HILL, et al. vs BASCO DRYWALL & PAINTING CO., et al.

26CV171775: HILL, et al. vs BASCO DRYWALL & PAINTING CO., et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 165003291805 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 09/08/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion filed by HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. on 08/18/2026 is Granted in Part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Kenneth Hill (“Plaintiff”)’s deposition was taken over five volumes between May 26, 2026 and June 1, 2026. Plaintiffs subsequently submitted errata sheets as to each volume as permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.520, which included extensive additions and revisions to the testimony. Defendant Sterling Wander LLLP, f/k/a Honeywell International Inc. as successor-in-interest to Bendix (“Defendant”) filed this motion on the grounds that Plaintiff’s errata sheets impermissibly edit Plaintiff’s testimony to include narrative answers to questions not posed and make other changes not contemplated by Section 2025.520.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.520(b) states:

(b) For 30 days following each notice under subdivision (a), unless the attending parties and the deponent agree on the record or otherwise in writing to a longer or shorter time period, the deponent may change the form or the substance of the answer to a question, and may either approve the transcript of the deposition by signing it, or refuse to approve the transcript by not signing it.

DISCUSSION

The court finds that the delays Defendant identifies in receiving Mr. Hill’s errata sheets were of a de minimis nature and unlikely to prejudice Defendant or the other parties in this case.

Upon review of Mr. Hill’s testimony and the errata sheets he subsequently submitted, the court agrees with Defendant that the changes made to Mr. Hill’s testimony by way of errata sheets exceed the revisions typically made pursuant to Section 2025.520(b) and, in cases such as that highlighted in Defendant’s opening MPA, go beyond revisions to answers given to include information in response to questions not posed. However, the language of the statute also does not expressly limit the changes a party is permitted to make.

Neither party cites authorities the court finds to be on-point for this unusual scenario. 26CV171775: HILL, et al. vs BASCO DRYWALL & PAINTING CO., et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 165003291805 in Department 18 Based on the meet and confer correspondence submitted by Plaintiffs, it appears that this motion should have been avoided entirely. Plaintiffs’ counsel held a meet and confer teleconference on August 12, 2026 regarding the issues raised in this motion. (Guzman Decl., Exh.

E.) Designated Defense Counsel responded on August 14 (before this motion was filed) that Plaintiffs had offered Mr. Hill for further deposition defense counsel would prefer to wait for the court to rule on Defendant’s motion, which the court authorized in its August 13, 2026 tentative ruling. (Guzman Decl., Exh. F.) Now, one of the alternative remedies Defendant seeks in bringing this motion is for a reopening of Mr. Hill’s deposition for the limited purpose of examining him on the changes made in his errata sheets.

Resuming Mr. Hill’s deposition appears to be the most equitable solution to the issue presented. Striking the errata sheets entirely is a disproportionate remedy in that some of Plaintiffs’ revisions are routine and valid. A reopened deposition allows the parties the opportunity to probe the newly added statements. The court will grant this relief despite Plaintiffs’ retraction of their offer.

ORDER

The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer forthwith to identify a mutually agreeable date and time for Plaintiff Kenneth Hill’s limited further deposition, which, in light of the approaching trial date, must go forward within seven (7) days of this order unless all parties agree otherwise. The scope of the deposition shall be limited to questions pertaining to the changes identified in Plaintiff’s errata sheets. Defense counsel will be permitted four (4) hours to conduct this limited deposition. The court declines to award sanctions.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 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.