(PC) Witkin v. Lotersztain

Opinion

MICHAEL WITKIN, Case No. 2:19-cv-0406 DJC KJN P Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER AND REVISED DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING v. ORDER WAYNE SCOTT, M.D., NONATO J. LIN, M.D., SARA GATES, et al., Defendant.

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner. The parties stipulated to modify the discovery and 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). ] Having considered the stipulation of the parties to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the May 24, 2023 Further Scheduling Order (ECF No. 103) is modified as follows: 1. Expert witness disclosures shall be due on or before October 20, 2023, and 2. Expert discovery shall be completed on or before thirty days after the date the parties are required to disclose their experts. Dated: August 24, 2023 Foci) Aharon UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE } jvinxoaos.16b