Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Discovery Referee Recomm. 23 in Department 25

Tentative Ruling - 08/19/2026 Jenna Whitman

Having considered the objections of Ellen Williams, the Court is inclined to rule on Discovery Recommendation No. 23 as follows:

PARA 3(A): Williams objects to removal of Landry expert Richard Hannum from the deposition list. The Discovery Referee’s Tentative Recommendation listed him for deposition on 8/28/2026, but Hannum was removed from the final version of Recommendation #23 without any explanation. In response to a query from the Court, the Referee advised court and counsel that this omission was inadvertent. The deposition, provided it was properly noticed, shall proceed on 8/28/2026.

PARA 3(B): Having searched the Register of Actions and CaseAnywhere, the Court was unable to locate any motion to exclude experts Amanda Robertson or David Bosse from testifying at trial. The Court will strike this portion of the Referee’s recommendation. If these witnesses are not produced for deposition by 8/26/2026, any party may file a motion in limine to exclude their testimony at trial. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.300(d)). Williams shall offer at least three dates, on or before 8/27/2026, when each of these experts are available to sit for deposition.

PARA 12: The Court affirms and adopts the Discovery Referee’s recommendation. No prior order precluded the Referee/Court from ordering additional site inspections, if warranted. There is good cause for such inspections. Herbst’s supplemental designations appear to be timely, and upon review of the register of actions and CaseAnywhere, no objections were served in response to the supplemental designations.

Any party who filed timely supplemental designations could have reasonably requested further inspections. Herbst sought to meet and confer on the issue on 7/9/2026. Williams waited a week to decline Herbst’s request, leading to this motion.

Herbst has shown good cause for inspection. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.010(d), 2017.010.) If there is any prejudice to Williams, it is mostly self-imposed. In any event, such prejudice is negligible given the likelihood that there will be a further inspection for Landry’s expert, Hannum.

Further, the Court will not (despite the numerous issues that were reported in connection with the May site inspections) exclude Ms. Williams from the site inspection entirely. All participants must strictly comply with all other orders regarding protocol. (Strike C.)

PARA 14(C): The Court will correct the apparent typo regarding future hearing date for Landry’s Motion for an Order Imposing Issue Sanctions. RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Discovery Referee Recomm. 23 in Department 25 PARA 14(D): The hearing on the Landry Motion for Leave to Amend Supplemental Expert Witness Designation was not filed sufficiently in advance of the 8/10/2026 hearing date to give other parties the required notice. Landry did not move to shorten time. This deprived Williams of notice and a fair opportunity to oppose the motion. The motion is not granted; rather, the hearing on the motion is CONTINUED to 8/28/2026; Plaintiff may file her opposition on or before 8/24/2026.

PARA 14(E): NC Marble’s Motion for Leave to Serve Late Expert Witness Designation does not appear in the Register of Actions on the date it indicates e-service (7/23/2026) and, oddly enough, the Court cannot locate it in the CaseAnywhere. NC Marble should check to ensure that it was in fact filed and if not, promptly file a notice of errata attaching the missing filings.

The Court has reviewed the courtesy copy provided by Williams. The Court will adopt the Discovery Referee’s recommendation. NC Marble has demonstrated good cause for failing to designate its experts timely. NC Marble diligently designated its experts on the same day NC Marble appeared in the action and promptly sought leave for the late designation by Motion, only two days later. Any prejudice to Williams could have been avoided by accepting the tardy designation (which was eminently reasonable, giving the timing of NC Marble’s entry into this case) and working with the Discovery Referee on related issues, e.g., scheduling any deposition of the subject expert, Dallas W. Powell.

Williams’ requests not addressed at the 8/10/2026 Discovery Conference:

Williams’ counsel orally requested to “unwithdraw” Paul Christoferson and Shakir Shatnawi from her expert list due to an apparent breakdown in settlement negotiations. Christoferson had been withdrawn on 7/30/2026, and failed to appear for deposition. (RT 29-31.) Shatnawi was also apparently withdrawn on an unspecified date, and Williams then sought to “unwithdraw” Shatnawi at the conference on 8/10/2026, but also declined to maintain Shatnawi’s scheduled deposition date of 8/13/2026. (RT 33.) As far as the Court can tell, these requests were made orally on 8/10/2026, without notice or an opportunity for any party to respond, and at a time that would likely inflict serious prejudice to other parties, both generally (in the form of disruption and the possibility of pushing depositions into the pretrial conference or trial) and specifically, because this would put depositions of Williams’ experts towards the end of discovery, depriving opposing parties’ experts of the benefit of her experts’ opinions at the time of their deposition.

The request is denied.

Williams also asked to reschedule depositions of Wong, Posard and Robertson to 8/24/2026 and 8/25/2026. Robertson is addressed above. Wong’s deposition was scheduled for 8/11/2026. On 8/6/2026 Williams objected, inter alia, that he was no longer available. Apparently, Williams also objected to producing Posard on 8/15/2026. The Court understands the Referee’s frustration. At this juncture, rescheduling expert depositions as requested threatens to upset the orderly and fair sequence originally devised by the Referee and the parties, which originally envisioned that Williams’ experts would be deposed first, so that other parties’ experts would have the benefit of those opinions before being deposed themselves. It was incumbent upon Williams to raise the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Discovery Referee Recomm. 23 in Department 25 issue with alacrity, full disclosure of the underlying circumstances, and concrete proposed solutions. Instead, Williams waited to raise the issue until the discovery conference itself. Williams’ counsel has not provided the Court with a declaration substantiating her experts’ sudden conflicts or a list of several dates when each experts can be available. The request, as made, was tardy, disruptive, and apparently unsubstantiated.

Notwithstanding, the Court will not affirm the Referee’s recommendation to exclude these three witnesses at trial, as no such motion was filed requesting that relief, and orders that these depositions go forward on 8/24/2026 and 8/25/2026, as requested. While the Referee may have been justified in declining to do so, the Court’s view is that the case should be, wherever possible, resolved on the merits, and other expert depositions should be deferred as necessary. This order is expressly conditioned upon the payment of sanctions, by Williams, to any affected party the reasonable costs incurred in rescheduling depositions as ordered by the Referee.

If such costs are incurred, the parties should first serve Williams’ counsel with declarations substantiating costs incurred, and if the parties cannot reach agreement on reasonable costs within 5 days, the party seeking an award of sanctions may file a motion, to be heard by the undersigned, for sanctions.

Further, any costs incurred by Williams to reschedule these depositions (e.g., expert cancellation fees) shall not be recoverable as costs, e.g., pursuant to CCP 1032.

The tentative ruling has been contested.

Department 25 invites you to attend the hearing via ZoomGov. The Judicial Officer requests that all participants appear on camera and log in using their full first and last name. You may test your Zoom connection in advance at https://zoom.us/test.

**Join ZoomGov Meeting** https://alameda-courts-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16180661142?pwd=fOgE7gNTEc7ctHa7adWeBVHFzEJ9Wm.1

**Meeting ID:** 161 8066 1142 **Passcode:** 4804