With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “good cause” for an extension under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003) (“A finding of good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party.”). Jones also argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in entering a decision and order on November 1, 2006 denying her motion for a continuance to oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion on the ground that Jones had failed to demonstrate “excusable neglect” for filing it out of time under Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This was not an abuse of discretion, in light of Jones’s failure to justify the delay. See Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp., 769 F.2d 919, 927 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). We have considered plaintiffs remaining

A: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a rule 56f motion for a continuance where the movant had ample time in which to pursue the discovery that it now claims is essential
B: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form
C: holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing
D: holding that the court was precluded from considering whether the district court had abused its discretion in ruling on defendants summary judgment motion before allowing plaintiff to conduct requested discovery where the plaintiff had not filed an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f and stating that  when a party does not avail himself of relief under rule 56f it is generally not an abuse of discretion for the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment  citation omitted
A.