Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Exclude Expert Witness in Department 25
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with
34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Exclude Expert Witness in Department 25
a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
The motion of Plaintiff Frank Phillips (Plaintiff) to exclude witnesses Michael Parker and Scott Stewardson from providing expert testimony at trial, as well as the presentation of any related expert reports is DENIED without prejudice as set forth herein.
There is a trial date presently set in this matter for February 3, 2026.
On December 15, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to reopen discovery, but only for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED so as to reopen discovery and allow Plaintiffs pending motions to compel further responses to requests for production; further responses to requests for admission; further responses to special interrogatories; and further responses to form interrogatories be heard as well as Plaintiffs pending motion to exclude expert testimony (presently scheduled to be heard on December 29, 2025) and to compel deposition testimony (presently scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2026).
(2) Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED so as to reopen discovery and allow Plaintiffs pending motion to amend or augment expert witness designation be heard (presently scheduled to be heard on December 15, 2025).
(3) Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED so as to reopen discovery and allow the expert discovery of the experts who have already been identified pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.260, as well as Dr. Rowe, in light of the Courts ruling on the motion to amend/augment expert witness designation.
For the limited purposes as set forth above, the cutoff date will be governed by the February 3, 2026, trial date.
(12/15/25 Order.)
In support of its motion to exclude, Plaintiff argues that Defendants retained expert, Michael Parker and purported percipient expert witness, Scott Stewardson, as well their respective expert reports, should be excluded from trial because Defendant has refused to produce these experts for depositions, or their respective reports, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Exclude Expert Witness in Department 25
sections 2034.300(b)-(d).
The Court determines that this issue is more aptly raised to the trial judge. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.300 [expressly identifying the trial court as the proper court to rule on a motion to exclude].) Indeed, pursuant to the language of the statute, the trial court shall exclude from evidence the expert opinion only upon objection of any party. In this context, a formal objection is required, which can typically be made via a motion in limine. (Richaud v. Jennings (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 81, 91.)
In sum, the Court determines that this motion is premature, and not properly before it at this time. Plaintiffs motion is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing an appropriate motion to the trial judge upon assignment.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)