Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01996/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01996-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

17cv1996

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHA WRIGHT, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLD GRINGO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-1996-BAS-MSB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS PENDING 

OUTCOME OF FOREIGN DISCOVERY 

[ECF No. 213]

On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to stay proceedings in this 

action pending the completion of discovery in Mexico (“Motion” or “Mot.”). (ECF No. 

213.) Defendants oppose the Motion. (ECF No. 214.) For the reasons stated below, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

In September 2019, upon Plaintiff’s request, Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg 

allowed Plaintiff to conduct foreign discovery in Mexico, including taking four depositions 

of OGS officials and others regarding the company’s finances and value and four sets of 

requests for production. (See Joint Discovery Plan at 10–11, ECF No. 172; Second Am. 

Scheduling Order at 5, ECF No. 179; Mot. at 3.) On November 19, 2019, the parties filed 

a joint motion requesting that the court issue a letter of request to compel discovery 

regarding OGS from the judicial authorities in Mexico. (Joint Mot., ECF No. 200.) Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 238 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

17cv1996

Berg thereafter issued a letter of request to the judicial authorities in Mexico on December 

2, 2019, pursuant to the Hague Convention, requesting assistance in obtaining this evidence. 

(Letter of Req., ECF No. 202.) Plaintiff alleges that although the letter of request was 

delivered to the appropriate authorities on December 19, 2019, she has yet to hear from the 

Mexican authorities regarding the requested depositions or document productions. (Mot. at 

2.) 

The deadline to complete OGS discovery and to submit pretrial disclosures was 

January 13, 2020. (Second Am. Scheduling Order at 7.) In light of these deadlines and the 

nonresponsiveness of the Mexican authorities, Plaintiff made two simultaneous requests: 

First, Plaintiff moved for an extension of the remaining pretrial and trial-related deadlines 

to allow her to complete the foreign discovery before Judge Berg. (ECF No. 209.) Second, 

Plaintiff filed before this Court the instant ex parte motion to stay proceedings in this action 

pending the completion of discovery in Mexico (“Motion” or “Mot.”). (ECF No. 213.) 

On January 24, 2020, Judge Berg denied Plaintiff’s request to modify the schedule 

order to allow her to obtain the foreign discovery, citing to Plaintiff’s lack of diligence. 

(Order, ECF No. 224.) 

II. ANALYSIS

Ex parte relief is rarely justified. Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 

F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 

1205 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“The ‘opportunities for legitimate ex parte applications are 

extremely limited.’”) (quoting In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D.

Cal. 1989)). Thus, to warrant ex parte relief, the moving party must show that it will suffer 

irreparable harm if the motion is not heard on an expedited schedule and that it either did 

not create the circumstances warranting ex parte relief or that the circumstances occurred as 

a result of excusable neglect. Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 492. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden for ex parte relief because 

Plaintiff has failed to show that the circumstances underlying her Motion were not of her 

own making or are the result of excusable neglect. First, despite stating her intention to seek 

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 238 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3-

17cv1996

a letter of request to the judicial authorities in Mexico in May 2019, Plaintiff waited until 

September 19, 2019 to initiate this lengthy process, and further chose not to pursue 

additional avenues of discovery concurrent with the letter of request. (Order at 9–10.) 

Second, although Magistrate Judge Berg issued an order in September 2019 setting the 

January 13, 2020 deadline for foreign discovery and emphasizing that such discovery must 

be completed by that date, Plaintiff nonetheless waited two months before filing the Joint 

Motion to request discovery from Mexican authorities. (Second Am. Scheduling Order at 

4–5; Joint Mot.; Order at 10.) Lastly, as Judge Berg indicated in his Order, Plaintiff failed 

to properly meet and confer with Defendants to facilitate a more efficient discovery process. 

(Order at 10–11.)

Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that the circumstances giving rise to her ex parte

request to stay proceedings were not of her own making or the result of excusable neglect. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to stay proceedings is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 18, 2020

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 238 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3