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

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel defendant Noxell Corporation Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 294004464113 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/26/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT NOXELL CORPORATION TO PROVIDE FURTHER, VERIFIED, CODECOMPLIANT RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; ME filed by JOVY MENOR, BERNARD MENOR on 07/29/2026 is Granted in Part.

On July 29, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Noxell Corporation’s (“Defendant”) further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories Set One (“SROGs”) and Requests for Production of Documents Set Two (“RFPDs”) and requests monetary sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ reply states that it is tailored to address eleven remaining defects (although the reply only includes ten 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 13, 14

These interrogatories ask Defendant to specify the time periods in which it obtained talc from the mines and suppliers that provided it with talc. Defendant’s response includes overbreadth, burden, relevance, and confidentiality objections. Defendant’s substantive answer refers Plaintiffs to previous responses, then states that it lacks sufficient information to say, with exact certainty, the time frame or geographic talc mines associated with each supplier.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to this request. Defendant’s response is deficient to the extent that it refuses to provide any substantive response on the grounds that it cannot do so with “exact certainty.” This is improper; Defendant is ORDERED to serve supplemental responses to these interrogatories which provide substantive answers to these requests based on the information available to it, even if Defendant cannot verify the “exact certainty” of the information provided.

2. 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 state that it is unaware of any such non-privileged communications during the time period at issue and 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel defendant Noxell Corporation Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 294004464113 in Department 18 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.

3. Defendant’s response to SROGs 22, 23, and 26

These requests ask Defendant to identify communications with retailers regarding talc’s potential to cause cancer, be contaminated with asbestos, and more general safety concerns as to talc.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to this request. Defendant’s knowledge of safety concerns regarding talc is plainly relevant to this action. Defendant’s responses indicate, but do 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.

4. Defendant’s responses to SROGs 35-38

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to SROGS 35 and 36. The SROGs as written are impermissibly broad in that they seek information about products unrelated to this litigation and are not limited to the time period of Ms. Menor’s exposure. Moreover, Defendant does identify one product line in response to this interrogatory. While the responses do not answer the yes/no questions posed, Plaintiffs can plainly infer the answer based on the response.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to SROGS 37 and 38. Defendant’s supplemental responses 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.

5. Defendant’s response to SROGs 41, 42

These requests concern whether Defendant ever placed Prop 65 warnings on talc-containing products it manufactured.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to these requests. Defendant’s relevance, overbreadth and relevance objections are sustained. The requests are not limited to products and time periods at issue in this case and Plaintiffs do not persuasively contend that these requests have relevance to this action.

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 Noxell Corporation Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 294004464113 in Department 18

6. Defendant’s response to SROGs 47, 48, 50

These requests ask Defendant to identify each test for carcinogens or asbestos content it has performed on any of its talc products and the laboratories in which the tests performed.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to these requests. The requests are impermissibly overbroad in that they are not limited to products at issue or time period. Defendants’ response is adequate in that it states the knowledge available to it and reserves the right to supplement its response if new information is located.

7. Defendant’s response to SROG 53

This request asks Defendant to identify each document as to whether it considered discontinuing the use of talc in products it manufactured. Defendant’s response contains overbreadth, burden and relevance objections and substantively responds that it manufactured a line of products that did not contain talc.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as to these requests. Plaintiffs’ requests is overbroad as to scope and time period. However, Defendant’s response does not address the question posed. Defendant is ORDERED to serve an amended or supplemental response to this interrogatory identifying any information in its possession responsive to this request, as narrowed to the products at issue in this litigation and Ms. Menor’s exposure period, or, if no responsive information can be found after reasonable inquiry and diligent search, so state.

8. Defendant’s response to RFPDs 91, 147-150

These requests seek historical samples of Defendant’s talc-containing products, tested samples of talc and talc ore, and TEM grids created during testing.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART to this issue. Plaintiffs’ requests are 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.

9. Defendant’s response to RFPD No. 118

This request seeks documents identifying Defendant’s executives and managers who had responsibility for testing talc-containing products.

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 Noxell Corporation Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 294004464113 in Department 18

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART to this issue. Plaintiffs’ requests are 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 documents. However, Plaintiffs’ argument in reply describing Defendant’s PMQ testimony suggests the potential existence of responsive documents. Thus, the responses are deficient in that they do not supply an explanation for the failure to locate, such as whether the documents 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.

10. Verifications

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Unverified responses to discovery are considered tantamount to no response at all. Defendant is ordered to provide verifications for all responses to discovery that are currently unverified.

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.

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.