Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony
34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 01/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony 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 01/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony 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
Plaintiff Frank Phillips (Plaintiff) Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Republic Electric West, Inc.s (Defendant) Expert Witnesses is ruled upon as follows.
Factual Background
Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 15, 2023. This is a wrongful termination action pertaining to the employment of Plaintiff by Defendant. Plaintiffs complaint alleges that Defendant failed to pay him his lawful wages and subsequently terminated his employment following Plaintiff raising the issue with human resources. The complaint alleges causes of action for wrongful termination and retaliation.
On July 8, 2025, Plaintiff noticed the depositions of Defendants disclosed expert witnesses Scott Stewardson and Mike Parker, with the deposition to be taken on July 25, 2025. (Koleson Decl., ¶ 8.) Defendant responded by email, informing Plaintiff that there was a scheduling conflict preventing the depositions from occurring on that date. (Koleson Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff served amended deposition notices on August 6, 2025, setting the depositions to take place on August 25, 2025. (Koleson Decl., ¶ 10.)
Defendant responded, refusing to produce expert witnesses past the expert discovery deadline of August 15, 2025. (Koleson Decl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff again noticed the deposition of the two experts, setting the depositions for August 15, 2025. (Koleson Decl., ¶ 12.) Defendant served objections and proposed alternative deposition dates of August 21 or 22, 2025. (Koleson Decl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff then noticed the depositions of the expert witnesses for August 22, 2025. (Koleson Decl., ¶ 14.)
On August 22, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to continue the trial date from August 26, 2025 to February 3, 2026. On December 15, 2025, the Court further granted Plaintiffs motion to re-open discovery for limited purposes, including inter alia, to allow the expert discovery of the experts who have already been identified pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.260 (December 15, 2025 Minute Order, p. 4.)
Plaintiff brings the instant motion, on the grounds that these depositions were timely noticed to take place on July 25, 2025, but Defendant failed to make the experts
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 01/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony in Department 25
available. (Mot., pp. 1:28-2:2.) Defendant opposes, arguing that Defendant will produce the witnesses for deposition on or before January 19, 2026.
Discussion
As Defendant has represented that it is willing and able to produce the witnesses for deposition, the motion is effectively unopposed. Defendant makes no argument as to why the depositions should not occur. A party's failure to substantively oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs motion to compel the depositions of Defendants expert witnesses Scott Stewardson and Mike Parker. The depositions shall occur by no later than January 19, 2026.
Given the complex circumstances surrounding the instant motion, the Court finds the imposition of sanctions would not be in the interests of justice. Plaintiffs request for sanctions is therefore denied.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.