Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Discovery & Request for $2,890 in Monetary Sanctions 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 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Discovery & Request for $2,890 in Monetary Sanctions 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” or “Phillips”) to reopen discovery and request for monetary sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

Background

Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 15, 2023. This is a wrongful termination action pertaining to the employment of Plaintiff by Defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant Republic Electric West, Inc. (“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 (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 initial trial date from August 26, 2025, to February 3, 2026. (Ibid.)

Notably, a trial continuance does not operate to reopen discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(b).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020(a), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” As such, based upon the original trial date of August 26, 2025, the discovery cutoff date was July 25, 2025.

Discussion

Through this motion, Plaintiff requests the Court reopen discovery “to allow completion| of expert discovery as appropriate in light of the Court’s rulings on the pending expert-related motions; and to permit focused follow-up written discovery and fact depositions that flow from the Court’s rulings on Plaintiff’s pending motions to compel.” (Ntc. Mot.) Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,890. (Ibid.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Discovery & Request for $2,890 in Monetary Sanctions in Department 25

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 provides that on motion of any party, the court may reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. In exercising its discretion to grant or deny such motion, the Court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(b).)

In support of this motion, Plaintiff argues: (1) that the remaining discovery goes directly to the core issues of liability, pretext, and damages; (2) Plaintiff was diligent throughout the litigation as he did not wait until the eve of the discovery cutoff to begin discovery; (3) it would be fundamentally unfair to hold Plaintiff to the discovery cutoff as “the only reason his motions could not be heard earlier is that the Court’s calendar was full”; (4) if discovery is not reopened, Plaintiff will be unable to obtain complete responses to written discovery, and will surfer prejudice; and (5) the parties would have “approximately three additional months to conduct discovery from the filing of this Motion[1] to the current February 3, 2026 trial date.” (Mov. MPA, pp. 6:9-9:11.)

Defendant opposes the motion. In opposition Defendant states that it does “not dispute that the pending motions by PHILLIPS to compel further responses must be resolved, one way or another. REW is engaged with PHILLIPS on each of those motions. REW will, of course, honor the Court’s rulings on those motions. These discovery motions to resolve past discovery issues do not require discovery to be reopened, because the requests themselves are old.” In this regard, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is “unserious and unnecessary.” Notably, Defendant raises no other substantive arguments in opposition and seemingly concedes necessity of the pending discovery motions.

Contrary to Defendant’s position, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020(a), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Discovery & Request for $2,890 in Monetary Sanctions in Department 25

complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Emphasis added.) As such, based upon the original trial date of August 26, 2025, the last date to have discovery motions heard was August 11, 2025.

The crux of Plaintiff’s arguments in support of reopening discovery regard Plaintiff’ pending motions to compel further responses to certain written discovery, which are presently set for hearing on December 29, 2025. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel attests that “REW’s responses were incomplete and evasive. Plaintiff engaged in multiple rounds of meet-and-confer correspondence and telephonic conferences in an effort to avoid motion practice. When it became clear that REW would not provide complete responses or produce the underlying reports and data, Plaintiff timely filed motions to compel further responses to form and special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents, and a motion to compel production of core job costing and layoff-related records.

Those motions were filed sufficiently in advance of the original discovery cutoff, but the first hearing dates available on the Court’s calendar were after the original August 26, 2025 trial date.” (Koleson Decl., ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff also seeks to reopen discovery so as to complete outstanding expert discovery. Plaintiff states that “[t]he discovery Plaintiff now seeks to complete is necessarily tied to the Court’s rulings on these pending motions and to REW’s amended responses and promised productions, including follow-up written discovery and document requests related to information at issue in Plaintiff’s pending discovery motions, expert review and analysis of those belatedly produced materials, focused depositions of REW’s percipient witnesses and decision-makers to confront them with the data they say they relied upon, and expert depositions and related discovery driven by the Court’s rulings on the pending expert motions.” (Koleson Decl., ¶ 9.)

Having considered the arguments raised by the parties, the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, and the record before the Court, the Court finds good cause to exercise its discretion to reopen discovery, for limited purposes. Specifically, with respect to the areas of discovery set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has set forth the need for the discovery/resolution of the issues raised by the motion and the Court finds sufficient diligence in seeking relief. (See 8/22/2025 Order at p. 3 [“The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff acted diligently in pursuing discovery and pursuing relief to resolve the pending discovery disputes.”].) The Court does not find that the discovery set forth below is likely to prevent the case from proceeding to trial on the continued date or cause prejudice to Defendant.

As such, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED, 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Discovery & Request for $2,890 in Monetary Sanctions in Department 25

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[2] (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.

For all other purposes, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s request to “permit focused followup written discovery and fact depositions that flow from the Court’s rulings” the motion is DENIED. The Court finds that such additional discovery is likely to prevent the trial to move forward on the continued trial date, and the Court does not find that Plaintiff has acted with sufficient diligence regarding further fact discovery.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as set forth herein.

Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s respective requests for sanctions are DENIED. Given the mixed ruling and the circumstances before the Court, the Court finds that the imposition of the sanction would be unjust under the facts provided to the Court at this time.

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.)

[1] The Court notes that Plaintiff’s estimation of time (three months) is incorrect as it tracks from

the “filing of this motion.” This estimation of time is incorrect as, for reasons explained above, at the time of filing this motion discovery is closed. [2] The Court notes that, through this motion, it is granting the request to reopen expert discovery,

which may resolve the issues presented in this motion and the motion to compel deposition

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336281-CU-WT-GDS: Frank Phillips vs. Republic Electric West, Inc 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reopen Discovery & Request for $2,890 in Monetary Sanctions in Department 25

testimony.