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

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant Estee Lauder Inc., re Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 706806546536 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/25/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT ESTEE LAUDER INC. TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by JOVY MENOR on 08/03/2026 is Granted in Part.

This Tentative Ruling addresses plaintiffs Jovy Menor et al.’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motions to Compel

(1) defendant Estee Lauder, Inc.’s (“Estee Lauder”) Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) Nos. 1-15, 27-34, 37-39 and 43-53 and Requests for Production of Documents RFPD Nos. 31-33, 35, 36, 50-52, 54-61, 77-80, 82, 85-87, 90, 91, 93, 96, 100, 102-118, 135, 138, 139 and 151-152 and for monetary sanctions; and (2) defendant Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (“ELC”) Further Responses to SROG Nos. 1-15, 27, 34, 37-39 and 43-53 and RFPD Nos. 31-33, 35, 36, 50-52, 54-61, 77-80, 82, 85-87, 90, 91, 93, 96, 100, 102-118, 135, 138, 139 and 151-152 and for monetary sanctions. (Estee Lauder and ELC are collective “Defendants”)

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (“MTC”) Estee Lauder’s Further Responses to SROG Nos. 1-15, 27-34, 37-39 and 43-53 in its entirety.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ MTC ELC’s Further Responses to SROG Nos. 1-15, 27-34, 37-39 and 43-53 in its entirety.

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ MTC Estee Lauder’s Further Responses to RFPD Nos. 31-33, 35, 36, 50-52, 54-61, 77-80, 82, 85-87, 90, 91, 93, 96, 100, 102- 118, 135, 138, 139 and 151-152 to the extent set forth below.

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ MTC ELC’s Further Responses to RFPD Nos. 31-33, 35, 36, 50-52, 54-61, 77-80, 82, 85-87, 90, 91, 93, 96, 100, 102- 118, 135, 138, 139 and 151-152 to the extent set forth below.

Defendants shall serve Plaintiff with verified Third Amended Responses to RFPD No. 96 no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, 9/10/2026.

The Court AWARDS Estee Lauder a monetary sanction payable by Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,500.

The Court AWARDS ELC a monetary sanction payable by Plaintiffs in the amount of $3,000. 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant Estee Lauder Inc., re Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 706806546536 in Department 18

ANALYSIS OF MTC FURTHER SROG RESPONSES

“It is a central precept of the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 that civil discovery be essentially selfexecuting. A self-executing discovery system is one that operates without judicial involvement.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.) The meet-and-confer process “‘requires that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution’” before approaching the court; and that “attempting informal resolution means more than the mere attempt by the discovery proponent ‘to persuade the objector of the error of his ways . . .

Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.’” (Id. at 1294 [quoting Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438].) Here, it is clear that Plaintiffs did not meet and confer in good faith to narrow the scope of their facially broad and unduly burdensome requests before bringing the present Motions.

The Court finds that most of the SROG are overbroad and unduly burdensome on their face because they are in no way limited to (1) the time period(s) in which Mrs. Menor reasonably testified she used Defendants’ respective products or (2) the specific products she identified. The Court SUSTAINS all of Defendant’s objections on these grounds. The Court also finds all of Defendants’ final amended SROG responses acceptable under the present circumstances.

In Reply, Plaintiffs attempt to narrow the scope of what they are seeking in their overbroad SROG discovery. However, the Discovery Act requires parties to do so in the good-faith meet and confer process before bringing a motion. This Court has previously admonished Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding their obligation to meet and confer in good faith about narrowing the scope of their overbroad written discovery requests before bringing Motions to Compel.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel each of Estee Lauder’s and ELC’s Further Responses to SROG Nos. 1-15, 27-34, 37-39 and 43-53 in their entirety.

ANALYSIS OF MTC FURTHER RFPD RESPONSES

In their Reply, Plaintiffs appear to narrow their Requests for Further Responses to SROG from the original 51 listed above down to the following 22: RFPD Nos. 31, 33, 35, 36, 52, 56, 77-80, 85, 87, 90, 91, 96, 107, 110, 111, 113, 116, 151 and 152.

With respect to RFPD Nos. 31, 33, 35, 36 and 52 the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Objections that each of these RFPDs are overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Moreover, the Court finds Defendant’s final Responses to these RFPD acceptable under the present circumstances, particularly with an impending preference trial date requested by Plaintiffs.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motions as to RFPD No. 31, 33, 35, 36 and 52.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant Estee Lauder Inc., re Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 706806546536 in Department 18 The Court SUSTAINS Defendants Objections that RFPD No. 56 is overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing. The Court might otherwise have been inclined to limit this request to the period in which Mrs. Menor testified to using Defendants’ talc-containing cosmetic products.

However, there is no evidence in the record on these Motions as to the period of Mrs. Menor’s use of these products, nor is there any evidence in the record that Plaintiffs offered to so limit the request during the meet and confer process before these MTC were filed. This Court has previously admonished Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding their obligation to meet and confer in good faith about narrowing the scope of their overbroad written discovery requests before bringing Motions to Compel.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motions as to RFPD No.

56.

The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Objections that RFPD Nos. 77-80 are overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Although the Court might otherwise have been inclined to limit or narrow these RFPD as discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that Plaintiffs offered to limit or narrow their facially overbroad RFPD in the meet and confer process before bringing these MTC.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motions as to RFPD Nos. 77-80.

The Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Objections that RFPD Nos. 85 and 87 are overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing for the reasons set forth above.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motions as to RFPD Nos. 85 and 87.

The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Objections that RFPD Nos. 90 and 91 are overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Although the Court might otherwise have been inclined to limit or narrow these RFPD as discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that Plaintiffs offered to limit or narrow their facially overbroad RFPD in the meet and confer process before bringing these MTC.

The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Objection to RFPD No. 96, seeking all “ASBESTOS safety policies.” Any and all safety policies Defendants have with respect to asbestos are discoverable and reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, Defendants’ statements that they “will comply in part” is unacceptable.

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MTC with respect to RFPD No.

96.

The Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Objections that RFPD No. 107, 110 and 111 are overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing for the reasons set forth above.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motions as to RFPD Nos. 107, 110, 111 and 113.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant Estee Lauder Inc., re Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 706806546536 in Department 18

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motions as to RFPD No. 116. The Court finds Defendants’ respective Second Amended Responses to RFPD No. 116 acceptable under the circumstances.

The Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Objections that RFPD No. 151 and 152 are overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing for the reasons set forth above.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motions as to RFPD Nos. 151 and 152.

The Court AWARDS Estee Lauder a monetary sanction payable by Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,500.The Court AWARDS ELC a monetary sanction payable by Plaintiffs in the amount of $3,000.

The Court finds these sanctions awards appropriate under the circumstances where the MTC were overwhelmingly lacking in merit and should not have been brought before good faith efforts were made in the meet and confer process to narrow or limit the scope of Plaintiff’s facially overbroad requests.

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.