Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc

On December 29, 2025, the granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel the further responses of Defendant to his requests for production of documents, requests Nos. 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45. (12/29/26 Order.) The Court further ordered, “[h]ere, to the extent Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents, in light of Defendant’s representation that it agreed to produce documents, and Defendant’s failure to do so in compliance with its statements, Plaintiff’s motion to compel production is GRANTED.” (Ibid.)

On January 9, 2026, after taking the matter under submission on January 5, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial and set the continued trial for April 6, 2026. (1/9/26 Order.)

Also on January 9, 2026, REW served verified amended responses to Requests Nos. 38, and 41-45, in which REW agreed to produce responsive documents by January 16, 2026. (Pimentel Decl., ¶ 8.)

On January 16, 2026, REW produced approximately 4,000 pages of Job Costing Reports as “static, unorganized PDF files.” (Id., at ¶ 9.) The parties met and conferred regarding REW’s production, but were unsuccessful.

On March 16, 2026, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, Plaintiff’s “motion for issue sanctions, or alternatively, order compelling compliance and further responses to document requests.” Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel order, that Plaintiff shall serve further amended responses and all responsive documents by no later than March 23, 2026. (3/16/26 Order.) The Court further specified that Defendant shall “produce all documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 41, 43, and 45 “in an electronic sortable/spreadsheet format, for the time period of July 1, 2022-October 28, 2022.” (Ibid.)

The Court also denied Plaintiff’s request for issue sanctions, explaining that sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, and that:

Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. Here, the Court is not persuaded that issue sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff’s request for issue sanctions is DENIED.

(Ibid.)

On March 22, 2026, REW produced a set “Microsoft Excel files via WeTransfer.” (Pimentel Decl., ¶ 13.) On March 24, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel informed REW’s counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 05/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8D

that his data expert determined the files were not in a native format, were not sortable, and cannot be used for the productivity analysis required. (Id., at ¶¶ 14-15.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel requested that that REW “produce the data in true native format within 48 hours.” (Id., at 15.) Plaintiff’s counsel also offered to make its expert available to confer with REW’s Staffware data custodian to facilitate export of the data. (Id., at ¶16.) Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel requested that if REW was unable or unwilling to produce the native files within 48 hours, that REW stipulate to a two-week trial continuance. (Ibid.) In response, REW’s counsel maintained that the excel production satisfies the Court’s Order, declined Plaintiff’s invitation for assistance from Plaintiff’s expert, and further declined to stipulate to any trial continuance. (Id., at ¶ 17.)

On March 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the April 6, 2026 trial date and to advance the hearing on Plaintiff’s current Motion for Issue Sanctions. The Court (Hon. Miadich) granted the ex parte application—thereby continuing the trial date to June 15, 2026 and advancing Plaintiff’s current Motion for Issue Sanctions from September 14, 2026 to May 4, 2026. (3/30/26 Order).

The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s current Motion for Issue Sanctions.

Discussion

Through the instant motion, Plaintiff moves for an order “imposing issue sanctions against Defendant Republic Electric West, Inc. (“REW”) for its willful failure to comply with this Court’s December 29, 2025 and March 16, 2026 Orders compelling production of Job Costing Reports in a usable sortable electronic format.” (Notice of Motion at 2:1- 3.)

Plaintiff more specifically seeks:

(1) an Order designating as an established fact in this action that Plaintiff’s time to complete rough and trim work was superior to all of his coworkers, including those not subjected to the winter layoff that ended his employment; and (2) an Order prohibiting REW from offering any evidence or argument at trial in support of its defense that Plaintiff’s performance was slow or that his work pace was a basis for his termination.

(Notice of Motion at 2:4-8.)

Defendant opposes the motion, arguing primarily that, as of April 16, 2026, it “has now provided [Plaintiff] with the ‘data derived from Staffware’ in three separate formats and has expended thousands of dollars to comply with the Court’s order that it do so.” (Opposition at 7:2-4, 3:1-2.) Defendant also urges that it “has worked always in good

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 05/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8D

faith to meet its discovery obligations, within the limits of its capabilities: and thus Plaintiff’s “request for issues sanctions that would act as terminating sanctions should be rebuffed.” (Id., at 7:9-11.)

In reply, Plaintiff concedes that it has now received the files at issue, in the format it requested. (Reply at 2:13-15; see also Declaration of Gabriel Pimentel filed in Reply at ¶ 3.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff urges the Court to grant its motion for issue sanctions. In this regard, Plaintiff argues that REW’s April 16, 2026 production “confirms that its prior noncompliance was willful.” (Reply at 3:7-8.) Plaintiff further argues that REW’s untimely compliance is not compliance, and “[t]he narrowly tailored issue sanctions Plaintiff seeks are the only remedy that will prevent REW from profiting at trial from its own discovery obstruction.” (Id., 3:27-4:6, 3:4-5.)

For misuse of the discovery process, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (See, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d), (g), 2023.030(a-(d).)

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that the court, after notice to the affected party, may impose sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. The Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991-992.) The Court may impose sanctions that are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the Court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment. (Caryl Richards, Inc. v.

Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 304.) “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, starting with monetary sanctions, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

A request for issue sanctions requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(7).) Plaintiff did not file a separate statement. The “[f]ailure to include the separate statement required by CRC 3.1345 is ground for denial” of the motion. (Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 8:1151.1, p. 8F 65-66.) “We conclude that because Plaintiffs did not comply with the requirements of former rule 335 [now 3.1345], the trial court was well within its discretion to deny the motion to compel discovery on that basis.” (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

Because Plaintiff failed to include a separate statement as required by California Rules

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 05/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8D

of Court, rule 3.1345, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions.

However, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s request for issue sanctions despite its failure to include a separate statement, the Court would still deny the request. Again, as this Court has previously stated, discovery sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled but denied discovery. Here, once more, the Court is not persuaded that issue sanctions are warranted given that it is undisputed that REW has complied with its discovery obligations (albeit, belatedly). The Court is also not persuaded that issue sanctions would be consistent with an incremental approach; nevertheless, this is the only sanction noticed and moved for by Plaintiff in the motion.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions is DENIED.

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.)