Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/31/2026 Pre-Trial Conference in Department 25

Tentative Ruling - 08/27/2026 Jenna Whitman

TRIAL COUNSEL OF RECORD for each party to appear in person (absent an order to the contrary) in Dept.

25.

The Court has issued a further order re Pretrial Conference which counsel shall immediately review and implement (e.g., meet and confer requirements, revision of witness lists, etc.). The following are the tentative rulings with regard to motions in limine.

Nielsen 1 References to “fraud” w/r/t Nielsen/NBI. GRANTED. Claims asserted against Nielsen/NBI in the TAC include negligence, contract and warranty claims, but none sounding in fraud. In her pending Motion Leave to Amend, Williams does not seek to add such a claim. The “special relationship" allegation is irrelevant. While the traditional use of in limine motions is to exclude evidence, the Court will not countenance attorney misconduct. Under these circumstances, the use of the term “fraud” to describe N/NBI’s conduct in jury selection, opening arguments or in other preliminary comments to the venire or jury would be highly prejudicial, constitute attorney misconduct, and furnish possible grounds for mistrial.

Nielsen 1* (see also Landry 8, Fautt 4) Testimony of Williams’ experts Amanda K. Robertson, David Bosse, Henry Wong, And Adam D. Posard. (CCP §§ 2034.300; 2023.010(d) & (g).) RESERVED as to experts Robertson, Bosse, Wong, and Posard, who will be deposed the week of 8/24/2026. If the motion has not been mooted, counsel shall be prepared to provide an update.

Barbero 1 Herbst/HCI (“Herbst”) from offering evidence that Barbero performed defective work. PARTIES TO APPEAR. Williams has not alleged that work within Barbero’s scope (drywall) was defective, rendering evidence of defective drywall work irrelevant to the claims asserted. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350.) While Herbst argues that exclusion of such evidence is an evidence sanction lacking the required predicate findings of violation of a court order or willful nonproduction, Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316 is inapposite, as Herbst/HCI affirmatively admitted that they have no evidence (of defective drywall work) that they could produce at trial.

Herbst shall be prepared to provide an update at the pretrial conference. If that is still the case, and no party is seeking damages from Herbst based upon Barbero’s scope of work on the project, Herbst’s continued prosecution of indemnity and other claims arising out of purportedly defective work raises questions under CCP 128.7.

Barbero 2 Herbst from seeking apportionment of fault or damages to Barbero in relation to Barbero’s work at Williams’ property. See Ruling on Barbero 1.

Janco 1 Opinion testimony by Williams re: quality of construction and/or resulting RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/31/2026 Pre-Trial Conference in Department 25 damages. RESERVED. The motion does not identify specific testimony or exhibits to exclude. (Kelly v. New W. Fed. Sav. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 671.) Further, as Williams argues, some common, obvious construction defects may be perceived by laypersons. Here, whether a defect can be disclosed by lay opinion or requires relevant expertise is an individualized, fact-intensive inquiry that cannot be resolved based upon the present record.

Williams may identify specific areas of concern and describe what she observed in those areas. If foundational testimony shows that expert testimony is not required, counsel may elicit appropriate lay opinion (e.g., the belief that certain work is defective because it does not function as reasonably expected, has obvious physical damage, visibly departs from the promised finish or design, presents a health or safety hazard, etc.) These opinions must be based upon the witnesses' own observations, not others' recycled views. Williams may not offer her views on the standard of care in a particular industry. (Miller v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1973) 8 Cal.3d 689, 702; Code Civ. Proc., § 2034; Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 352.)

Janco 1* (Joined by High End Devel Inc., TreCrew, Inc. dba Diablo General Eng’g. See also Fautt 3.) The opinions, conclusions, or reports of Richard Avelar. GRANTED IN PART, as to Avelar’s expert opinions, whether relayed by Avelar or another witness. Neither Janco nor Fautt have demonstrated that Avelar’s non-expert observations are inadmissible; however, no expert may relay Avelar’s observations to the jury unless those observations have already been admitted or deemed admissible after a 402/403 hearing.

