Does the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for relief in their case?

We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for relief. First, the trial court properly found that the motion for relief was not made "within a reasonable time." The issue raised in defendants' motion for reliefthe scheduling of the hearing on the motion for terminating sanctions despite defendants' counsel's notice of nonavailabilityoccurred more than seven months before defendants brought the motion for relief. Although defendants did bring the motion within six months of entry of judgment,³ they provided no reason for waiting so long to raise the matter. The measure of a "reasonable time" is dependent on the circumstances of each individual case, but in all cases it "definitively requires a showing of diligence in making the motion after the discovery of the default." (Stafford v. Mach, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 1181.) Here, no showing of diligence was made. Indeed, the objective facts evidenced a lack of diligence.