Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by AMIR AZAR (Plaintiff) CRS# 904794289565 in Department 18
Tentative Ruling - 07/07/2026 Patrick McKinney
The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by AMIR AZAR on 06/17/2026 is Granted in Part.
Plaintiff Amir Azars (Plaintiff) Motion to Compel defendant EIDP, Inc.s (Defendant or EIDP) 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 to RFPD Nos. 2, 9, 11 and 29 and produce all responsive documents no later than 10:00 a.m. on 7/20/2026.
Plaintiff alleges that during the period from 1998 until 2002, his brother Ali Azar worked at an automobile body work and painting business that used Defendants automotive paint products including as relevant to this Motion to Compel, primers, some or all of which Plaintiff alleges incorporated asbestos-contaminated talcum powder. Plaintiff alleges that he was a frequent visitor to the body shop where Ali Azar worked and that he resided in the same house with his brother during this period. Defendant is alleged to be a successor in interest to DuPont, a wellknown manufacturer of paint products, among other things.
ANALYSIS OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiffs unopposed Motion to Compel is GRANTED as follows.
With respect to RFPD No. 2 seeking SPECIFICATIONS for DuPont automobile primers, as limited by the moving MPA, marketed from 1997 to 2001, the Court finds this RFPD to be reasonable in time and scope and GRANTS Plaintiffs request for a verified further response thereto and for production of responsive documents in Defendants possession, custody or control.
The Court OVERRULES all of Defendants Objections to RFPD No.
2. CCP § 2031.210 et seq. do not authorize preliminary statements or general objections of the type Defendant seeks to incorporate by reference in its response to RFPD No.
2.
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 12/31/2001. Further, the Court limits the subject products in the same manner as RFPD No. 2 above, i.e., solely to automobile primers. As limited, the Court OVERRULES Defendants objections to RFPD No. 9 and ORDERS Defendant to provide a verified further response thereto. 25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by AMIR AZAR (Plaintiff) CRS# 904794289565 in Department 18
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court limits RFPD No. 11 to documents regarding Defendants purchase of talc for products manufactured between 1/1/1997 and 12/31/2001 and limits the subject products in the same manner as RFPD Nos. 2 and 9 above. As limited, the Court OVERRULES Defendants objections to RFPD No. 11, and ORDERS Defendant to provide a verified further response thereto.
The Court limits RFPD No. 29 to any testing Defendant conducted or testing that Defendant became aware of on or before 12/31/2001 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 subject to attorney-client or attorney work product privileges, Defendant shall provide Plaintiff no later than time set forth above a privilege log containing sufficient factual information for Plaintiff to evaluate the claim of privilege pursuant to CCP § 2031.240(c). The Court finds that Defendant has waived all other privileges.
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.