Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (CCP 177.5)
RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 06/12/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (CCP 177.5) in Department 25
Tentative Ruling - 06/11/2026 Jenna Whitman
On the 5/29/2026 Order to Show Cause (the OSC) re Sanctions for alleged violation of the Courts Case Management Order, dated 3/20/2026, by Ellen Williams, the PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR.
The Court has carefully considered the OSC, Williams' response to the OSC, and declarations previously filed by other case participants regarding this matter, and is inclined to find that Williams violated the Courts prohibition on unilateral communications, while she was represented by counsel in this case, with other participants in this case, including the Court, the Discovery Referee, the Special Master, and/or opposing counsel, on the following dates: 3/29/2026, 4/1/2026, 5/8/2026, 5/13/2026, and 5/15/2026. (As Williams correctly notes, the inclusion in the OSC of a violation on 5/20/2026 was error; that description refers to the preceding email in the list, sent on 5/8/2026.) The Court is inclined to impose a $1,000 sanction for each such violation, for a total of $5,000, payable to the Court within 30 days.
The Court disagrees that, due to the use of and in the Courts prohibition on ex parte communications and unilateral communications while represented, that the order was ambiguous, such that the Order is unenforceable or Williams violations of that prohibition were substantially justified. Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Ctr. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474, interpreted legal text bearing little resemblance, structurally or otherwise, to the prohibition here. It is well accepted that the connector and is not, as Williams asserts, invariably interpreted as a conjunctive. (People v.
Pool (1865) 27 Cal. 572, 581.) Moreover, in interpreting the term and in legal texts, the courts rely upon more than mere grammatical structure; they must consider meaning and legal context. (CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 872, 905, citing and endorsing the analytical framework set forth in Pulsifer v. United States (2024) 601 U.S. 124, 141
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Relevant context and evidence of the parties' actual understanding may include, for example, the Referees 3/29/2026 Report that led to the issuance of the prohibition; the language of the 3/20/2026 Order itself (including the rationale for the order and the harms it expressly sought to avert); Williams 5/8/2026 email (in which she acknowledges by sending the email, she engaged in potentially sanctionable conduct); and the exchange of emails on 3/29/2026 and 3/30/2026 between Williams prior counsel, Mark Kirkland, and counsel for Janco Industries Inc. (wherein Kirkland admits that a unilateral communication by Williams, while represented, that was not ex parte, is improper, and also admits that he advised Williams of this).
In addition, counsel shall be prepared to address Williams prior restraint argument, including (1) the appropriate analytical framework for evaluating a court order regulating the channels through which Williams communications about this lawsuit to other participants in the lawsuit must be conveyed, rather than the content of those communications. (See, e.g., Los Angeles All. For Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 364.) and (2) whether the 3/20/2026 RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 06/12/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (CCP 177.5) in Department 25 prohibition passes constitutional muster.
The parties may present argument on any other relevant issues.
In addition, the Court expects to inquire as to various case management issues presently pending, and to issue a pretrial order, setting deadlines for pretrial tasks and submissions and relevant hearing dates. Accordingly, counsel should check this tentative ruling for a possible update at 10:00 a.m. on Friday 6/12/2026.
Department 25 is inviting you to a scheduled meeting. Please sign onto Zoomgov.com using credentials below.
Meeting ID: 161 8066 1142 Passcode: 5805
The Court is preparing an order re: Pretrial Conference. Anticipated deadlines related to trial preparation (along with other significant dates) are outlined below. Counsel and, if present, appointed neutrals, shall be prepared to provide any comments or corrections at the hearing.
DATE TIME TASK(S)
6/12 Hearing re Order to Show Cause 2:30 p.m. Possible conference re proposed pretrial schedule/order 6/22 Mediation with B. Edwards 6/23 2:00 p.m. Discovery status conference with Referee 6/25 3:30 p.m. CMC re: status with Court 7/6 & 7/13 Mediation with B. Edwards 7/14 2:00 p.m. Discovery status conference with Referee Parties to exchange (not file):
· Proposed juror questionnaires (if using) · Proposed neutral statement of the case
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 06/12/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (CCP 177.5) in Department 25 DATE TIME TASK(S)
· Exhibit lists · Williams to serve list of proposed jury instructions · Proposed verdict forms (by each claimant) · Witness lists All parties shall add to Williams list of jury instructions any additional proposed instructions and note on the table any 7/20 objections, and circulate the text of any additional proposed special (non-CACI) instructions.
