American Career College, Inc., et al. v. Mario Oswaldo Medina, Sr., et al Case No. CV 21-698 PSG (SKx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed June 01, 2022 Counsel Justin A. Carter, Largo, CA, Pro Se. Gutierrez, Philip S., United States District Judge Proceedings (In Chambers): Order DENYING Plaintiffs' ex parte application *1 Before the Court is an ex parte application seeking a wide range of relief filed by Plaintiffs American Career College, Inc. and West Coast University, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”). See generally Dkt. # 127 (“App.”). Defendants Mario Medina; Roger Ortiz; Rolando Valdivia; and Únete Healthcare Associates, LLC, d/b/a Pronto Wellness (“Defendants”) opposed. See generally Dkt. # 128 (“Opp.”). Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' ex parte application. Plaintiffs ask for a plethora of relief: (1) re-opening fact discovery; (2) compelling a third party forensic examination of Defendants' email servers and devices, at Defendants' expense; (3) ordering the immediate production of all responsive emails and documents and the three pseudonymous Pronto email accounts; (4) granting Plaintiffs leave to amend their pending Motions, and (5) awarding Plaintiffs their attorneys' fees and costs. App. 1:26–2:2. The law on ex parte relief is well settled. The moving party must establish that (1) it is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, and (2) it will be irreparably prejudiced if its motion is heard according to regular noticed procedures. Mission Power Eng'g Co., 883 F. Supp. at 492. Here, Plaintiffs are not blameless for creating this perceived “crisis.” On April 7, 2022, Plaintiffs applied ex parte to extend the discovery cut-off date, explaining that Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel that was set for hearing just two weeks before discovery cut-off. See generally Dkt. # 87-1 at 1:14–20. They said they anticipated a “favorable outcome” and, among other reasons, needed more time to review the documents Defendants would be producing. Id. The Court denied Plaintiffs' ex parte application about an hour later. See generally Dkt. # 88. Having now received a favorable outcome on their motion to compel, Plaintiffs ask the Court to revisit its definitive “No” to their requested discovery cut-off extension so they can review as many as 11,000 documents that Defendants are still producing. See App. 1:6–25. This time, Plaintiffs emphasize that they discovered for the first time in February 2022 that Defendants improperly withheld discovery, including critical e-mails and e-mail accounts. Id. 7:6–10. Despite their apparent keen awareness of this issue in February 2022, Plaintiffs did not highlight this in their previous ex parte application, at best vaguely mentioning it among a litany of other purported discovery misconduct. See, e.g., Dkt. 87-1, 6:1–12; Dkt. # 87-2, ¶ 10. If Plaintiffs truly thought they would suffer irreparable prejudice without these e-mails and e-mail accounts, it is curious that they waited almost 50 days to emphasize this issue—now well past the discovery cut-off and motion filing deadlines. Plaintiffs also face no threat of irreparable injury sufficient to justify (1) reopening fact discovery, (2) ordering Defendants to immediately produce thousands of documents, and (3) permitting the parties to amend their pending motions. Plaintiffs do not suggest that their pending motions are prone to denial due to insufficient evidence. Instead, they simply seek to bolster what they must have already believed to be sufficient evidence to bring a partial motion for summary judgment in the first place. And even if the Court denies Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs will still have the opportunity to present their claims at trial with the benefit of the information Defendants are now producing. Plaintiffs also have more than two weeks before the Local Rule 7-9 deadline to incorporate any recently produced evidence into their opposition to Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. If Plaintiffs find themselves unable to adequately oppose Defendants' motion due to Defendants' alleged discovery misconduct, that is precisely what Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) is for. *2 Given that the Court will not be reopening fact discovery, Plaintiffs also face no threat of irreparable prejudice without a forensic examination of Defendants' electronic devices. See Mission Power Eng'g Co., 883 F. Supp. at 492 (explaining that if the underlying request is meritless, “failure to hear it cannot be prejudicial”). Plaintiffs already requested substantially the same thing during the hearing on their motion to compel, which Judge Kim explained would be futile in light of the discovery cut-off deadline. See Dkt. # 130 at 45:18–21 (“THE COURT: But there's nothing -- frankly, even if I ordered it or ordered it for you ... nothing productive is going to happen before the 29th.”). For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' ex parte application. As a result, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs for bringing the instant ex parte application. IT IS SO ORDERED.