed their second motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order based, in part, on an informal settlement offer made to plaintiff. Defendants seek to extend the pretrial motions deadline by one week. “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 Good cause having been shown, defendants’ motion is granted, and the current deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended from April 20, 2023, to April 27, 2023. In all other respects, the discovery and scheduling order remains in effect. (ECF No. 21.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 39) is granted; and 2. The pretrial motions deadline is continued to April 27, 2023. In all other respects, the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 21) remains in effect. Dated: April 24, 2023

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

facke2205.16b3