Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc

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

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission in Department 25

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Plaintiff Frank Phillips (“Plaintiff”) to compel the further responses of Defendant Republic Electric West, Inc. (“Defendant”) to requests for admission, requests Nos. 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16 (Sets 1 and 2), and request for monetary sanctions is ruled upon as follows

There is a trial date presently set in this matter for February 3, 2026.

On December 15, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery, but only for “the limited purposes as follows”:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED so as to reopen discovery and allow Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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) Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED so as to reopen discovery and allow Plaintiff’s pending motion to amend or augment expert witness designation be heard (presently scheduled to be heard on December 15, 2025).

(3) Plaintiff’s 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 Court’s 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.)

This is a wrongful termination action pertaining to the employment of Plaintiff by Defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant failed to pay him his lawful wages and subsequently

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 to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission in Department 25

terminated his employment following Plaintiff raising the issue with human resources. The complaint alleges causes of action for wrongful termination and retaliation.

Pertinent to this motion, on May 13, 2025, Plaintiff propounded and served requests for admission, set one, on Defendant. (Koleson Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. 1.) On May 19, 2025, Plaintiff propounded and served requests for admission, set two, on Defendant. (Ibid.) On June 23, 2025, Defendant served its responses to the subject discovery. (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. 3.) On June 24, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter outlining the perceived deficiencies in Defendant’s responses. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. 4.)

Through this motion, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s further responses are warranted. Defendant opposes the motion. The parties each respectively request sanctions against the other.

This matter was continued from November 10, 2025, to this date so as to provide the parties with the opportunity to complete the meet and confer requirement. (11/10/25 Order.) After thoroughly meeting and conferring, the parties were ordered to file a joint statement. On December 8, 2025, the parties filed their joint statement wherein they indicated all issues remain unresolved. (Joint Stmt., filed 12/8/25.) Upon review of the parties’ joint statement, the parties’ meet and confer efforts appear tenuous, at best. The Court again reminds counsel that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. Nevertheless, the Court proceeds to the merits.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(a) provides:

On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.

The response must contain either an answer or an objection to the particular request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.210(b).) Each answer “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(a).) Absent an objection, the response to the request must contain one of the following: an admission; a denial; a statement claiming inability to admit or deny. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(b).)

Requests Nos. 4, 6, and 7

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 to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission in Department 25

Defendant’s responses to these requests consisted of objections only. Defendant interspersed general objections on various grounds such as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, compound, and impermissibly calls for a legal conclusion from a lay witness. In opposition, Defendant has failed to justify or otherwise provide any argument in support of its objections. In opposing a motion to compel further responses, the burden is on the opposing party to justify any objection or failure to provide complete responses. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing to Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220, 221].) Having failed to meet this burden, Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED.

Defendant contends that it now has provided amended responses to requests for admission that were unnecessary to ask in the first instance: “The six admissions challenged here were not necessary because PHILLIPS had the information in myriad other ways. REW has now provided Amended Responses, as of October 21, nonetheless.” (Opp’n, p. 5:3-5.) Service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the motion. Plaintiff is still entitled to an order as a motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.5.) At the time the motion was filed, Defendant had not served further responses. Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED as to these requests.

Requests Nos. 14 and 15

Defendant’s responses to these requests included an objection on grounds that it “improperly characterize[ed] the document by, describing it in any manner.” also consisted of similar objections as above. For similar reasons to the objections discussed above, Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. In addition to objections, Defendant also provided a response that it “is unable to admit or deny the genuineness” because it “was not the author of the document.”

In lieu of admitting or denying a request for admission, a party may respond by claiming inability (lack of sufficient information) to admit or deny the matter stated in the request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(c).) However, a party responding in this manner must also state that a reasonable inquiry was made to obtain sufficient information: i.e., “a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(c).) Defendant has failed to make any such representation. Defendant’s response is not Code compliant. Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED as to these requests.

Request No. 16

Defendant’s response to this request was “REW lacks information upon which to admit, and on that basis denies, that REW received the document identified as PHILLIPS000108-000114.” For similar reasons as stated above, this response is not Code compliant. Accordingly, the motion to

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 to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission in Department 25

compel is GRANTED as to this request.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the further responses of Defendant to his requests for admission, requests Nos. 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16 is GRANTED.

Consistent with the above, Defendant shall provide verified further responses by no later than January 9, 2026, unless the parties agree to a different date confirmed in writing.

The parties’ respective requests for sanctions are DENIED. The Court determines that the imposition of sanctions, in these circumstances, would be unjust.

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.)