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 Request for Production of Documents 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 production of documents, requests Nos. 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 (Sets 5, 6, and 7), 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.

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 Request for Production of Documents in Department 25

Plaintiff’s 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.

Pertinent to this motion, on June 5, 2025, Plaintiff propounded and served requests for production of documents, sets five, six, and seven, on Defendant. (Koleson Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. 1.) On July 8, 2025, Defendant served its responses to the subject discovery. (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. 2.) On July 8, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter outlining the perceived deficiencies in Defendant’s responses. (Id., Exh. 3.) 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 2031.210, requires a party’s response to requests for production of documents be one the following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.

An agreement to comply must be rather specific as to what is agreed to: “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all

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 Request for Production of Documents in Department 25

documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

Similarly, “[a] representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Upon receipt of a response, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete;

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)

Requests Nos. 38, 41, 43, and 45

Defendant’s responses to these requests consisted of objection only responses, wherein Defendant raised general objections including: burdensome, oppressive, privacy, relevance, inadmissible, overbroad, duplicative. 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].) Defendant’s opposition to these requests consists solely of general arguments and are not supported by affidavits factually supporting those arguments.

Upon review of Defendant’s responses, its raised objections, and the “arguments” in support of same (see, e.g. Def’s Opp’n Sept. Stmt., Def.’s Response to Request No. 45 [simply stating “REW maintains all of its initial objections regarding duplication, overbreadth as to time and scope”]), the Court determines that Defendant has failed to carry this burden. Accordingly, Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. The motion to compel is GRANTED as to these requests.

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 Request for Production of Documents in Department 25

Requests Nos. 42 and 44

Defendant’s responses to these requests also consisted of similar objections as above. For similar reasons, Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. In addition to objections, Defendant also appears to have provided a response as follows:

Without waiving these objections, and as point of clarification, REW understands that the word “packets” came from the deposition of Ronald Bloom, however, REW does not use this word in its operations, and it would have no documents to produce if it were to search for documents called “packets.”

(See Def’s Opp’n Sept. Stmt, Def.’s Response to Requests Nos. 42, 44.)

Defendant’s responses are not Code compliant. The Motion to compel is GRANTED as to these requests. Defendant shall provide responses to these requests consistent with the requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210.

Document Production

In opposing the motion, as to each of the above requests, Defendant has indicated that it agreed to produce responsive documents “on or before November 21, 2025.” (See Def’s Opp’n Sept. Stmt.) Despite this representation, it appears that Defendant has failed to do so. (Koleson Decl. ISO Joint Stmt., Exh. 3.) A motion to compel production of documents will lie where a party agrees to produce documents in his or her response to a request for production and then fails to produce in compliance with that agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a).) Here, 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.

Disposition

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 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s compliance with its agreement to produce documents is GRANTED. The documents shall be produced by January 9, 2026.

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

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 Request for Production of Documents in Department 25

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.)