Relman Colfax PLLC v. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley et al Case No. CV 19-8612 PSG (JCx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed June 30, 2020 Counsel Wendy Hernandez, Deputy Clerk, Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Not Present Not Reported, Court Reporter, Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): Not Present Gutierrez, Philip S., United States District Judge Proceedings (In Chambers): Order DENYING Defendant's ex parte applications *1 Before the Court are two identical ex parte applications for leave to extend the discovery cutoff filed by Defendant Mei Ling (“Defendant”). See Dkts. # 140, 142 (“App.”). Plaintiff Relman Colfax PLLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition. See Dkt. # 137 (“Opp.”). The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court DENIES Defendant's applications. The law on ex parte applications is well-settled in this district. In order to justify ex parte relief, the moving party must establish (1) that its cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures, and (2) that it is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect. See Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). As the Court's standing order makes clear, “ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief.” Standing Order ¶ 10. Defendant fails to show that she is without fault in creating this crisis because she has refused to participate in discovery. Over the last five months, Plaintiff has repeatedly sent Defendant its initial discovery requests, but she has yet to respond. See Declaration of Steven J. Winkelman, Dkt. # 137-1 (“Winkelman Decl.”), ¶¶ 2, 5, 7, 11, 14. After Magistrate Judge Chooljian ordered Defendant to produce her responses on June 19, 2020, Defendant instead filed this ex parte application. See generally App.; Dkt. # 133. Because Defendant has not participated in discovery thus far, the Court does not find it appropriate to give her more time. While Defendant lists an array of issues that have slowed her response to Plaintiff's requests, she has nevertheless found the time to actively participate in both this case and the related False Claims Act (“FCA”) case in various ways. Since Plaintiff served its discovery requests, Defendant has opposed Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, opposed the United States' ex parte application to intervene in this case, and opposed Plaintiff's motions for sanctions and default judgment. See Dkts. # 104, 113, 141. In June 2019 alone, Defendant has attended six depositions, the June 16, 2020 telephonic hearing before Magistrate Judge Choolijian in this case, and the scheduling conference that this Court held last week in the FCA matter. See Winkelman Decl. ¶¶ 19–20; United States ex rel. Mei Ling v. City of Los Angeles, et al., CV 11-974 PSG (JCx), Dkt. # 354. Moreover, Defendant makes clear that any extension of the discovery deadlines would be futile. Defendant asserts that it is impossible for her to provide discovery and that she can no longer proceed with this case due to her medical situation. See App. 4. She seeks an extension not so that she can produce the requested discovery, but so that she can “work out matters with [Plaintiff's counsel] ... and bring closure to other matters.” Id. 5:3–5. Therefore, even if an extension was warranted under Mission Power, Defendant makes clear that she does not intend to comply with her discovery obligations. *2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's ex parte applications. IT IS SO ORDERED.