Frank Phillips v. 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 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Document Request and Compel Compliance 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”) for issue sanctions, or alternatively, order compelling compliance and further responses to document requests is ruled upon as follows.

On March 2, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and shortened time to hear the instant motion, with the hearing to be on March 16, 2026, any opposition to “be filed and served, via electronic service, no later than close of business on March 9, 2026,” and any reply to “be filed and served, via electronic service, no later than close of business on March 11, 2026.” (3/2/26 Order.)

Background

Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 15, 2023. This is a wrongful termination action pertaining to the employment of Plaintiff by Defendant Republic Electric West, Inc. (“Defendant” or “REW”). 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.

On August 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the initial trial date (which was set for August 26, 2025). In ruling on the application, the Court set the matter for a hearing on August 22, 2025, on shortened time. (8/13/25 Order.) On August 22, 2025, after hearing oral argument, the Court vacated its tentative ruling (initially denying Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial) and granted Plaintiff’s motion to continue the trial date. (8/22/25 Order.) In granting the motion, the Court continued the trial date from August 26, 2025, to February 3, 2026. (Ibid.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Document Request and Compel Compliance in Department 25

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.)

Discussion

Through the instant motion, Plaintiff requests the Court order the following:

1. Impose an issue sanction designating the following fact as true: “Plaintiff’s time to complete rough and trim work was faster than all of his coworkers, including those that were not included in REW’s winter layoff that occurred from September 23, 2022–January 13, 2023” and an Order prohibiting REW from offering any evidence or argument supporting its defense that Plaintiff failed to complete any of his tasks within the allowed time.

2. Produce all documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 41, 43, and 45 in their native, ordinarily maintained format, as required by Defendant’s prior statements of compliance and California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(d)(1);

3. Serve verified further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 38 and 41– 45 that expressly specify the intended form of production for electronically stored information, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(c); and

4. Label its production to requests 38, 41–45 to identify the specific request number to which each document corresponds, in strict compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(a).

(Ntc. Mot.)

Defendant opposes the motion, but has agreed that “that further supplemental verified pleadings that incorporates the email record will be useful for both parties, and will provide them (with Bates-stamping the documents). As such, without conceding the merits of the basis for the request, it appears Defendant agrees to comply with Plaintiff’s fourth request.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Document Request and Compel Compliance in Department 25

A. Requests for Production (Requests Nos. 38, 41-45)

Through this motion, Plaintiff argues that on January 9, 2026, Defendant served its verified amended responses to Requests Nos. 38, 41-45, stating without qualification: “REW will produce all responsive documents by January 16, 2026.” (Pimentel Decl., Exh. 1.) Plaintiff states that, on January 16, 2026, Defendant produced approximately 4,000 pages of Job Costing Reports as static PDFs. (Id., Exh. 2.) In this regard, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s responses and the corresponding production were deficient, and thus, brings the instant motion.

Turning to the requests at issue, Requests No. 38, 41-45 state the following:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:

The timecards of each and every employee that was included in Republic Electric West, Inc.’s seasonal layoff between October 1, 2022, to December 30, 2022.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:

All “Job Costing Reports” which contain data entries regarding any hours of rough completed by every person who was employed as an electrician between October 12, 2021, and October 28, 2022.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:

With respect to every person who was employed as an electrician between October 12, 2021, and October 28, 2022, all “packets” for each and every job site where they completed rough of lots.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:

All “Job Costing Reports” which contain data entries regarding any hours of trim completed by every person who was employed as an electrician between October 12, 2021, and October 28, 2022.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:

With respect to every person who was employed as an electrician between October 12, 2021, and October 28, 2022, all “packets” for each and every job site

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Document Request and Compel Compliance in Department 25

where they completed trim of lots.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:

All data derived from Staffware regarding any lots or jobsites that were over budget between October 12, 2021, and October 28, 2022.

(Pimentel Decl., Exh. 1.)

Native Format: Requests for Production Nos. 41, 43, and 45

As it relates to Requests Nos. 41, 43, and 45, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to produce all documents responsive these requests “in their native, ordinarily maintained format, as required by Defendant’s prior statements of compliance and California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(d)(1).” (Ntc. Mot.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s responses “blatantly violate” Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(d)(1), which requires that electronic information be produced in the form “ordinarily maintained” or “reasonably usable.” According to Plaintiff, the sought “Job Costing Reports” contain highly structured labor and payroll data, including employee names, payroll dates, quantities, hourly rates, and subtotals across multiple construction lots.

Plaintiff argues that the current PDF format prevents sorting by employee, filtering by date, or verifying mathematical accuracy. Because the data originates from an accounting database (Staffware) and contains structured data fields and mathematically aggregated subtotals, its “flat” PDF format strips the evidence of its utility. Plaintiff supports this position with the declaration of their retained expert, Rebecca Dominguez, who attests to the following:

6. I was retained by Plaintiff's counsel to review and analyze a document production by Defendant Republic Electric West, Inc., consisting of approximately 5,000 pages of Job Costing Reports and Start Packs produced entirely as static PDF image files.

7. I have been asked to determine, from a technical perspective, whether the Job Costing Reports originated from an electronic database or were maintained solely as hard-copy paper records.

8. Based on my review of the production and my extensive experience with ESI and digital forensics, it is my professional opinion that the Job Costing Reports are undoubtedly derived from a structured electronic database (such as the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Document Request and Compel Compliance in Department 25

Staffware system referenced in this litigation) and were not originally maintained as static paper documents.

9. The produced PDFs contain clear and undeniable technical indicia of electronic generation. Specifically, the documents feature uniform export timestamps, highly structured data fields, pre-populated task descriptions, and software-calculated subtotals that aggregate labor and payroll data. Furthermore, the footers contain precise timestamps and unique document identifiers. These characteristics do not occur in handwritten or manually typewritten logs; they are the distinct digital fingerprints of data that resides in, and was exported from, a dynamic, queryable electronic database environment.

10. Producing highly structured labor and payroll data in a flat or static PDF format suppresses the document of its utility. In their current PDF state, these reports cannot be computationally sorted by employee, filtered by specific payroll dates, or subjected to mathematical verification of the aggregated subtotals.

11. To make this data usable for litigation analysis, it must be manually transcribed to reconstruct it into a functional spreadsheet format.

12. I estimate that transcribing and verifying these static PDFs into a usable Excel format would take no less than 160 hours of labor before any substantive productivity analysis could even begin.

(Dominguez Decl., ¶¶ 6-12.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not make a specific request that the information be provided in electronic format, rather, only requested “job costing reports” and “data derived from Staffware.” Accordingly, Defendant maintains that it has produced the job costing reports and data derived from Staffware in the form that it considers “reasonably usable” for the work that it does. (Opp’n, p. 3:14-16, citing Stewardson Decl., ¶4.) In support of its position, Defendant provides the declaration of Scott Stewardson, Defendant’s Human Resources Manager, who attests to the following:

3. It was my responsibility and I did the work gathering the job costing reports in PDF format for production in response to the court order on December 29 for production on January 16. Ultimately, we produced 3498 pages of records. It took me approximately 80 hours of work to pull the records and get them to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Document Request and Compel Compliance in Department 25

REW’S attorneys so they could be produced to PHILLIPS’S attorneys for the January 16, 2026, production.

4. REW does not have a habit of working with these records in the way that PHILLIPS’ attorneys seem to think that we do. We regularly have Staffware print reports that we use as needed. The PDFs that we produced to PHILLIPS represent the way that REW uses Staffware in our course of business. The concept of wanting electronic files for “meta data analysis” is completely foreign to REW business operations – a litigation concept, not a concept relevant to running an electrical contracting business. Providing the PDFs most accurately reflected the information in useable form to us, and I am unclear on why REW must provide it in any other format.

5. I testified at my deposition on February 27 that the Staffware program can generate CSV files and spreadsheets, but I did not explain how time consuming the task is. It is not a normal process for anyone at REW. I have now spent time with the Staffware program to understand and estimate that it will take me an additional 32-40 hours to produce the records in the form that PHILLIPS is now asking for, for the first time.

(Stewardson Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) Defendant maintains that it has satisfied its discovery obligations.

Here, Plaintiff did not appear to specify that the records were to be produced in Excel or in a sortable format. Accordingly, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(d)(1) applies:

Unless the parties otherwise agree or the court otherwise orders, the following shall apply:

(1) If a demand for production does not specify a form or forms for producing a type of electronically stored information, the responding party shall produce the information in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable.

Here, Defendant seemingly agrees that the searchable/spreadsheet does in fact exist, and further, can in fact be generated by the Staffware program, albeit, according to Defendant, may require some time to produce. (See Stewardson Decl., ¶ 5.) Nevertheless, Defendant has opted to produce the responsive documents in static PDF

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Document Request and Compel Compliance in Department 25

format. While it is true that a party need not produce the same electronically store information in more than one form (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280(d)(2)), this limitation only applies unless the Court orders otherwise and contemplates the information being in a reasonably useable form or in a manner in which it was ordinarily maintained.

Under persuasive federal precedent, production of ESI in PDF format “may not be sufficient if the requesting party can show that the format [is] not ‘reasonably usable’ and that the native format, with accompanying metadata, meet the criteria of reasonably usable” while the PDF format does not. (City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc. (C.D.Cal. 2011) 277 F.R.D. 578, 583; Ellis v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 853, 862, fn.6.) It would seem that searchability and sortability are key features to “reasonable usability.” Indeed, as is supported by the Plaintiff’s expert’s proffered declaration, providing the data in a flat or static PDF format “suppresses the document of its utility.” Accordingly, the Court finds that, based upon the record before it, Defendant has not complied with its statement to produce all responsive documents, as the documents produced were not in a reasonably useable form.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production to Requests Nos. 41, 43, and 45, is GRANTED. Defendant shall produce all documents responsive these requests in a sortable/spreadsheet format (CSV/Excel format).

Code Compliant Responses: Requests for Production Nos. 38, and 41-45

As it relates to each of Requests Nos. 38, and 41-45, Plaintiff also argues that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a), Defendant must be compelled to provide further responses identifying the specific request number to which each document corresponds, and to provide further responses reorganizing and labeling its mass production to identify the specific request number each document corresponds to. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant’s responses were deficient as the responses failed to identify the intended production format of the production, as is required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(c).

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) provides the following:

Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Document Request and Compel Compliance in Department 25

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(c) provides:

If a party responding to a demand for production of electronically stored information objects to a specified form for producing the information, or if no form is specified in the demand, the responding party shall state in its response the form in which it intends to produce each type of information.

As set forth above, Defendant does not appear to substantively oppose these arguments, which is construed as a concession on the merits of this motion (see, e.g., D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn.4.) Indeed, as set forth above, Defendant, seemingly conceding certain deficiencies in these responses, states that, “further supplemental verified pleadings that incorporates the email record will be useful for both parties, and will provide them (with Bates-stamping the additional documents.” (Id., p. 6:3-10.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 38, and 41-45, is GRANTED.

B. Issue Sanctions

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, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Document Request and Compel Compliance in Department 25

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.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as set forth herein and Plaintiff’s request for issue sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant shall produce all documents responsive Requests for Production Nos. 41, 43, and 45, in a sortable/spreadsheet format.

Defendant shall serve further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 38 and 41–45, which are Code compliant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.280(a), (c).)

Consistent with the above, Plaintiff shall serve verified further amended responses, and all responsive documents, by no later than March 23, 2026, unless the parties otherwise agree to a later date confirmed in writing.

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.)