MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al.

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 54

ID: 16039062174

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

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 Court’s 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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Brian Mitchell’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Summit Funding, Inc. (“Summit”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

This is an employment action. Plaintiff alleges that he was hired as Summit’s Chief Growth Officer in December of 2022 and began his employment in March of 2023. Plaintiff further alleges that he was terminated in November of 2023 after whistleblowing several illegal acts committed by Summit and its Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Todd Scrima (collectively with Summit, “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s complaint includes a total of 11 causes of action,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 54

including retaliation claims, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and others.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 7, 2024. Plaintiff served the subject discovery on September 5, 2024. On October 1, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. Discovery was then stayed pending the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration. On November 5, 2024, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel granted an extension to December 6, 2024 for Summit to serve responses. On December 6, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel granted an extension to December 20, 2024 for Summit to serve responses.

On December 20, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel granted a third extension to January 6, 2025 for Summit to serve responses. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that no further extension requests would be granted. However, on January 6, 2025, at 4:21 p.m., Summit’s counsel requested an extension to January 10, 2025, stating that responses were prepared but needed to be reviewed by the client, and if the extension was not granted Summit would serve objections and supplement the responses on January 10. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to this request.

Summit served responses containing only objections at 12:37 a.m. on January 7, 2025.

Upon receipt of Summit’s responses, on January 7, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel requested verified responses without objections by January 10, 2025. In this email, Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that Summit’s objections had been waived. (See Dionne Decl., Exh. 3.) On January 8, 2025, Summit’s counsel stated that her office had been impacted by fires in the Los Angeles area and would be able to serve supplemental responses by January 15, 2025. At 4:33 p.m. on January 15, 2025, Summit’s counsel stated that supplemental responses would be served on January 22, 2025. At 4:16 p.m. on January 22, 2025, Summit’s counsel stated that supplemental responses would be served on January 23, 2025.

On January 23, 2025, Summit served unverified supplemental responses. Some of the responses included objections, and Plaintiff’s counsel deemed several other responses insufficient. On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter. On February 10, 2025, the parties conferred telephonically, at which time Summit’s counsel stated that a stipulated protective order would be needed. On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email summarizing their discussion, in which Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Summit’s counsel would advise by February 19, 2025 whether it would stand by its objections and would serve supplemental responses under the protective order by February 28, 2025.

On February 19, 2025, having not heard from Summit’s counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel requested another phone call, to which Summit’s counsel stated that she would provide a response by February 21, 2025. Summit’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter on February 21, 2025. On February 26, 2025, the parties held another phone call.

On March 11, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel advised that the protective order had been signed and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 54

asked when supplemental responses would be served. Summit’s counsel responded that supplemental responses would be served by March 21, 2025. However, no responses were served on that date, and on March 24, 2025, Summit’s counsel requested an extension to March 28, 2025. On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel was advised that Summit’s counsel was out due to medical reasons and would address the discovery upon her return. On April 7, 2025, Summit’s counsel stated that she was waiting for approval from one employee of her client and could provide supplemental responses by April 25, 2025.

Plaintiff’s counsel proposed April 14, and the parties ultimately agreed to April 18, 2025. No responses were served by that date, and on April 21, 2025, Summit’s counsel stated that the further supplemental responses would be served by April 23, 2025. Again, no responses were served by that date. On April 25, 2025, Summit served further supplemental responses.

On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer email as to the interrogatories at issue in this motion. Plaintiff’s counsel took issue with the fact that the supplemental and further supplemental responses stated “not applicable.” Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to a deadline of May 20, 2025 for further supplemental responses. No further responses were served by that date. Plaintiff filed this motion on May 21, 2025.

At issue in this motion are Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-6, 19-21, 31-33, 54-57, and 59-60.

Special Interrogatory No. 1 states, “If you reviewed [Matt] Schoolfield’s employment agreement with Movement [Mortgage LLC] prior to hiring Schoolfield and contend that Schoolfield did not have a non-solicitation covenant in his employment agreement with Movement, state all facts in support of that contention.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, p. 4:11-14 [capitalization altered for readability].) Special Interrogatory No. 4 mirrors No. 1 with respect to an individual named Chris Shelton. Special Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 5 ask Summit to identify all persons with knowledge of facts contained in the response to Nos. 1 and 4, respectively. Special Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 6 ask Summit to identify all documents that support the response to Nos. 1 and 4, respectively.

In its initial responses to Nos. 1-6, Summit asserted a series of objections only, including an incorporation to general objections. In its supplemental responses, Summit asserted a different but overlapping series of objections that again included incorporation of general objections. In its further supplemental responses, Summit incorporated the general objections, removed all other objections, and answered, subject to the general objections, “Not applicable.”

Special Interrogatory No. 19 states, “If David Sheir, referenced in Exhibit 2 attached hereto, was hired by Summit following his employment with Movement, identify who, if anyone, on behalf of Summit recruited David Sheir to work for Summit.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, p. 16:23-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 54

25 [capitalization altered for readability].) Special Interrogatory No. 31 asks the same question with respect to an individual named Bart Evans. Special Interrogatory Nos. 20 and 32 ask Summit to identify all persons with knowledge of facts contained in the response to Nos. 19 and 31, respectively. Special Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 33 ask Summit to identify all documents that support the response to Nos. 19 and 31, respectively.

