negotiations. {See id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 11, 12; ECF No. 107 at 2-3.) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs were not diligent because they should have raised the issue of potential amendment before agreeing to a scheduling order that set the deadline for amendment as the same date for the exchange of discovery requests. (ECF No. 110 at 5.) Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated diligence prior to the expiration of the scheduling order deadline. Because Plaintiffs learned about the putative employer status of the additional parties through discovery after the expiration of the scheduling order deadline, their inability to add the parties prior to the expiration of the deadline does not constitute a failure of diligence. See Enzymotec Ltd. v. NBTY, Inc., 754 F.Supp.2d 527, 537 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (<HOLDING>); e.g., Soroof Trading Dev. Co., Ltd. v. GE
recognizing the cause of action recognizing cause of action holding that plaintiff had discovered facts forming basis of malpractice action before judicial declaration in underlying action holding that newly discovered  facts underlying the movants new cause of action  is sufficient to show diligence holding that under the rule against splitting a cause of action a new claim for damages is not barred if the underlying cause of action had not accrued at the time of filing the previous lawsuit