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 Request for Production of Documents, Set Two 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 Request for Production of Documents, Set Two 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 Request for Production of Documents, 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 Request for Production of Documents, Set Two 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. The Court has summarized the procedural history regarding Summit’s responses and the parties’ meet and confer efforts in its ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories on today’s calendar.

At issue in this motion are Request Nos. 21-25, 34-38, and 40-41. In its second supplemental responses served on April 25, 2025, which were the last responses served before this motion was filed, Summit stated it would “produce all documents within its possession, custody, and control.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, p. 6:13-14.) However, Summit failed to produce any documents with the requests. After the parties met and conferred, Summit served documents totaling 1,138 pages via email on May 16, 2025. When Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to access the documents via the link provided, a new link was sent on May 19, 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel declares, “I can confirm that the 1,138 pages of documents served do not include any documents that are responsive to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, #21-25 and #34-41.” (Dionne Decl., ¶ 29.)

Plaintiff presents the exact same argument for each request at issue. Specifically, Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) and (b). Subdivision (a) requires that any documents produced in response to a request for production of documents “shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(a).) Subdivision (b) provides that documents must be produced on the date specified in the demand unless an objection is made to the date or the parties agree to extend the date. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.280(b).) Plaintiff also cites Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011 for the following: “If the party fails to produce documents in accordance with its statement of compliance, the opposing party may file a motion to compel production. This motion is not subject to a time.” (Id. at p. 1033.) This statement derives from Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, which provides, “If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.320(a).)

After citing these authorities, Plaintiff contends:

Defendants have failed to produce documents they agreed to produce and have done so repeatedly after multiple extensions. Therefore, this Court should order Plaintiff to provide further responses to the request for documents within seven days of the hearing

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 Request for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 54

on this motion, with Code compliant responses that identify the specific request number to which the documents respond.

(Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, p. 7:1-4.)

In opposition, Summit contends that it has produced additional documents on several occasions after this motion was filed. Summit appears to suggest that Plaintiff’s counsel was aware that production would be made on a rolling basis, and Summit contends that this process “was necessary to allow for a thorough review to protect confidential and privileged information.” (Opp. MPA, pp. 4:28-5:1.)

The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as more akin to a motion to compel compliance under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, not a motion to compel further responses under section 2031.310. All of the authorities cited by Plaintiff involve the production of documents, not the responses to the requests. Plaintiff’s only apparent issue with the responses themselves is the fact that they do not identify the documents that correspond to each request. However, nothing in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) requires that the responses specify the documents that are responsive to a particular request. Instead, the documents themselves must be “identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(a).)

To the extent Plaintiff contends that the documents produced before this motion was filed were not responsive to the requests at issue in this motion, the Court has no way to make this determination, as Plaintiff has not presented any evidence other than Plaintiff’s counsel’s statement that the documents are not responsive. Nor is there any evidence that the documents failed to identify the requests to which they respond. However, as Plaintiff notes in reply, Summit fails to even address the issue of identifying the requests on the documents in its opposition. Therefore, the Court will accept Plaintiff’s assertion on a limited basis. Specifically, the Court accepts that Summit’s production failed to identify the corresponding requests as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part. Summit is ordered to reproduce all documents it has produced (including those after this motion was filed) and to identify the requests to which the documents respond. This production shall be made by no later than October 17, 2025, or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the requests at issue in this motion is DENIED. Further, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking to compel Summit to produce additional documents on the basis that it has failed to comply with its statement of compliance, the motion is DENIED.

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 Request for Production of Documents, Set Two in Department 54

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED on the basis that since the underlying motion is largely denied, it would be unjust to impose sanctions in this circumstance.

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.)