Motion to Compel Additional Authorizations
26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Additional Authorizations; filed by Spanos-Przetak, Designated Defense Counsel (Defendant) CRS# 560707970849 in Department 18
Tentative Ruling - 08/05/2026 Patrick McKinney
Defendants motion to compel additional authorizations re medical records as to Plaintiff Jovy Menor is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Designated defense counsel filed this motion on July 13, 2026, requesting that the court order Plaintiffs Jovy and Bernard Menor (Plaintiffs) to provide signed authorizations for the collection of medical records related to genetic testing from Ambry Genetics Corporation and Tempus Labs. These facilities require additional authorizations beyond those already authorized by the DDC Order in this case. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs refuse to sign the additional authorizations.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010, [A] party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action
However, a plaintiff who places a physical condition in issue is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific injury, and does not discard entirely her mantle of privacy. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864; Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 841842.) Disclosure may be compelled only where the information is directly relevant to the specific conditions in controversy and essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. (Britt, at pp. 863864; Vinson, at p. 843.) Where the requested discovery invades a protected privacy interest, the court must weigh the asserted need for the information against the privacy interest at stake. (
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?”
DISCUSSION
Defendants motion is denied. The parties agree that Defendants are already in possession of the pertinent records. Moreover, Defendants make no substantive argument that Ms. Menors genetic testing could conceivably be a cause of or related to her mesothelioma diagnosis. Cases such as Britt and Vinson, supra, place limitations on disclosure where the information sought is not directly relevant. 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Additional Authorizations; filed by Spanos-Przetak, Designated Defense Counsel (Defendant) CRS# 560707970849 in Department 18
The court also agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants motion does not meet the heightened standard for permitting further genetic discovery of Ms. Menor. The court has consistently allowed genetic testing solely as to specific germline (inherited) genetic mutations where the moving defendant has presented evidence in the form of peer-reviewed medical literature to support a finding that a specific germline genetic mutation can be [a] cause of mesothelioma independent of any alleged asbestos exposure the plaintiff has experienced, in recognition of the plaintiffs recognized privacy interest in his genetic information. (Opp. at 8:20-8:25.) Defendants do not make any such showing of peer-reviewed medical literature or submit any other evidence that the records are directly relevant such that Defendants right to the information outweighs Ms. Menors privacy interests.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.
CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest the tentative ruling, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov, and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 4pm the day before the hearing.