DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV162809·alameda·Civil·Personal Injury (Asbestos/Mesothelioma)
Hearing todayGRANTED

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

Motion to Compel Additional Authorizations

Hearing date
Aug 25, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffJovy Menor
PlaintiffBernard Menor
DefendantCHANEL, INC.

Attorneys

Hillary Huthfor Defendant

Ruling

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Additional Authorizations; filed by Spanos-Przetak, Designated Defense Counsel (Defendant) CRS# 560707970849 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/24/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel DESIGNATED DEFENSE COUNSEL'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF HILLARY HUTH IN SUPPORT; [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Spanos-Przetak, Designated Defense Counsel on 07/13/2026 is Granted.

Designated Defense Counsel’s (“DDC”) Motion to Compel plaintiffs Jovy Menor’s (“Mrs. Menor”) and Bernard Menor’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) signed authorizations so that defendants may obtain copies of Mrs. Menor’s medical records regarding genetic testing conducted by Ambry Genetics Corporation and Tempus Labs as ordered by Mrs. Menor’s treating physicians is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs shall provide DDC with appropriate authorizations as to Ambry Genetics Corporation and Tempus Labs no later than 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, 9/1/2026.

The Court finds that defendants are entitled to all of Mrs. Menor’s medical records concerning her treatment for her alleged malignant mesothelioma, including genetic testing ordered by Mrs. Menor’s treating physicians and medical providers for the purpose of developing treatment options for Mrs. Menor’s alleged malignant mesothelioma. Although Mrs. Menor has a recognized privacy interest in her genetic information, she has put at issue by filing this lawsuit her alleged malignant mesothelioma diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. The medical records defendants seek are basic discovery in asbestos torts litigation, and Plaintiffs have had adequate time in this trial preference action to negotiate a stipulated protective order to preserve the confidentiality of Mrs. Menor’s medical records, including medical records that contain Mrs. Menor’s genetic information.

Further, several defendants have indicated an intent to present medical expert witness testimony at trial that Mrs. Menor's malignant mesothelioma has an alternative genetic cause. Therefore, the Court finds that it is appropriate for defendants to be able to review the genetic testing already conducted as part of Mrs. Menor's medical treatment. This ruling does not constitute a finding that any such medical expert witness testimony as to alternative genetic causation would be admissible at trial as existing to a reasonable medical probability. (See Evid. Code 801.1.)

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 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Additional Authorizations; filed by Spanos-Przetak, Designated Defense Counsel (Defendant) CRS# 560707970849 in Department 18 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.

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