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 Form Interrogatories 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 form interrogatories - employment, interrogatory No. 217.1 (Set 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 Form Interrogatories 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 form interrogatories - employment, set two, on Defendant. (Koleson Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. 1.) On June 23, 2025, Defendant served its responses to the subject discovery. (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. 2.) On June 24, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter outlining the perceived deficiencies in Defendant’s responses. (Id., ¶ 10, 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.

As a threshold matter, the Court finds that this motion is timely made. Consistent with Plaintiff’s representation in his reply, the Court’s electronic record reflects that Plaintiff initially filed this motion on July 15, 2025. Although the initial filing appears to have been rejected by the clerk due to a filing error (See Notice of Rejection, filed 7/15/25 [stating “Per LR 2.31e, Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories need their own reservation and Motion Filings”]), the Court determines that Plaintiff’s motion is timely. (See Code Civ.

Proc., § 2030.300 [requiring that “notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”] Emphasis added.) It is apparent that notice of this motion was provided to Defendant timely, as was required pursuant to Code.

Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the merits.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) states:

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

A response to an interrogatory shall be any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings.

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 Form Interrogatories in Department 25

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210(a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires that responses to interrogatories be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits, and “if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a), (b); see also Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 788-89.)

Interrogatory No. 217.1

This interrogatory inquires whether each request for admission served with these interrogatories was an unqualified admission, and if not, the interrogatory request additional information (e.g., (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of these facts; (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT on thing) for each response that is not an unqualified admission.

Here, Plaintiff notes that Defendant responded to Form Interrogatory — Employment No. 217.1 as it related to requests for admission, requests Nos. 3, 8, 9, and 13. (Koleson Decl., Exh. 8.) However, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant must provide further response to address requests for admission, requests Nos. 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16, as Defendant’s responses were not unqualified admissions.

Upon review of Defendant’s responses to these corresponding requests for admissions (Schuur Decl., Exh. A), the Court agrees that Defendant’s responses were not unqualified admissions, rather, these responses consisted of objections, or statements of being unable to admit or deny. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide further response to this interrogatory addressing requests for admission, requests Nos. 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the further responses of Defendant to his form interrogatories - employment, interrogatory No. 217.1 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.

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 Form Interrogatories in Department 25

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.)