(PC) Witkin v. Lotersztain

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL WITKIN, Case No. 2:19-cv-0406 DJC KJN P 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER AND REVISED 13 DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING v. ORDER 14 15 MARIANA LOTERSZTAIN, M.D., WAYNE SCOTT, M.D., NONATO 16 LARGOZA, M.D., MARTIN KUERSTEN, J. LIN, M.D., SARA GATES, et al., 17 Defendant. 18

19 20 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner. The parties stipulated to modify the discovery and 21 scheduling order. 22 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 23 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 24 quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 25 cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 26 ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 27 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 28 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). ] Having considered the stipulation of the parties to modify the Discovery and Scheduling 2 | Order, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the May 24, 2023 Further 3 || Scheduling Order (ECF No. 103) is modified as follows: 4 1. Expert witness disclosures shall be due on or before October 20, 2023, and 5 2. Expert discovery shall be completed on or before thirty days after the date the parties are 6 || required to disclose their experts. 7 || Dated: August 24, 2023 Foci) Aharon 9 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 |} jvinxoaos.16b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28