Williams’ argument that Avelar may provide expert testimony, notwithstanding her failure to timely designate him as an expert, is unavailing. The parties were ordered to disclose their experts by a date certain in CMO No. 2 (9/12/2025). That date was subsequently extended in Discovery Referee Recomm. #1, adopted by the Court 3/20/2026. This was reiterated in No. 3, 5, & 6. Williams argues that those orders did not state that they dispensed with the need for individual demands, or that section 2034.300’s penalties would apply even without such a demand.

The Court construes the orders as a substitute for the statutory demand requirement, adopted pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128, 187, 2034.230.) Regardless of whether section 2034.300 has been satisfied by the moving party, the Court may exclude expert testimony, pursuant to its inherent authority to sanction violation of a court order. (Cottini v. Enloe Med. Ctr. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 401, 425.) Thus, Avelar is limited to percipient witness testimony, including, e.g. authentication of photos or other documentation that does not include analysis, assessments, or opinions; stating personal observations of physical conditions; and the like.

Avelar’s report also constitutes hearsay; thus, its contents may not be relayed by another expert, such as Robinson, unless already independently admitted. (People v Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665.) Robinson may rely upon the opinions of other experts, but unless those opinions are independently admitted, she may not relay them to the jury. She may only testify in general terms that she relied upon the opinions of Avelar.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/31/2026 Pre-Trial Conference in Department 25 Janco 2 Similar pending or prior actions/verdicts involving Janco. GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 352.)

Fautt 1 Family/personal problems of J. Fautt as affecting scope of work. GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 352.)

Fautt 2 Destruction, spoliation, intentional deletion, willful destruction of project or bookkeeping documents produced by Fautt. GRANTED. Williams’ opposition is unsupported by any declaration to support her bald assertion that Fautt intentionally lost, destroyed, or withheld records she demanded in discovery or that the brief delay in producing certain documents caused Williams prejudice. The only evidence shows that Fautt cancelled access subscriptions for certain accounting and project software, which merely cut off Fautt’s ability to access relevant documents; following Fautt’s deposition, Fautt retrieved those documents and produced them.

Williams has not shown that any metadata, deleted entries, audit logs, or the like were requested, and have been destroyed or withheld. Further, the reply demonstrates that Williams made no further efforts to obtain such evidence, including directly from the software providers.

Without some evidence tending to show that Fautt intentionally destroyed or withheld relevant information, the Court is inclined to exclude evidence offered by Williams solely for the purpose of supporting an Evidence Code 413 instruction (CACI 204). (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350, 352.)

Fautt 3 (Joined by High End Devel. Inc.) Expert/opinion testimony of persons not designated by Williams per CCP 2034. GRANTED. See above ruling re: Janco 1*.

Fautt 4 (Joined by TruCrew, High End, Herbst/HCI) Any expert witness designated by Williams who was not produced for deposition prior to trial. GRANTED IN PART as to experts Flynn, McKinnon, and Picco, whom Williams lists as witnesses. Although the motion is likely moot as to witnesses withdrawn by Williams (and who do not appear on the witness list), in an abundance of caution, experts Christoferson, Grimshaw, Nolting, Tachovsky, and Shatnawi, are also excluded. RESERVED as to experts Robertson, Bosse, Wong, and Posard, who will be deposed the week of 8/24/2026. If the motion has not been mooted, counsel shall be prepared to provide an update.

Herbst 1 Evidence of prior felony conviction of Joshua Herbst. GRANTED. Herbst’s prior conviction may be probative of his credibility, but only minimally, given that the conviction is so remote (over 25 years old, with no evidence of interim convictions). It’s slight probative value is outweighed by prejudice. In particular, the similarity of the wrongdoing (financial fraud), invites a risk the conviction will not be used solely to impeach credibility, but as improper character/propensity evidence, leading the jury to conclude, based upon past actions, that Herbst committed fraud in this case.

