Co. v. Mahan, 225 F.3d 330, 340 (3d Cir.2000) (affirming district court’s denial of motion to amend complaint six months after amendment and joinder deadlines had expired); Dimensional Comm’ns, Inc. v. OZ Optics, Ltd., 148 Fed.Appx. 82, 85 (3d Cir.2005) (non precedential). Under these circumstances, a showing of “good cause” by Plaintiff is required in this case. “Good cause” under Rule 16(b) focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification of the scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, Advisory Committee Note (1983) (“the court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension”); Chancellor, 501 F.Supp.2d at 701 (citing Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir.2002)) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975
holding that to show good cause a movant must demonstrate that despite their diligence they could not meet the original deadline holding that under rule 16 a finding of good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party internal quotation marks omitted holding that rule 16bs good cause standard focuses on a partys diligence holding that foresight not retrospect is the standard of diligence holding that new york law reasonable cause standard is equivalent to fourth amendments probable cause standard