Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Expert Designation in Department 25

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.

Plaintiff Frank Phillips’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Amend Expert Designation is ruled upon as follows.

Factual 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”). 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.

Plaintiff served requests for production of documents on Defendant on June 5, 2025. (Pimentel Decl., ¶ 6.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses on December 29, 2025. (Pimentel Decl., ¶ 7.) On January 16, 2026, Defendant produced over 5,000 pages of documents. (Pimentel Decl., ¶ 9.) In order to properly review these documents, Plaintiff was required to retain an additional expert witness. (Pimentel Decl., ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff now moves to amend his expert designation “to add a meta data expert for the purposes of facilitating the presentation of late-produced evidence that will rebut Defendant’s core defense in this case.” Defendant opposes.

Trial is currently set for April 6, 2026.

The Court notes that this is the second motion by Plaintiff to amend his expert witness designation. The first motion was made on the basis that Plaintiff erroneously withdrew one of his experts following a miscommunication between counsel. The Court granted Plaintiff’s prior motion for leave to amend on December 15, 2025.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.230 provides that the date of the exchange of expert witness information “shall be 50 days before the initial trial date, or 20 days after service of the demand, whichever is closer to the trial date, unless the court, on motion

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Expert Designation in Department 25

and a showing of good cause, orders an earlier or later date of exchange.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.230(b).)

A party that has failed to list an expert or fails to submit a declaration for an expert in connection with an exchange of expert witness information, the judge must exclude the expert's testimony at trial. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.300.) To amend or “augment” this list, the party must first obtain a court order based upon a motion made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610. (Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC (2017) 2 Cal.5th 536, 541.)

“On motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to do either or both of the following: (1) Augment that party's expert witness list and declaration by adding the name and address of any expert witness whom that party has subsequently retained. (2) Amend that party's expert witness declaration with respect to the general substance of the testimony that an expert previously designated is expected to give.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610(a)(1)-(2).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610(b) provides that any such motion (pursuant to subdivision (a)), “shall be made at a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010) to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit. Under exceptional circumstances, the court may permit the motion to be made at a later time.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610(b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.620 provides:

The court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses.

(b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.

(c) The court has determined either of the following:

(1) The moving party would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness.

(2) The moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Expert Designation in Department 25

of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the moving party has done both of the following:

(A) Sought leave to augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer the different or additional testimony.

(B) Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action.

(d) Leave to augment or amend is conditioned on the moving party making the expert available immediately for a deposition under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2034.410), and on any other terms as may be just, including, but not limited to, leave to any party opposing the motion to designate additional expert witnesses or to elicit additional opinions from those previously designated, a continuance of the trial for a reasonable period of time, and the awarding of costs and litigation expenses to any party opposing the motion.

“On motion of any party who has failed to submit expert witness information on the date specified in a demand for that exchange, the court may grant leave to submit that information on a later date.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.710(a).) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be made, a “sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010) to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit. Under exceptional circumstances, the court may permit the motion to be made at a later time.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.710(b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to amend his expert designation to add a “meta data expert,” following Defendant’s production of over 5,000 pages of new documents in January of this year. Defendant opposes, arguing that Plaintiff has delayed trial in the matter twice and has already received leave of the Court to augment his expert witness disclosure with respect to a different expert witness. Defendant argues that the instant motion is part of a pattern and practice by Plaintiff to delay. Defendant further argues that this is more properly an issue for the trial court to determine.

Having considered the arguments raised and evidence presented by the parties, and the record before the Court, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to designate the expert (Rebecca Dominguez) was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 03/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Expert Designation in Department 25

excusable neglect. In addition, Plaintiff promptly sought leave to augment its expert list after deciding to call the expert and provided Defendant with the proposed expert witness information. The Court further finds that Defendant has not shown any prejudice, and the Court does not find any based on the record before it.

Therefore, the motion is granted and Plaintiff shall be permitted to augment their expert witness list to include Rebecca Dominguez. Leave to augment is conditioned on Plaintiff making Ms. Dominguez immediately available for deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.620(d).)

The Court notes that nothing in this Order in intended to impede upon the trial court’s discretion or future decisions regarding admissibility of some or all of the evidence relating to a meta data expert and proffered by Plaintiff at the time of trial.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.