Opinion
2:21-cv-1727 KJN
02-24-2023
CYMEYON HILL, Plaintiff v. DR. PRASAD, et al., Defendants. v.
ROB BONTA, STATE BAR NO. 202668 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA TYLER V. HEATH, STATE BAR NO. 271478 SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL GARRETT L. SEUELL, STATE BAR NO. 323175 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorneys for Defendants Prasad, Tapia, and Read
ROB BONTA, STATE BAR NO. 202668 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA TYLER V. HEATH, STATE BAR NO. 271478 SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL GARRETT L. SEUELL, STATE BAR NO. 323175 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorneys for Defendants Prasad, Tapia, and Read
[PROPOSED] ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 22, 2023, defendants Prasad, Tapia and Read requested an order modifying the January 11, 2023 order setting the deadline to file pretrial motions. Such order granted defendants until February 27, 2023, to file pretrial motions.
“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).
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to modify the order extending the deadline to file pretrial motions (ECF No. 30) is granted. The deadline for defendants to file a dispositive motion is extended until March 9, 2023. All other deadlines and requirements of the Court's discovery and scheduling order remain in place unless otherwise modified.