DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV162809·alameda·Civil·Product Liability
Hearing todayGRANTED IN PART

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

Motion to Compel Defendant Conopco Inc.’s Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJOVY MENOR
PlaintiffBERNARD MENOR
DefendantCHANEL, INC.
DefendantCONOPCO INC.

Ruling

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant Conopco Inc.'s Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 205962694582 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/26/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel Notice of motion and motion to compel filed by JOVY MENOR, BERNARD MENOR on 07/28/2026 is Granted in Part.

On July 28, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Conopco, Inc. (“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 tailored to address nine remaining defects (although the reply only includes five category headings) following Defendant’s opposition and supplemental productions, 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 16, 18

These SROGs seek a yes/no answer as to whether Defendant ever warned retailers that talc could cause cancer or contain asbestos. Defendant’s responses assert numerous objections and states that it is unaware of any such non-privileged communications during the time period at issue and its (erroneously numbered) supplemental responses only add that it has performed a reasonable inquiry and diligent search but does not provide a yes/no response.

Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED and Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to these requests. The requests seek relevant information and Defendant’s responses do not answer the question as written. Defendant is ordered to serve amended or supplemental responses including a yes/no answer to these requests based on its inquiry and search.

2. Defendant’s response to SROG 22

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to this request. Defendant’s supplemental response (erroneously numbered 8) indicates, but does not state, that it does not possess communications responsive to this request. If this is the case, Defendant is ORDERED to serve an amended or supplemental response indicating that it has performed a reasonable inquiry and diligent search and declare that it found no information responsive to this request. If Defendant does possess such information, it must identify it in its response.

3. Defendant’s responses to SROGs 35-38 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant Conopco Inc.'s Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 205962694582 in Department 18 Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as to SROGS 35 and 36. The SROG as written is impermissibly broad in that it seeks information about products unrelated to this litigation and is not limited to the time period of Ms. Menor’s exposure. However, Defendant’s supplemental responses (numbered 9, 10) still do not answer the yes/no question posed. Defendant is thus ORDERED to serve responses including a yes/no answer based on the results of its reasonably inquiry and diligent search, as narrowed to the products at issue and the time period of Ms. Menor’s exposure.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to SROGS 37 and 38. Defendant’s supplemental responses (number 11, 12) sufficiently state that it has no responsive information to this request. It is unclear what “facts” Defendant is expected to state in response to these requests if it has no responsive information.

4. Defendant’s response to RFPDs 91, 92

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as to these requests. Plaintiffs’ requests is overbroad as to scope and time period. Defendant’s responses sufficiently state that it conducted a reasonable inquiry and diligent search and that it located no responsive samples. However, the responses are deficient in that they do not supply an explanation for the failure to locate, such as whether they were destroyed, lost, or are in another’s possession. Defendant is ORDERED to provide an amended response to this request which so states in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230, to the extent that it has knowledge.

5. Defendant’s objections in response to RFPD No. 146-150

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART to this issue. Plaintiffs’ requests is overbroad as to scope and time period. Defendant’s responses sufficiently state that it conducted a reasonable inquiry and diligent search and that it located no responsive samples. However, the responses are deficient in that they do not supply an explanation for the failure to locate, such as whether they were destroyed, lost, or are in another’s possession. Defendant is ORDERED to provide an amended response to this request which so states, to the extent that it has knowledge.

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.

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 Conopco Inc.'s Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 205962694582 in Department 18

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.

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