MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al.

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Merck's response to Special Interrogatories (Set one) and Requests for Production (set two); filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 215767463704 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/12/2026 Patrick McKinney

On plaintiffs Jovy Menor et al.’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel defendant Merck & Co. Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Merck”) Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”) Nos. 1-54 and Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two (“RFPD”) Nos. 31-154 and for Monetary Sanctions, the Court ORDERS THE PARTIES TO APPEAR at the hearing on Thursday, 8/13/2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept.

18.

The Court provides the following guidance to focus discussion at the hearing.

Plaintiffs served the SROG and RFPD on 6/4/2026. Defendant served unverified Responses on 7/7/2026. Defendant asserts that the failure to provide verifications prior to the filing of this Motion on 7/16/2026 was due to the medical unavailability of Merck’s person most qualified (“PMQ”) who verifies the discovery responses. Defendant presents evidence that on 8/3/2026, while this motion was pending, it served verified Amended Responses to the SROG and the RFPD, thereby rendering the Motion to Compel moot. Defendant also contends that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith before bringing this motion. This contention has some merit.

In Reply, Plaintiffs assert that there are six (6) remaining defects with the verified Further Responses that must be resolved by Defendant no later than the start of the hearing.

First, the Amended SROG and RFPD Responses are misnumbered. SROG and RFPD Responses must be properly numbered pursuant CCP §§ 2030.210(c) and 2031.210(c).

The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide verified Second Amended Responses to each of the SROG and RFPD that are correctly numbered.

The Court ORDERS STRICKEN the preliminary statement and prefatory Objections at pp. 2:1- 4:3 of the Amended SROG Responses and at pp. 2:2-4:15 of the Amended RFPD Responses. Neither CCP § 2030.210 et seq. nor § 2031.210 et seq. authorize preliminary statements or general objections of this type.

The Court is likely to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel by finding that the applicable period for the Responses is 1979 to 2014. Defendant’s Amended Responses appear to admit that current Merck, named as a defendant in this action, came into being when former Merck & Co., Inc. was merged into Schering-Plough Corporation (“S-P”) and S-P was renamed Merck & Co., Inc. Thus, current Merck is plainly a successor in interest for purposes of product liability pursuant to Ray v. Alad (1977) 19 Cal.3d 22, 28.) 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Merck's response to Special Interrogatories (Set one) and Requests for Production (set two); filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 215767463704 in Department 18 The Court is likely to grant Plaintiffs’ request that the RFPD Responses be further amended to identify which of the 53,298 files, containing 197,784 pages of documents, respond to each propounded RFPD pursuant to CCP § 2031.280(a).

If, as suggested by the papers, the documents produced are a standard production by Defendant in asbestos torts actions, Defendant should have a reasonable idea what documents are responsive to each request for which Defendant has provided an adequate statement of compliance pursuant to CCP § 2031.210(a)(1).

With respect to 139 documents containing redactions identified by Plaintiffs’ counsel that do not appear in Defendant’s privilege log, Defendant must either produce the documents without redactions or provide a revised privilege log containing the information required by CCP § 2031.240(c) or otherwise adequately explaining why the documents contain apparent redactions if, in fact, they do not.

The Court is likely to grant Plaintiff’s request that the privilege log be revised to identify the relevant attorneys, who they were representing, and who prepared either privileged legal memoranda or privileged requests for legal advice.

Based on the likely rulings above, the Court is inclined to award Plaintiffs a monetary sanction payable by Defendant in the amount of $4,000. However, the Court will be inclined to waive any such ordered monetary sanction provided that no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 8/25/2026 Defendant serves verified Second Amended Responses and a revised privilege log addressing the Court’s likely rulings above