though unsuccessful, in attempting to acquire the information that would have formed the basis of a timely motion to amend. To be sure, the movant’s conduct in the period between the deadline and the untimely motion is also relevant to showing continued diligence in acquiring the information. But the court’s focus is appropriately and necessarily on the movant’s overall conduct of the case, and in particular what action led to missing the scheduling order’s deadline. See, e.g., Fahim v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., 551 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir.2008) (“ ‘Good cause’ ... requires a party to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 907 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction holding that rule 16bs good cause standard focuses on a partys diligence holding a movant must demonstrate that it exercised due diligence in obtaining the information to succeed on a motion brought under 60b2 holding that to show good cause a movant must demonstrate that despite their diligence they could not meet the original deadline