*1 On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff Jolie Savage (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte application for an Order compelling production of 30(b)(6) deponent and continuing the discovery cut-off date. [Dkt. Nos. 78, 79.] Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant City of Whittier and continuing the discovery cut-off solely for the completion of the deposition from June 30, 2023 to July 28, 2023. [Dkt. No. 78 at 4.] On June 27, 2023, Defendants City of Whittier, Paul Segura, Mark Goodman, John Draper, Michael Przybyl, Jason Zuhlke, and Jeffrey Robert (“Defendants”) filed an opposition to Plaintiff's ex parte application for an order compelling production of 30(b)(6) deponent and continuing discovery cut-off. [Dkt. No. 80.]

District Judge Phillips set the deadline to complete expert discovery and the specific fact discovery identified in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the parties' stipulation to July 1, 2023. [Dkt. Nos. 73, 74.] This Court does not have authority to modify Judge Phillips' Scheduling Order.

On May 30, 2023, the Court conducted an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) in response to the parties' May 24, 2023, email to the Court. The parties outlined their respective positions and the issues in dispute concerning Categories D, E, G, and H of the First Amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. The Court reviewed and considered the email, and the docket in this matter and the arguments of counsel. The Court stated its ruling on the record and said it would be inclined to grant a motion compelling certain testimony requested by Plaintiff. The Court referred the parties to this Court's August 19, 2022 Order addressing the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony. [See Dkt. No. 71.] The Court recommended that the parties meet and confer in order to reach a reasonable compromise and stated that if the parties were unable to resolve the disputed issues listed in the email, they could submit a Joint Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 37-2 no later than June 9, 2023. [See Dkt. No. 76.]

It appears that the parties did not meet and confer after the IDC. On June 7, 2023, two days before the June 9, 2023 deadline, Plaintiff served her portion of a joint discovery stipulation on these issues to Defendants. Plaintiff's portion of the joint discovery stipulation sought discovery on Categories D, E, G, and H, as phrased in the First Amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. [See Dkt. No. 80, John Horstmann Decl. ¶ 20, Ex. D.] One day later, on June 8, 2023, Defendants' counsel sent an email explaining the joint discovery stipulation was not timely, given the requirements of Local Rule 37 and the Court's Order requiring the Joint Stipulation to be submitted by June 9, 2023. [Horstmann Decl. ¶ 21, Ex. E.] Plaintiff took no further action regarding the joint discovery stipulation. [Horstmann Decl. ¶ 22.]

On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff served her Second Amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice set for June 26, 2023. [See Dkt. No. 78-1, Rebecca Brown Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 14.] On June 23, 2023, Defendants filed Objections to the Second Amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. [Dkt. No. 78-1, Rebecca Brown Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 15.] Defendants contend that the Second Amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice was neither limited to Categories D, E, G, and H, nor was it limited to the categories for which the Court indicated that she was likely to grant a motion to compel. [Id.]

*2 Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief. See Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995). To obtain ex parte relief, the moving party must show that it “will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures,” and that the moving party “is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief.” Mission Power Eng'g Co., 883 F. Supp. at 492. Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing of exigent circumstances warranting the extraordinary ex parte relief sought. [Dkt. No. 80 at 8-11.] The Court agrees. Plaintiff has not shown that she is without fault in creating the emergency that prompted her to file the application. Accordingly, Plaintiff's ex parte application for an order compelling the 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant City of Whittier and continuing the discovery cut-off is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.