DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
21CV000179·alameda·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing todayGRANTED

CASTRO, et al. vs BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES LLC

Motion for Leave to Augment Plaintiffs Expert Witness Disclosure

Hearing date
Sep 8, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFrances K Castro
DefendantBRANDSAFWAY SERVICES LLC

Ruling

21CV000179: CASTRO, et al. vs BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES LLC 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Augment Plaintiffs Expert Witness Disclosure; filed by Frances K Castro (Plaintiff) + CRS# 354157801588 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 09/08/2026 Patrick McKinney

Plaintiffs Frances Castro et al.’s (“Plaintiffs”) unopposed Motion for Leave to Augment Expert Witness Disclosures to add Steven Paskal, MSH, JD, CIH to provide expert witness testimony in his capacity as a Certified Industrial Hygienist (“Motion to Augment”) is GRANTED, subject to the additional Orders below.

The Court’s 8/27/2026 Order Shortening Time advancing the hearing date on this Motion to Augment to 9/8/2026 ordered that defendants would have until 12:00 noon on Thursday, 9/3/2026 to file and serve any Oppositions to the Motion to Augment. As of 12:00 noon on Friday, 9/4/2026, there is no record that any Opposition papers have been served or filed.

Plaintiffs shall make expert witness Paskal available for deposition by defendants on or before Friday 9/18/2026, on a date acceptable to defendants. The Court extends the expert witness discovery cutoff in this action solely as to expert witness Paskal, as stated in the preceding sentence.

Plaintiffs' counsel must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and selfrepresented parties. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest the tentative ruling, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov, and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties before the hearing.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share