Joint Defense Motion in Limine #8; Joint Defense Motion in Limine #9; Joint Defense Motion in Limine #10; PPG Motion in Limine #1
25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 08/05/2026 Pre-Trial Conference RE: Jury Instructions/Jury Questionnaires in Department 512
Tentative Ruling - 08/04/2026 Elizabeth Riles
The Court, having reviewed the moving and opposing papers makes the following tentative rulings:
Joint Defense Motion in Limine #8
Motion to Preclude Testimony or Evidence Regarding Testing from Steven Compton
Defendants Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony or Evidence regarding Testing from Steven Compton is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Defendants seek to preclude Dr. Compton from relying on and testifying about testing of cosmetic talcum powder products and putty studies Dr. Compton produced. Defendants argue that reliance on testing of cosmetic talc is misleading because Dr. Compton does not know where the tested cosmetic talc was sourced and it is a completely different product than that at issue in this litigation. Defendants argue that the putty studies are also not the same products as those at issue in this matter and the talc in the studies came from a different region than the talc at issue here.
Plaintiff disputes these representations, arguing that Dr. Compton testified about talcum sourced from the same region that is at issue here and that the studies that are the subject of the motion were background information relied on to assert opinions other than Defendants talc had asbestos.
Though this motion in limine is directed at the testimony of Dr. Compton, the specific opinions that Dr. Compton is expected to testify to that rely on the studies in the motion were never identified. That makes this motion more abstract and less directed at a particular, identifiable body of evidence. (Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 936, 250; Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 670-671).
Nevertheless, experts may rely on hearsay in forming an opinion and may tell the jurors, in general terms, that they did so. (LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 487.) The hearsay must be of a type reasonably relied on by professionals in their field. (
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?”
Dr. Compton may testify regarding the studies at issue in this motion. Plaintiff denies that Dr. Compton is using the studies raised in the motion to state that because asbestos was found in this talc, it was in the Defendants talc. The Court can see that there is other relevance to the studies 25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 08/05/2026 Pre-Trial Conference RE: Jury Instructions/Jury Questionnaires in Department 512 including providing background for other opinions from Dr. Compton; specifically, demonstrating how asbestos may get in the air from the use of the compounds, among other things.
As with any expert, Dr. Compton may not testify to any case-specific hearsay that is not admissible through an exception or other testimony. Defendnats are free to cross-examine Dr. Compton regarding any of the issues concerning this testing. Further, nothing in this order prevents the Defendants from making objections at trial regarding the admissibility of specific testimony by Dr. Compton when viewed in its complete context.
Joint Defense Motion in Limine #9
Motion to Limit the Testimony of Mark Krekeler
Defendants Motion in Limine to Limit the Testimony of Mark Krekeler is DENIED.
Defendant seeks to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Mark Krekeler as unsubstantiated and based on speculation, and beyond his level of expertise.
Dr. Krekelers opinion as a geologist is grounded in his expertise. From all the evidence presented, Dr. Krekeler intends to offer his opinion that he believes that asbestos being found in talc mined in Montana is likely. Dr. Krekeler is sufficiently qualified to give this opinion, and his opinion is not based on pure speculation. Defendants arguments for excluding Dr. Krekeler, to wit, that he is unqualified to give opinions about mining or milling practices, that he cannot connect his opinions to a specific PPG product, go to the weight and not admissibility of his testimony.
Defendants experts are well qualified to attack plaintiff opinions and Defendants counsel is competent to cross-examine these witnesses. It is up to the jury to decide which expert opinion to accept and/or to what extent it will consider the differing expert opinions. This order does not preclude Defendants from challenging the witness qualifications to testify as an expert witness on the subject areas proffered.
Joint Defense Motion in Limine #10
Motion to Preclude Testimony or Evidence from Kenneth Garza regarding Fiber Release Testing
Defendants Motion in Limine to Preclude the Testimony of Kenneth Garza regarding Fiber Release testing is DENIED.
Defendants seek to preclude Dr. Garza from relying on and testifying about fiber release studies. Defendants argue that these fiber release studies are irrelevant because they involve other products and other asbestos ingredients, and the testing and its results are case-specific hearsay.
Though this motion in limine is directed at the testimony of Dr. Garza, the specific opinions that Dr. Garza is expected to testify to that rely on the studies in the motion were never identified.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 08/05/2026 Pre-Trial Conference RE: Jury Instructions/Jury Questionnaires in Department 512 That makes this motion more abstract and less directed at a particular, identifiable body of evidence. (Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 936, 250; Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 670-671).
Nevertheless, experts may rely on hearsay in forming an opinion and may tell the jurors, in general terms, that they did so. (LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 487.) The hearsay must be of a type reasonably relied on by professionals in their field. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 678.) Experts cannot testify to case-specific hearsay to explain the basis of an opinion unless the hearsay is properly admitted through a hearsay exception or admitted through another appropriate witness. (Id. at 685-686.)
The studies at issue are of the type reasonably relied upon by professionals in his field. He may testify regarding the studies at issue in this motion. As with any expert, Dr. Garza may not testify to any case-specific hearsay that is not admissible through an exception or other testimony. Defendants are free to cross-examine Dr. Garza regarding any of the issues concerning these studies. Further, nothing in this order prevents the Defendants from making objections at trial regarding the admissibility of specific testimony by Dr. Garza when viewed in its complete context.
PPG Motion in Limine #1
Motion to Exclude Evidence Concerning Unrelated Asbestos-Containing Products
Defendants Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Unrelated Asbestos-Containing Products is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
This is not a proper motion in limine as it is not directed at a particular, identifiable body of evidence. (Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 936, 250; Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 670-671). Defendant PPG does not mention any specific piece of evidence that it wishes to exclude. Without more, it is impossible for the Court to determine the relevance or admissibility of this evidence. Evidence of asbestoscontaining products may have some probative value if they demonstrate PPGs knowledge of hazards related to asbestos. Such evidence may also be irrelevant or specific discussion of asbestos-containing products Mr. Azar never used may cause undue prejudice. PPG may object to specific evidence offered by Plaintiff at trial.