(PC) Price v. Burkhart

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02306
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). 28 //// ] Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 22) is 3 || granted; and 4 2. The parties are granted a thirty day extension of time to complete discovery and file any 5 || discovery motions, if necessary; the new discovery deadline is April 22, 2024. No other 6 || deadlines are affected by this order. 7 | Dated: March 18, 2024 Card ht fa □□ he CAROLYN K DELANEY? 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 Ipric2306.16b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28