M.B., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Brett Brashears v. COUNTY OF BUTTE, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01977
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 M.B., a minor, by and through her No. 2:23-cv-01977-DAD-SCR guardian ad litem Brett Brashears, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 14 CONTINUE DEADLINES COUNTY OF BUTTE, et al., 15 (Doc. No. 74) Defendants. 16

17 18 On September 4, 2025, counsel for plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue 19 certain dates and deadlines in this case in light of plaintiff’s purported inability to complete fact 20 discovery by the current discovery deadline of November 20, 2025, established by the court’s 21 scheduling order. (Doc. Nos. 45, 74-2.) In particular, plaintiff contends that meet and confer 22 requirements with third parties and defendants’ delays in providing discovery establish good 23 cause for the court’s modification of its scheduling order. (Doc. No. 74-2 at 6–10.) Specifically, 24 plaintiff seeks extensions of: (1) the deadline for fact discovery; (2) the deadlines for expert and 25 rebuttal expert witness disclosure; (3) the deadline for expert discovery; and (4) and the deadline 26 for the filing of dispositive law and motion. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff represents that prior to the filing 27 of its ex parte application, defendant had either stipulated to or expressed their non–opposition to 28 ///// 1 the extension of these deadlines with the exception of the deadline for conducting fact discovery. 2 (Doc. No. 74 at 2–3.) 3 On September 5, 2025, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s pending ex parte 4 application. (Doc. No. 75.) Therein, defendants request that the court “deny Plaintiff’s request in 5 its entirety.” (Id. at 2.) Defendants do not otherwise address whether they did in fact indicate a 6 willingness to stipulate to the extension of certain deadlines and their position regarding 7 plaintiff’s representation of the discussion between the parties is, at best, unclear. In any event, 8 the court construes defendants’ brief as opposing any modification to the scheduling order. 9 Defendants argue that plaintiff had not shown that she is entitled to ex parte relief and, 10 alternatively, that plaintiff has not shown good cause for the requested modification of the 11 scheduling order. (Id. at 2–7.) 12 “In order to justify ex parte relief, the moving party must establish (1) that its cause will 13 be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed 14 procedures; and (2) that it is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that 15 the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Jenkins v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:24-cv- 16 01056-MWC-AJR, 2025 WL 2019789, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2025). Here, plaintiff has stated 17 only that ex parte relief is justified on the basis that defendants had previously agreed to most, but 18 not all of, plaintiff’s proposed modifications to the scheduling order and that the granting of 19 plaintiff’s request would promote prompt resolution of the parties narrow dispute over extending 20 the fact discovery deadline. (Doc. No. 74-2 at 5–6.) Plaintiff has not provided any authority for 21 the proposition that these bases justify ex parte relief. Indeed, in the only case authority cited by 22 plaintiff in this regard the district court noted that ex parte relief is available only where “the 23 party seeks a routine procedural order that cannot be obtained through a regularly noticed 24 motion.” Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2013) 25 (emphasis added); see also Moore v. Chase, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01178-SKO, 2015 WL 4636750, at 26 *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2015) (denying the defendant’s ex parte application for a protective order 27 because the defendant could have filed a regularly noticed motion for the same relief and filed an 28 ex parte application to shorten the time for the motion to be heard). That is not the case here, 1 | where plaintiff could file a noticed motion to modify the scheduling order. Moreover, the current 2 | deadline for the completion of fact discovery in this case is November 20, 2025 whereas Local 3 | Rule 230 requires that a motion be set for hearing “not less than thirty-five (35) days after service 4 | and filing of the motion.” L.R. 230(b). Accordingly, plaintiff may file a properly noticed motion 5 | seeking an amendment of the scheduling order and set that motion for hearing on October 20, 6 | 2025—31 days before the close of fact discovery—in accordance with the Local Rules and the 7 || Standing Order of this court.! If such a motion is pursued, the parties shall clearly state their 8 || respective positions, with supporting authority, in their briefing. Of course, the court would also 9 | consider any stipulation and proposed order modifying the scheduling order that the parties were 10 | able to agree upon. 11 For the reasons explained above, plaintiffs ex parte application to continue deadlines 12 | (Doc. No. 74) is denied without prejudice to the filing of a properly noticed motion for 13 | modification of the scheduling order previously issued in this case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. | pated: _ September 9, 2025 Da A. 2, ye 16 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' The parties are advised that Judge Dale A. Drozd’s Standing Order, which is publicly available on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California’s website, was modified 27 || since the issuance of the Standing Order in this action to reflect that Judge Drozd’s civil law and motion calendar is now held on the first and third Monday of every month at 1:30 PM over Zoom. 28 | (Doc. No. 3-1.)