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

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 000217868207 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/27/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT M.A.C. COSMETICS, INC. TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by JOVY MENOR, BERNARD MENOR on 08/03/2026 is Granted in Part.

On July 29, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant M.A.C. Cosmetics, Inc.’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 nine remaining defects 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 1-9

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s response to SROGS 1-9 are incomplete. SROGs 1-4 ask Defendant to identify each talc-containing product it manufactured, bottled, labeled, and supplied, respectively. Defendant’s response identified two products mentioned by Ms. Menor at deposition.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to SROGS 1-6. Defendant’s response, which identifies two product lines, is sufficient. Defendant’s overbreadth objection is sustained with respect to time period; Plaintiffs’ request is not limited to the relevant time period of Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposure, and Plaintiffs do not explain how disclosure of Defendant’s products manufactured, bottled, labeled, or supplied or the contents of Defendant’s packaging of such products (SROGs 5, 6) outside of that timeframe is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also offers no justification for seeking identification of products not placed at issue in this litigation. Defendant also submits persuasive evidence as to the burden of responding to this request as written.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to SROGS 7-9. These SROGs seek the identity of the retailers to whom Defendant supplied any talc product. These requests are impermissibly overbroad as to time and, to the extent it seeks the identity of retailers to whom unrelated products were supplied, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 000217868207 in Department 18

However, Defendant’s amended response is deficient in that it only identifies “department stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Macy’s and beauty retailers like Ulta and Sephora” and does not provide a complete list of retailers to whom the relevant products were supplied.

Defendant is therefore ORDERED to provide a complete, code-compliant supplemental response to these requests, as limited to Ms. Menor’s alleged exposure period and the products placed at issue in her deposition testimony and any other evidence in this case.

2. Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories 10-12; RFPDs 34, 35

SROG 10 asks Defendant to identify each of its talc suppliers.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to SROG 10. Defendant’s overbreadth and relevance objections are sustained. Defendant’s response is sufficient as stated; it is properly limited to the time of Ms. Menor’s exposure and the products she identified as having used. Nothing more is required.

SROG 11 asks Defendant to identify each mine that supplied talc issued in Defendant’s products. SROG 12 asks Defendant to identify the regions where the talc mines supplying them are located.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to these requests. Defendant’s overbreadth and relevance objections are sustained. In response to both SROGs, Defendant states that it has made a good faith inquiry as to this request and does not have responsive information. However, Defendant’s substantive answer (as to both SROGs) suggests that it at least possesses information as to the region(s) of the mines that have supplied talc for their products. Defendant is ORDERED to serve a supplemental response to SROG 12 identifying those regions and supplying any other responsive information in its possession, as limited to the time period of exposure and the products at issue in this action.

RFPD 34 asks Defendant to produce all documents identifying each mine that supplied talc used in any talc-containing product it manufactured and RFPD 35 asks Defendant to produce documents identifying the geographic regions from which the talc used in its products originated.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to these requests. Defendant’s overbreadth and relevance objections are sustained. Defendant sufficiently states that it made a reasonable inquiry and good faith search and does not have responsive information in its possession. However, this does appear to contradict its responses to SROGs, which seem to indicate that Defendant possesses information as to the regions of the mines. To the extent that Defendant is in possession of responsive documents, it is ORDERED to produce them, or provide a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 000217868207 in Department 18 supplemental written response explaining the apparent contradiction.

3. Defendant’s response to SROGs 15, 27, 28, 31, 43-47, 53

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s responses to these SROGs are not code-compliant because Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, which relieves a responding party of the burden of preparing a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to these requests. Defendant’s citation to CCP 2030.230 is valid given the volume of Bates-numbers listed and the probable burden of preparing a summary of the documents identified.

4. Defendant’s responses to SROGs 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.

5. Defendant’s response to RFPDs 31, 33, 36, 52, 85, 87, 96, 107, 110, 111, 113

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to these requests. Defendant’s overbreadth objections are sustained. Defendant’s responses indicate that it has produced the responsive documents in its possession limited to the time frame and products at issue in this action. Nothing more is required.

6. “No Documents” responses to RFPDs 56, 77, 79, 93, 116

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as 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, and that it has no information that they ever existed. Plaintiffs’ reply contends that Defendant must specify a statutory reason, but if Defendant is unaware of one, it cannot state one in good faith and need not do so.

7. Defendant’s response to RFPD 80

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to RFPD No.

80. Defendant’s response consists entirely of objections. The request is overbroad in the same respect as other described above,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 000217868207 in Department 18 and in that it seeks information as to retailers for which there is no evidence that Plaintiff ever bought talc products. However, the existence and contents of indemnity agreements covering the products and retailers at issue in this case for the relevant time period are plainly relevant. Defendant is thus ORDERED to produce any indemnity agreements in its possession between itself and retailers from whom Ms. Menor allegedly purchased talc-containing products for which Defendant is liable during her exposure period.

8. Testing materials

Plaintiffs state that remaining testing materials must be produced or accounted for, referring to RFPDs 146-148, which seek samples of talc that has been tested. Defendant’s response states that after reasonable inquiry and diligent search, it does not have any responsive items and that they no longer exist.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to this request. Defendant’s overbreadth objection is sustained. To the extent that Defendant has knowledge of why any samples relevant to this action no longer exist, it is ORDERED to provide an amended or supplemental response providing such knowledge, or to confirm that it has none.

9. Sample Inventory – RFPDs 90, 91

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as to these requests. Defendant’s overbreadth objection is sustained. Defendant indicates in its responses and in a meet and confer letter that it intends to provide inventory, sample identifications, and availability dates “as promptly as the process reasonably permits.” Trial is imminent and Plaintiffs risk being prejudiced by any further delay. Defendant is thus ORDERED to produce any and all responsive materials in its possession.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 000217868207 in Department 18 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.