In its initial responses to Nos. 19-21 and 31-33, Summit asserted a series of objections only, including an incorporation to general objections. In its supplemental responses, Summit asserted a different but overlapping series of objections that again included incorporation of general objections. In its further supplemental responses, Summit simply answered, “Not applicable,” without asserting any objections.

Special Interrogatory No. 54 states, “If Summit removed Mitchell as Summit’s Chief Growth Officer while Mitchell was employed by Summit, state all facts in support of Summit’s reasons for removing Mitchell as Chief Growth Officer of Summit.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, p. 28:9-11 [capitalization altered for readability].) Special Interrogatory No. 55 asks Summit to identify all persons with knowledge of facts contained in response to No. 54, while No. 56 asks Summit to identify all documents that support the response to No.

54. Special Interrogatory No. 57 states, “If Summit removed Mitchell as Summit’s Chief Growth Officer, describe by job title and job duties any new position that Mitchell subsequently assumed as an employee of Summit.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, p. 31: 15-16 [capitalization altered for readability].)

In its initial responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 54-57, Summit asserted a series of objections only. In its supplemental responses, Summit removed all objections and simply answered, “Not applicable.” Summit did not serve further supplemental responses to these interrogatories.

Special Interrogatory No. 59 states, “Separate from those individuals identified in the response to special interrogatory 58, identify all persons who have personal knowledge of the facts contained in your response to special interrogatory 58.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, p. 32:17-19 [capitalization altered for readability].) Special Interrogatory No. 60 asks Summit to identify all documents that support its response to No.

58.

In its initial responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 59-60, Summit asserted a series of objections only. In its supplemental responses, Summit removed all objections and simply answered, “Not applicable.” Summit did not serve further supplemental responses to these interrogatories.

Plaintiff advances the exact same argument for each interrogatory, which is primarily that a response of “not applicable” is improper under Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771. Plaintiff further argues, “Defendants [sic] argue that certain special interrogatories are multipart

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 54

contentions. Compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220 requires a complete, nonevasive and straightforward response identifying contentions that are disputed, if they exist.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, p. 6:19-22.) Plaintiff incorporates this argument for each interrogatory at issue.

In opposition, Summit alerts the Court that it served a third supplemental response on May 21, 2025, the same date Plaintiff filed this motion. (Liu Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) The Court assumes these responses were served after Plaintiff filed the motion, since Defendant does not contend otherwise. Belated service of responses does not render a motion to compel further responses moot. The moving party is entitled to a ruling once the motion is made. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.5.) Moreover, the exhibit consisting of the third supplemental responses does not include a proof of service, a verification, or a statement that a verification would follow. (See Liu Decl., Exh. 1.)

Plaintiff’s reply does not address or even mention the third supplemental responses, so it is unclear if and when they were served or if they were ever verified. The Court expresses no opinion as to the validity of the third supplemental responses.

Plaintiff’s reply asserts that Summit’s opposition failed to address most of the interrogatories at issue. Plaintiff also contends that Summit’s opposition is defective because Summit submitted a combined opposition to both this motion and Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his requests for production of documents on today’s calendar. Plaintiff contends that a separate opposition is required, and that Summit’s omnibus opposition confuses the issues and prejudices Plaintiff. While the Court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s argument, none of the authorities cited in the reply state that a combined opposition is impermissible. Thus, the Court has considered Defendant’s opposition in full.

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s separate statement and Summit’s arguments in opposition, the Court rules as follows.

As to Nos. 1-6, the motion is GRANTED on the basis that Summit continues to incorporate the general objections, even though those objections were waived by Summit’s failure to serve timely responses.

As to Nos. 19-21 and 31-33, the motion is DENIED. As Plaintiff notes, “[a] party cannot state, ‘not applicable’ where the interrogatory is clearly applicable to him.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) However, Plaintiff fails to establish how these interrogatories are applicable to Summit. No information is provided as to the relevance of the two individuals identified in these interrogatories, David Sheir and Bart Evans. Mr. Sheir does not appear mentioned anywhere in Plaintiff’s complaint. Mr. Evans is mentioned in Exhibit C, which is a federal complaint filed in the Western District of North Carolina by an entity called Movement

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 54

Mortgage, LLC against various individuals, but Plaintiff’s motion provides no additional information as to Mr. Evans, so the Court cannot conclude that the interrogatories are clearly applicable to Summit.

As to Nos. 54-57, the motion is GRANTED. These interrogatories relate to Plaintiff’s termination and are thus clearly applicable to Summit.

As to Nos. 59-60, the motion is DENIED for failure to include Special Interrogatory No. 58 or Summit’s response thereto. Both Nos. 59-60 depend upon Summit’s response to No.

58. By not including No. 58 in the separate statement (or elsewhere in the moving papers), Plaintiff failed to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1345(c)(5) [“If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request . . . the other request and response to it must be set forth . . .”].)

Summit shall serve verified further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-6 and 54-57 by no later than September 29, 2025 or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in part in the amount of $2,060, representing five hours at $400 per hour plus the $60 motion filing fee. Sanctions shall be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel by no later than October 2, 2025, and if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)