(PC) Williams v. Parsells

Opinion

LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:22-cv-0514 KJM KJN P Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER v. R. PARSELLS, et al., Defendant. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On March 1, 2023, counsel for defendant filed a second motion to modify the scheduling order. “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 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). The Court has read and considered defendant’s second motion to modify the discovery and scheduling Order (ECF No. 32, as modified by ECF No. 36). Good cause appearing, the undersigned grants the motion. The parties shall complete fact discovery, and file any necessary motions to compel, by April 20, 2013, and file dispositive motions on or before July 12, 2023. All other provisions of the prior scheduling order remain in full force and effect. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 37) is granted; and 2. The discovery deadline is extended to April 20, 2023, and the pretrial motions deadline is extended to July 12, 2023. In all other respects, the prior discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 32) remains in effect. Dated: March 3, 2023 Foci) Aharon swinosta.16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE