Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 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.

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 Special 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 special interrogatories, interrogatories Nos. 30-34 and 36-37 (Sets 5 and 6), 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 Special 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 special interrogatories, set five, 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.) On June 5, 2025, Plaintiff propounded and served special interrogatories, set six, on Defendant. (Id., ¶ 12, Exh. 5.)

On July 8, 2025, Defendant served its responses to the subject discovery. (Id., ¶ 13, Exh. 6.) On July 8, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter outlining the perceived deficiencies in Defendant’s responses. (Id., ¶ 14, Exh. 7.) 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 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

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 Special Interrogatories in Department 25

information sought to be discovered. (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings. (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. 30

In its response to this interrogatory, Defendant raised an objection on the grounds that the interrogatory was “impermissibly compound,” as “rough” and “trim” were different classifications of work. 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].) Having failed to adequately justify this objection, Defendant has not met its burden. This objection is OVERRULED.

Upon review of the propounded interrogatory and Defendant’s corresponding response, the Court determines that Defendant has provided a Code compliant response which is responsive. Namely, Defendant has provided an explanation of how it determined Plaintiff “exceeded the allotted time for completion of Rough or Trim of lots.” Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to this interrogatory.

Interrogatories Nos. 31 and 32

As to these interrogatories, Defendant raised objections that the interrogatories improperly attempted to incorporate documents by reference. This objection is SUSTAINED. These interrogatories refer to and request information regarding documents which are “attached.” An interrogatory must be “full and complete in and of itself.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 2030.060(d).) This requirement is violated when reference must be made to materials in order to answer the interrogatory. (Catanese v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1164, disapproved on other grounds by Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232; Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1289.) Having sustained this objection, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to these interrogatories.

Interrogatories Nos. 33 and 34

Upon review of the propounded interrogatories, and Defendant’s corresponding responses, the Court determines that Defendant has provided a Code compliant responses which are responsive.

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 Special Interrogatories in Department 25

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to these interrogatories.

Interrogatory No. 36

In its response to this interrogatory, Defendant raised an objection on grounds that the interrogatory was “impermissibly compound,” as “it seeks information regarding three separate individual[s].” In opposing this motion, Defendant has failed to adequately justify this objection. Defendant has not met its burden. This objection is OVERRULED.

Next, Defendant’s response also refers Plaintiff to “Documents previously produced,” which “reflect the pace at which Plaintiff was working.” The Court finds this improper. While a response to an interrogatory may assert a party's option to produce writings, to properly do so, a party must, among other things, specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained; the specification must be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210(a), 2030.230.) Defendant has failed to comply with these requirements.

Lastly, the Court determines that Defendant’s provided response is unresponsive to this interrogatory which requests Defendant to “[p]rovide every single instance known to Scott Stewardson, David Bloom and Jason Alapati (at the time they made the decision to terminate Plaintiff) of substandard workmanship.” Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 37

Defendant’s response to this interrogatory consisted of objections only, wherein Defendant raised general objections including: overbroad as to time and scope and relevance. In support, Defendant simply states that it “stands on its initial response.” In opposing this motion, Defendant has failed to adequately support the bases for these objections. Defendant has not met its burden. This objection is OVERRULED. The motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the further responses of Defendant to his special interrogatories, interrogatories Nos. 30-34 and 36-37 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth herein.

Where ordered to provide further responses, 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.

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 Special Interrogatories in Department 25

The parties’ respective requests for sanctions are DENIED. The Court determines that the 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.)