Opinion
PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DESIGNATE EXPERT WITNESSES AND FOR DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS
WILLIAM McCURINE Jr., Magistrate Judge.
On April 11, 2007, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an extension of time beyond that set forth in the Court's April 2, 2007 Scheduling Order to exchange expert witness information. [Doc. No. 80.]
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), "a schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge or, when authorized by local rule, by a magistrate judge." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Good cause exists if the pretrial schedule "cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations , 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Forstmann v. Culp , 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D. N.C. 1987); 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 Advisory Committee Notes (1983 Amendment).
Defendants have failed to establish good cause. While case authority provides for good cause if a schedule cannot reasonably be met, Defendants' counsel does not state anywhere in his declaration that he is unable to meet the upcoming deadlines set forth in the Court's April 2, 2007 Scheduling Order. Defendants' council only cites cost efficiency as the sole reason for his extension request. See April 11, 2007 Declaration of Stephen Aronis, 2:11-13. Accordingly, Defendants' Ex Parte Applica-tion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.