Dominique Daniels v. Advanced Group 01-75, et al Case No. SA CV 23-01940-MCS (DFMx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed November 26, 2024 McCormick, Douglas F., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order re: Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Sanction Plaintiff for Failure to Comply with Discovery Or, in the Alternative, an Order Compelling Discovery from Plaintiff and Sanctions in the Amount of $1,957.50 (Dkt. 172) *1 Defendants Advanced Group 01-75, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., AG 89-5, Inc., Amy Fylling, Joell Scardina, and Lori Powell (“Defendants”) have applied ex parte for an order sanctioning Plaintiff Dominique Daniels, or, in the alternative, an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with discovery. See Dkt. 172. Plaintiff opposes Defendants' ex parte application. See Dkt. 174. Ex parte applications are for extraordinary relief and are rarely justified. See Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 493 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A party seeking ex parte relief must support its request with evidence that its case “will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regularly noticed motion procedures” and show 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.” Id. at 492. Moreover, as Plaintiff points out, my page on the Court's website cautions that “[d]iscovery disputes should generally not be brought to the Court's attention in an ex parte application.” “Generally,” however, implies that there may be an exception. And I find that this case is an exception. Given that the timing of Plaintiffs supplemental responses made it impossible for Defendants to file a noticed motion, I will consider Defendants' application on the merits. REA No. 18. Defendants assert that Plaintiff's compound objection is not well-taken, and that her answer to this RFA is incomplete. I agree. Defendants' application is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide a complete answer to this RFA within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. Specifically, Plaintiff's response will provide a response as to not only herself but also any member of her household. RFA No. 30. Defendants assert that Plaintiff's response to this RFA is insufficient, incomplete, and improper. Defendants ask Plaintiff to admit that Exhibit A is true and correct copy of the Subject Property's pet policy. She states that is unable to so admit or deny because she did not prepare, draft, or create Exhibit A. Nothing in this response is insufficient, incomplete, or improper. Defendants' motion to compel is DENIED as to RFA No. 30. RFP No. 1. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's production of medical records responsive to RFP No. 1 is “incomplete.” But Defendants never explain how Plaintiff's production is incomplete. Accordingly, I agree with Plaintiff, who argues that Defendants' unspecified dissatisfaction with her document production is not a basis for an order compelling. Defendants' motion to compel is DENIED as to RFP No. 1. RFP No. 3. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff's production of medical records related to her trip-and-fall injuries from 2019 to 2023 is insufficient, listing a series of documents that Plaintiff identifies as responsive to this RFP. “As can be seen by th[is] list,” Defendants argue, “Plaintiff has failed to produce all of the responsive documents to these requests.” But this list does not show that Plaintiff has failed to produce anything. Defendants' motion to compel is DENIED as to RFP No. 3. *2 Defendants' request for sanctions is also DENIED.