AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al.

25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by AMIR AZAR (Plaintiff) CRS# 363592371725 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/07/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by AMIR AZAR on 06/09/2026 is Granted in Part.

Plaintiff Amir Azar’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel defendant PPG Industries, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “PPG”) further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPD”) Nos. 2, 9, 11 and 29 is GRANTED IN PART.

To the extent Ordered below, Defendant shall serve Plaintiff with verified Further Responses and produce all responsive documents no later than 10:00 a.m. on 7/20/2026.

Plaintiff apparently alleges that during the period from March 2004 until September 2013, he worked with his brother Ali Azar, who operated automobile body work and/or painting businesses that used Defendant’s automotive paint products including fillers, glazes, putties, primers, paints, clear coats and sealants, some of which Plaintiff alleges incorporated asbestoscontaminated talcum powder. The moving papers contain no evidence regarding the exposure period; however, PPG in Opposition appears to agree that March 2004 to September 2013 is the alleged exposure period.

ANALYSIS OF MOTION TO COMPEL

The moving papers are defective in that they do not contain a meet and confer declaration. This is adequate grounds to deny the motion, particularly where the period for which Plaintiff seeks documents pursuant to the at issue RFPD is from 1998 to 2018, considerably broader than the above-undisputed exposure period and PPG asserts the RFPD are overbroad and unduly burdensome. However, because this is a trial preference case with an impending 7/20/2026 trial date, the Court will consider the motion on the merits.

With respect to RFPD No. 2 seeking SPECIFICATIONS for effectively all products Defendant sold between 1998 and 2018, the Court limits the period of the request to 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2013. The moving papers contain no evidence regarding how long any of the auto body shops at which Plaintiff worked kept old paint products around before using them up or replacing them. Further, Defendant’s products manufactured after the end of 2013 could not have caused Plaintiff’s exposures that admittedly ended in September 2013.

The Court further limits the relevant paint products to the DBU, DBC, Envirobase and Omni product lines, the 2042 and 2055 clear coats and any products identified by the deponent for and/or the documents produced by Mac’s Distributing Company showing the products sold by it to Ali Azar’s body shops between 1/1/2003 and 12/31/2013. 25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by AMIR AZAR (Plaintiff) CRS# 363592371725 in Department 18 As limited, the Court OVERRULES all of Defendant’s objections to RFPD No.

2. Specifically, Defendant presents no evidence as to the time or expense to respond to RFPD No. 2 as originally propounded, an issue with respect to which Defendant bears the burden of production. As narrowed, the RFPD is no longer overbroad or not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence.

With respect to RFPD No. 9, seeking records regarding any decision by Defendant to remove asbestos or talc from any of its relevant products, the Court limits the request to documents produced or generated on or before 12/31/2013. Further, the Court limits the subject products in the same manner as RFPD No. 2 above. As limited, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objections to RFPD No.

9.

The Court limits RFPD No. 11 to documents regarding Defendant’s purchase of talc for products manufactured between 1/1/2003 and 12/31/2013 and limits the subject products in the same manner as RFPD No. 2 above. As limited, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objections to RFPD No.

11.

The Court limits RFPD No. 29 to any testing Defendant conducted or testing that Defendant became aware of on or before 12/31/2014 regarding the presence or absence of asbestos or asbestiform minerals in talc.

To the extent that Defendant contends any responsive documents in its possession, custody or control are confidential or proprietary, the Court ORDERS the parties to immediately meet and confer in good faith regarding the terms of reasonable stipulated protective order to protect the confidentiality of designated documents to the extent that no stipulated protective order is already on file in this action. In any event, however, Defendant shall produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody or control by the date set forth above.

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.