Lamya BREWSTER v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al Case No. 5:14-cv-02257-JGB-SPx United States District Court, C.D. California Filed January 18, 2024 Counsel Barrett S. Litt, McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP, Pasadena, CA, Donald Webster Cook, Donald W. Cook Attorney at Law, John Clay Washington, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman and Zeldes LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Paul L. Hoffman, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman and Zeldes LLP, Hermosa Beach, CA, for Lamya Brewster. Adena Michelle Hopenstand, Joseph S. Persoff, Los Angeles City Attorney Office, Agnes Patricia Ursea, Best Best and Krieger LLP, Gabriel Seth Dermer, Office of the City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for City of Los Angeles, et al. Pym, Sheri, United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Denying Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Order Enforcing 8/15/23 and 11/17/23 Subpoenas [327] *1 On January 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an order enforcing subpoenas issued to the California Department of Motor Vehicles on August 15, 2023 and November 17, 2023. Docket no. 327. Plaintiffs' application is supported the declaration of their counsel, Donald W. Cook (“Donald Cook Decl.”), the declaration of plaintiffs' computer data consultant Dwight W. Cook, and exhibits. In their application, plaintiffs ask the court to order the DMV to produce computer data responsive to their subpoenas in its original electronic format by January 31, 2024. They argue that the data is essential for identifying by name, address, and current address the approximately 35,000 class members in whose favor summary judgment and compensatory damages were granted. “Ex parte motions are rarely justified ....” Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995). To justify ex parte relief, the moving party must, at a minimum, show: (1) its “cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures”; and (2) “the moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Id. at 492. Indeed, Central District of California Local Rule 37-3 provides that “[u]nless the Court in its discretion otherwise allows, no discovery motions may be filed or heard on an ex parte basis absent a showing of irreparable injury or prejudice not attributable to the lack of diligence of the moving party.” In their application, plaintiffs make no attempt whatsoever to show the Mission Power factors are satisfied. They note that the case has gone on for about a decade and that the district court hoped to avoid further delay (Donald Cook Decl. ¶ 2), but identify no emergency that would now justify ex parte relief. As such, the court is perplexed why plaintiffs filed an ex parte application rather than seeking relief by way of a regularly noticed motion. This is not the first time plaintiffs have filed an ex parte application without any basis for emergency relief. See docket nos. 275, 279. Filing discovery motions in blatant disregard of the Local Rules is a waste of valuable judicial resources. Plaintiffs are warned that continued failure to comply with discovery procedures at set forth in the Local Rules may result in the imposition of sanctions. See L.R. 37-4. Accordingly, plaintiffs' ex parte application (docket no. 327) is DENIED without prejudice.