Motion to Compel the Further Deposition of Defendant Titanium Metals Corporation Through Its Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records and to Produce Requested Documents
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
RG21095240: McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Further Deposition of Defendant Titanium Metals Corporation Through Its Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records and to Produce Requested Documents; filed by Garold McKinney (Plaintiff) + CRS# 344935842514 in Department 22
Tentative Ruling - 08/11/2026 Han N. Tran
BACKGROUND This case arises out of alleged exposure to decedent Susan McKinney as a consequence of take home exposure to her husbands Garold McKinney (also deceased)s clothing, which decedent frequently laundered after Mr. McKinney returned from working with automotive equipment at an industrial facility in Vallejo, California. Plaintiffs Melissa Keating, individual and as successor-in-interest to decedent, Jeffrey McKinney, and John Anthony Pendleton (Plaintiffs) bring wrongful death and survivorship claims arising out of decedents injury. Trial of this matter is imminent. Plaintiff moves to compel further deposition and production of documents from Defendant Titanium Metals Corporations person most qualified. LEGAL STANDARD
If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450, subd. (a).)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(b), a court may grant a motion to reopen discovery, taking into consideration (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 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.
DISCUSSION
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?”
The record is relatively clear that Defendants person most qualified, Michael Perry, had not been adequately prepared to testify on Categories 7-13. It is also clear that Defendant did not produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs requests in light of the fact that it produced no documents at all. RG21095240: McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Further Deposition of Defendant Titanium Metals Corporation Through Its Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records and to Produce Requested Documents; filed by Garold McKinney (Plaintiff) + CRS# 344935842514 in Department 22
Defendants opposition largely sidesteps the substance of Plaintiffs motion and asks the court to deny the motion based on technicalities. First, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs motion fails because Plaintiffs counsel stated that the deposition had concluded, then failed to re-notice the deposition prior to moving to compel. Second, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs did not meaningfully meet and confer prior to filing the motion. The court is persuaded by neither contention. First, Plaintiffs motion clearly seeks to compel based on the original notice of deposition; Defendant provides no authority for its contention that counsels offhand remark that the deposition was concluded when she reached the end of her questioning requires a renoticing of the deposition in order to move to compel.
Second, Plaintiffs moving and reply papers adequately establish that they sought to meet and confer Plaintiffs counsel describes a telephonic meet and confer as well as follow-up emails touching on the issues presented in this motion. Defendants assertions are therefore without merit.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED. Fact discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of completing the deposition of Defendants person most qualified. Counsel for Defendant is ORDERED to meet and confer with Plaintiffs counsel forthwith to determine a suitable date for further deposition of its person most qualified. Defendant is further ORDERED to produce any and all documents responsive to the documents requests set forth in Plaintiffs deposition notice.
HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept22@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG21095240: McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Further Deposition of Defendant Titanium Metals Corporation Through Its Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records and to Produce Requested Documents; filed by Garold McKinney (Plaintiff) + CRS# 344935842514 in Department 22 the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.