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 Clinique Laboratories, LLC Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 120334054626 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/26/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT CLINIQUE LABORATORIES, LLC 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.

On August 3, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Clinique Laboratories, LLC (“Defendant”) further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories Set One (“SROGs”) and Requests for Production of Documents Set One (“RFPDs”) and requests monetary sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ reply states that it is “narrowly tailored” to address ten remaining defects following Defendant’s opposition, so the court’s order will address those items and considers the other issues to be settled and moot for purposes of this motion.

1. Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories 1-9

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s response to SROGS 1-9 are incomplete. SROGs 1-4 ask Defendant to identify each talc-containing product it manufactured, bottled, labeled, and supplied, respectively. Defendant’s response identified two products mentioned by Ms. Menor at deposition.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to SROGS 1-6. Defendant’s response is sufficient. Defendant’s overbreadth objection is sustained with respect to time period: Plaintiffs’ request is not limited to the relevant time period of Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposure, and Plaintiffs do not explain how disclosure of Defendant’s products manufactured, bottled, labeled, or supplied; or the contents of Defendant’s packaging of such products outside of that timeframe is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also offers no justification for seeking identification of products not placed at issue in this litigation. Defendant also submits persuasive evidence as to the burden of responding to this request as written.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to SROGS 7-9. These requests are impermissibly overbroad as to time and, to the extent these SROG seek the identity of retailers to whom unrelated products were supplied, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

However, Defendant’s amended response is deficient in that it only identifies “department stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Macy’s and beauty retailers like Ulta and Sephora” and does not 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant Clinique Laboratories, LLC Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 120334054626 in Department 18 provide a complete list of retailers to whom the relevant products were supplied.

Defendant is therefore ORDERED to provide a complete, code-compliant supplemental response to these requests, as limited to Ms. Menor’s alleged exposure period and the products placed at issue in her deposition testimony and any other evidence in this case.

2. Defendant’s objections and response to SROGs 35 and 36

These requests seek “yes or no” answers to whether Defendant manufactured or supplied any powder product containing cornstarch that did not contain talc. Defendant’s initial responses consisted of objections and an answer – yes. Defendant’s amended responses state that it has made a good faith and reasonable effort to obtain the information requested, but has not been able to identify responsive information.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to this request. Defendant’s separate statement in opposition maintains that its amended response is code-compliant and complete, but Defendant does not explain the reason for the change. Defendant’s initial response was presumably based on its corporate records. If that response was in error, Defendant should explain why. Defendant is therefore ORDERED to serve a complete, code-compliant response to these interrogatories providing either the requested yes-or-no answer or a detailed explanation of its inability to provide such an answer. Boilerplate language about a good-faith search is insufficient.

3. Defendant’s responses to SROGs 15, 27, 28, 31, 43-47, and 53

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to these requests. Defendant’s overbreadth and burden objections are sustained. The court agrees that Defendant’s response complies with CCP 2030.230 and requiring Defendant to respond in the manner Plaintiff seeks would be an undue burden in this preference action.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to this issue. The potential availability of documents from another source does not relieve Defendant of its obligations in discovery. Defendant’s contention in its responsive separate statement that it has nothing to produce are also dubious. Defendant is ordered to provide a code-compliant response to this request and produce all responsive documents within its possession, custody or control even if those documents might be available elsewhere.

4. Defendant’s response to SROGs 48-50

These requests seek information regarding Defendant’s history (or lack thereof) of testing its products for asbestos.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to these requests. The response is overbroad in the same

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 Clinique Laboratories, LLC Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 120334054626 in Department 18 manner as SROGs 1-9. Moreover, Defendant’s amended response is complete; it identifies the information known to Defendant and the Bates numbers of documents pertaining to the tests. Plaintiff’s contention in reply that the production of Dr. Sanchez’s 2022 report “confirms that responsive testing material existed and has not been produced” is speculative. Defendant remains obligated to supplement or amend its response if it discovers additional responsive information, but Plaintiffs do not provide a basis for a conclusion that Defendant’s response as written is incomplete.

5. Defendant’s objections in response to RFPD No. 23

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted as to this issue. Defendant’s written response to this request does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.220 or 2031.230. The response must indicate whether a diligent search has been made or the likely whereabouts of the documents. To the extent that Defendant identifies documents responsive to this request, it is ordered to produce them.

6. Defendant’s responses to RFPDs 31, 33, 35, 36, 52, 77, 85, 87, 96, 101, 107, 110, 111, 113

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to this category. Defendant’s overbreadth and unduly burdensome objections are sustained. The requests at issue are overbroad in that they seek all documents pertaining to “each talc-containing product” Defendant manufactured, without limitation on time or the products at issue. Defendant’s response appears sufficient within those reasonable limitations.

7. Defendant’s “no documents” responses

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to this category. Defendant’s assertion that no documents exist is deficient as stated. To the extent possible, Defendant is required to confirm that a reasonable inquiry was made, the reason why Defendant is unable to produce responsive documents, and the identification of a custodian believed to be in possession (if Defendant is aware of one). Defendant is ORDERED to provide code-compliant amended responses in accordance with the above.

8. Defendant’s response to RFPDs 80 and 145.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to RFPD No.

80. Defendant’s response consists entirely of objections. The request is overbroad in the same respect as described above, and in that it seeks information as to retailers for which there is no evidence that Plaintiff ever bought talc products. However, the existence and contents of indemnity agreements covering the products and retailers at issue in this case for the relevant time period are plainly relevant. Defendant is thus ORDERED to produce any indemnity agreements in its possession between itself and retailers from whom Ms. Menor allegedly purchased talc-containing products for

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 Clinique Laboratories, LLC Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 120334054626 in Department 18 which Defendant is liable during her exposure period.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to RFPD No. 145. Again, the request is impermissibly overbroad, and Defendant does identify responsive documents by Bates number. However, to the extent that Defendant is in possession of responsive documents pertaining to products used by Ms. Menor during her exposure period, it is ORDERED to produce those documents. If, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not identify further responsive documents, its response must so state.

9. Defendant’s response to RFPDs 90 and 91. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. Again, the requests are overbroad. However, within the limitations described above, the request seeks relevant information and Defendant has already indicated its willingness to provide a response. Given that it is the eve of trial in this preference case, Defendant is ORDERED provide a complete, code-compliant response to this request and produce any responsive documents in its possession to the extent that it is able.

10. Defendant’s responses to RFPDs 146 and 148.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to these requests. Defendant’s amended response does not state a reason why the requested materials no longer exists. If Defendant is aware of that reason, it must so state in an amended response.

ORDER For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART in accordance with the above. Defendant is ordered to serve complete, code-compliant responses in compliance with the court’s order within 7 days of entry of this order and produce any and all responsive documents within 10 days of entry of this order. Given Plaintiffs’ partial success, the court finds that Defendant’s opposition had substantial justification and declines to grant monetary 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

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 Clinique Laboratories, LLC Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 120334054626 in Department 18 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.