McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc.

RG21095240: McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Further Deposition of Defendant Titanium Metals Corporation Through Its Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records and to Produce Requested Documents; filed by Garold McKinney (Plaintiff) + CRS# 344935842514 in Department 22

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

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. Plaintiff moves to compel further deposition and production of documents from Defendant Titanium Metals Corporation’s person most qualified. LEGAL STANDARD

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(b), a court may grant a motion to reopen discovery, taking into consideration “(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery; (2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or the discovery motion was not heard earlier; (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party; (4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”

DISCUSSION

The record is relatively clear that Defendant’s person most qualified, Michael Perry, had not been adequately prepared to testify on Categories 7-13. It is also clear that Defendant did not produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests in light of the fact that it produced no documents at all. RG21095240: McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Further Deposition of Defendant Titanium Metals Corporation Through Its Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records and to Produce Requested Documents; filed by Garold McKinney (Plaintiff) + CRS# 344935842514 in Department 22

Defendant’s opposition largely sidesteps the substance of Plaintiffs’ motion and asks the court to deny the motion based on technicalities. First, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ motion fails because Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the deposition had “concluded”, then failed to re-notice the deposition prior to moving to compel. Second, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs did not meaningfully meet and confer prior to filing the motion. The court is persuaded by neither contention. First, Plaintiffs’ motion clearly seeks to compel based on the original notice of deposition; Defendant provides no authority for its contention that counsel’s offhand remark that the deposition was “concluded” when she reached the end of her questioning requires a renoticing of the deposition in order to move to compel.

Second, Plaintiffs’ moving and reply papers adequately establish that they sought to meet and confer – Plaintiffs’ counsel describes a telephonic meet and confer as well as follow-up emails touching on the issues presented in this motion. Defendant’s assertions are therefore without merit.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Fact discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of completing the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified. Counsel for Defendant is ORDERED to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel forthwith to determine a suitable date for further deposition of its person most qualified. Defendant is further ORDERED to produce any and all documents responsive to the documents requests set forth in Plaintiff’s deposition notice.

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 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21095240: McKinney VS All-Weather Architectural Aluminum Inc. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Further Deposition of Defendant Titanium Metals Corporation Through Its Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records and to Produce Requested Documents; filed by Garold McKinney (Plaintiff) + CRS# 344935842514 in Department 22 the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.