McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc.

RG21095240: McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to Augment Expert Witness Designation and to Extend Expert Discovery Cut Off (filed as an Ex parte) CRS# A-21095240-005 in Department 22

Tentative Ruling - 08/11/2026 Han N. Tran

Defendant Titanium Metals Corporation’s motion to augment expert witness designation and extend expert discovery cutoff is DENIED. BACKGROUND This case arises out of alleged exposure to decedent Susan McKinney as a consequence of “take home exposure” to her husband’s 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 decedent’s injury.

Trial of this matter is imminent. Defendant Titanium Metals Corporation (“Defendant”) submitted an ex parte application for an order to augment its expert witness list to add (1) James Heffron; (2) Chris Beningo; and (3) Douglas McCoy or in the alternative, to extend the expert discovery cutoff to allow Plaintiffs to depose Defendant’s expert witnesses. LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.610, subd. (a)(1) provides that “[o]n motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to . . . [a]ugment that party’s expert witness list and declaration by adding the name and address of any expert witness whom that party has subsequently retained.” Section 2034.610, subd. (b) provides that a motion “shall be made at a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit.”

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 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 RG21095240: McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to Augment Expert Witness Designation and to Extend Expert Discovery Cut Off (filed as an Ex parte) CRS# A-21095240-005 in Department 22 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.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that it only learned of its need to augment its expert witness designation on July 15, 2026 when Plaintiffs’ expert pathologist testified that he “assumes” the gaskets with which Mr. McKinney worked were asbestos-containing. (Torres Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant contends that one of the experts it seeks to disclose as part of the augmentation, James Heffron, would testify that the gaskets Mr. McKinney worked with at the Vallejo facility were not asbestoscontaining. (Ex Parte App. at 6:12-6:14.)

Plaintiffs oppose the application on the grounds that Defendant did not act diligently in seeking to augment its designations. The court agrees. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant learned of the facts giving rise to this motion at the deposition of decedent’s son and Mr. McKinney’s stepson, John Pendleton, which occurred on August 29 and October 3, 2025. Mr. Pendleton testified regarding Mr. McKinney’s work replacing gaskets on furnaces and valves during the period they worked together, 1988-1991.

Mr. Pendleton testified that he and Mr. McKinney worked with Garlock and Darcoid gaskets, and that the replacement work they performed would create dust. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s MSJ included expert testimony from Dr. Ellenbecker, who found that it was more likely than not that these brands of gaskets contained asbestos during that 1988-1991 period. The court’s ruling on MSJ similarly found that the gaskets in question more likely than not incorporated asbestos. (Macomber Decl., Exh.

B.) Thus, the record indicates that Defendant was aware that Plaintiffs would argue that the gaskets Mr. McKinney worked with contained asbestos by no later than April 17, 2026, when the court issued its MSJ order. Thus, the court finds that Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.620’s condition (c) is not met. Thus, Defendant’s request for relief must be denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21095240: McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to Augment Expert Witness Designation and to Extend Expert Discovery Cut Off (filed as an Ex parte) CRS# A-21095240-005 in Department 22 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 the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.