Chamberlin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER BAYRE CHAMBERLIN,

Case No. 19-cv-08243-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL HARTOG, BAER & HAND, APC, et al., EXPERT REPORT 10 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 216

12 Plaintiff brings a motion seeking leave to submit a supplemental expert report by a new expert addressing the reasonableness of Defendants’ fees “given the entirety of circumstances, most critically, the malpractice in the case.” Dkt. no. 216 (“Motion”). The Motion is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may modify a scheduling order for “good cause.” “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party…