Herbst 2 J. Herbst’s (sham) marital dissolution proceeding and related events. GRANTED. Herbst’s marital dissolution and related evidence must be both relevant and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/31/2026 Pre-Trial Conference in Department 25 admissible for the purpose offered by Williams. First, it is irrelevant: alter ego is an equitable issue for the court, not the jury; and collectability on any judgment will not be an issue for the jury.

Second, Herbst’s financial interest in outcome of this case is obvious and undisputed; rendering any evidence of wrongdoing cumulative, and more prejudicial than probative. Third, to the extent it is offered “impeach” Herbst’s testimony that he did not financially defraud Williams, it is in fact evidence of prior bad acts to prove conduct on a specific occasion, i.e., disposition evidence. (Evid. Code, § 1101.)

Even if section 1101 does not conclusively bar the evidence, such evidence is inherently prejudicial and also requires careful analysis under section 352. The fact that this is uncharged (alleged) misconduct, for which Herbst has not been punished, creates additional risks that the jury will find Herbst liable in order to punish him for collateral wrongs.

Finally, admission threatens the undue consumption of time, as establishing that Herbst’s dissolution was a sham will require putting on extensive evidence on a collateral issue (regarding the terms and circumstances of the dissolution, the intent of Mr. Herbst and his former spouse, and whether any agreement to return assets existed). (Evid. Code, § 352.)

Landry 1 To admit evidence of judgment on professional negligence claim. DENIED. The Court denied the MSA on as to the professional negligence claim.

Landry 2 Preclude collateral challenge to prof’l negligence claim. DENIED. The Court denied the MSA on as to the professional negligence claim.

Landry 3 Evidence of damages incurred as a result of any alleged breach of professional architectural duties. DENIED. The Court denied the MSA on as to the professional negligence claim.

Landry 4 Evidence that Payment of Landry's K Fees Const Recoverable Damages as disgorgement following rescission. DENIED. The testimony of Williams’ architectural expert witnesses Posard and Robinson has not (yet) been excluded. Further, the argument concerning the proper measure of damages concerns jury instructions and permissible closing arguments, not the admissibility of evidence.

Landry 5 Testimony, evidence, or argument re: General Noneconomic Damages. PARTIES TO APPEAR. Landry should be prepared to explain why this motion was not filed timely. However, as Landry may raise the same evidentiary objection during trial, and Williams has had a fair opportunity to respond, the Court may consider this motion on its merits. Williams’ response impliedly concedes the issue. Williams should be prepared to address whether she seeks noneconomic damages from Landry and if so, on what basis.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/31/2026 Pre-Trial Conference in Department 25 Landry 6 To preclude challenges to R. Landry’s Architectural stamp. RESERVED. The motion was untimely; however, the evidentiary objection may still be raised during trial. Landry has not demonstrated that there is no witness who is competent to testify regarding the use of Landry’s stamp, including its application to the project plans. That said, any witness who does not lay adequate foundation may not testify as to these issues. (Evid. Code, § 702.)

Landry 7 Evidence of Material Terms Not Set Forth in the Written Contract. DENIED for failing to identify with the requisite specificity the evidence Landry seeks to exclude. (Kelly v. New W. Fed. Sav. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 671.) Rather than seeking the exclusion of particular testimony or exhibits, this motion seeks a dispositive ruling on a legal issue (whether the parties’ agreement included both written and oral terms). (R & B Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Farmers Grp., Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 327, 372.) In any event, Williams concedes that she does not seek to establish any oral modification to the parties’ written agreement. If she seeks to introduce such evidence, and it is not relevant to any other issue in the case, Landry may renew this objection.

Landry 8 Williams' Experts Amanda K. Robertson, David Bosse, and Henry Wong, Adam Posard. RESERVED as these experts will be deposed the week of 8/24/2026. If the motion has not been mooted, counsel shall be prepared to provide an update.

ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION: For associate counsel, only, or lead trial counsel who have obtained an order permitting remote appearances:

Department 25 is inviting you to a scheduled meeting. Please sign onto Zoomgov.com using credentials below.

Meeting ID: 161 8066 1142 Passcode: 1801