Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 01/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.

If a timely request for oral arguments is made, the hearing will be continued to January 5, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47.

The motion of Plaintiff Frank Phillips (“Plaintiff”) to continue trial is ruled on as follows.

This matter was scheduled for hearing on shortened time with a modified briefing schedule. As a result of the shortened briefing schedule, the Court has been unable to determine whether a timely opposition was filed. If oral arguments are requested, the Court will review any timely opposition that has been filed and will consider the opposition before making a final ruling.

Trial is currently scheduled for February 3, 2026. Plaintiff requests a 90-day continuance to complete discovery.

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Ibid.) “The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 [of the Standards of Judicial Administration] is that ‘. . . the necessity for the continuance should have resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by granting of a continuance.” (Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [emphasis

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 01/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

added].)

Trial in this action was previously scheduled on August 26, 2026. On August 22, 2025, the Court granted a motion to continue trial so that ongoing discovery disputes could be resolved. Plaintiff filed various discovery motions, which were previously scheduled for hearing on November 10, 2025 but were continued by the Court to require the parties to further meet and confer. The motions were heard on December 29, 2025, along with a motion to exclude expert witnesses. The Court has also recently granted motions to augment Plaintiff’s expert witness designation and to reopen discovery for limited purposes, without prejudice to a further motion to reopen discovery if trial is continued. A motion to compel deposition testimony remains pending for January 7, 2026.

Plaintiff argues the ongoing discovery disputes have prevented Plaintiff from obtaining essential evidence necessary to rebut Defendant’s anticipated defenses. Plaintiff further contends that based on the current hearing date for the remaining discovery disputes, there is insufficient time remaining for Plaintiff to obtain and review any additional discovery responses that are required as a result of the hearing. Plaintiff also anticipates that supplemental discovery, along with a motion to reopen discovery to permit such additional discovery, will be necessary. In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff has already obtained a continuance, have failed to show good cause for a further continuance, and unreasonably delayed in seeking another continuance.

The record indicates that the Court will have resolved all pending discovery disputes by January 7, 2026. The Court is not persuaded there is insufficient time to implement the Court’s discovery orders and for the parties to prepare for trial. Although Plaintiff anticipates there may be need for additional follow-up discovery, Plaintiff has failed to identify what essential evidence Plaintiff anticipates he will be unable to obtain or to explain why any such evidence could not be subpoenaed for production at trial without the need for discovery.

While the Court recognizes certain discovery motions were delayed by a continuance, the continuance was necessitated by Plaintiff’s own failure to adequately meet and confer prior to bringing those motions. Nonetheless, the Court has advanced hearings and ruled on hearings as necessary to permit the parties to complete the discovery that remains open. Under these circumstances, the motion to continue trial is denied.

This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 01/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 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 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.