Parties to meet and confer re: trial documents exchanged on 7/15 7/20 7/23 in an effort to prepare joint documents (eliminating duplication, resolving disputes, narrowing objections, etc.) for filing by 7/30 Pretrial documents to be filed/served: · Joint Proposed juror questionnaire (if using) · Trial briefs (not to exceed 10 pages/party w/o leave of court) · Joint table of all proposed jury instructions (in CACI order, plus specials) followed by the full text of all instructions (blanks to be filled in, brackets removed, redlined/annotated for 7/30 disputes) in CACI order · Joint verdict forms [one set for each complaint/cross- complaint, redlined to reflect any disputes about verbiage] · Motions in limine (nonexpert, only) · Any other motions re: trial management, structure · Affirmative lien claimants to serve proposed list of stipulated facts
Court to rule or, if necessary, set court hearings on any
outstanding disputed discovery referee recommendations Parties to file final joint witness lists (all expert witnesses and nonrebuttal fact witnesses):
· Table shall include fields for: Identity/role of witness, topic(s) of testimony, which parties intend to examine and
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 06/12/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (CCP 177.5) in Department 25 DATE TIME TASK(S)
anticipated length of each parties direct examination and other parties cross; estimated total time all parties for each witness · Table should also reflect overall time estimate · Witnesses in alpha order (surname) File and serve oppositions to non-expert related motions in limine, and responses to any other trial management related motions (and stipulations, if any) 8/7 9:00 a.m. Court hearings on MSAs/MSJs Discovery Status Conference with Referee 8/10 Last date for Referee hearings on fact discovery motions All parties to circulate responsive lists of stipulated facts (adding their own facts and/or suggested revisions to stipulations proposed by others) Counsel to meet and confer as necessary to finalize list(s) of 8/11-8/13 stipulated facts File and serve any reply briefs concerning trial related motions
Additional court hearings on MSJs/MSAs 8/14 9:00 a.m. File and serve expert-related motions in limine (for any experts who were deposed on or before 8/7/2026) 8/20 9:00 a.m. MSC Hon. Brad Seligman, Bruce Edwards Discovery Status Conference with Referee Last date for referee hearings on expert-related discovery motions 8/21 File and serve oppositions to first wave of expert related motions in limine (filed by 8/14) File and serve expert-related motions in limine (for any experts who were deposed 8/10-8/14) Joint list of stipulated facts to be filed and served 8/24 Tabbed binders of all motions in limine and oppositions thereto filed to date must be delivered to Court (or uploaded to
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 06/12/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (CCP 177.5) in Department 25 DATE TIME TASK(S)
repository) File and serve Joint Exhibit List The parties shall file a joint document outlining the sequence of witnesses as expected at trial. Court hearings, if any, re: any remaining (objected to) Referee recommendations as to fact discovery motions Proponent of any depo testimony in lieu of live testimony must serve deposition designation tables (one for each witness) and post editable versions in electronic library Resume meet and confer regarding mode of administration of the Juror Questionnaire and related logistics Discovery Status Conference with Referee File and serve oppositions to second wave of expert related motions in limine (for motions filed by 8/21) Objections and counter-designations to deposition testimony must be added to electronic tables Counsel shall meet and confer regarding the overall trial time estimate, current status of parties, logistics involved in multi- 8/28 2:00 p.m. party voir dire, number and allocation of peremptory challenges, trial schedule and sequencing of witnesses, a set order in which parties will present/ask questions at each stage of the case, technology-sharing in the courtroom, any agreements to feed the jury (snacks and/or lunch) during trial, and any other trial management issues they wish to bring to the pretrial conference.
Final Joint Juror Questionnaire to be filed with statement of plan for administration.
Lodge supplemental in limine binders (for motions re: second 8/31/2026 9:00 a.m. wave experts) or upload to document repository Pretrial conference (3-4 days) including 8/31 -9/3 · 402 hearings (experts must be available) and 9:00 a.m. · Hearings, if any, re: any remaining Referee recommendations on expert discovery motions to which objections have been filed
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 06/12/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (CCP 177.5) in Department 25 DATE TIME TASK(S)
Deposition designations must be lodged (in binders or uploaded to electronic document repository) and filed: for each witness, the proponent must include a completed table of
designations/objections/counter-designations, and all relevant pages of deposition transcript, with designations highlighted (by party/color) and objected-to testimony underlined in red Commence jury selection File final joint exhibit list (and lodge electronically) File final joint witness list 9/8 9:00 a.m. Bring questionnaires (if administered on paper)