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

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RICHARD KRADIN, M.D.; filed by ESTEE LAUDER, INC. (Defendant) + CRS# 954224206030 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 09/04/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel DEFENDANTS ESTEE LAUDER INC., THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., BOBBI BROWN PROFESSIONAL COSMETIC, INC., CLINIQUE LABORATORIES, LLC AND M.A.C. COSMETICS, INC.S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM PLAINTIFFS EXPERT RICHARD KRADIN filed by THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., M.A.C. COSMETICS, INC., ESTEE LAUDER, INC., BOBBI BROWN PROFESSIONAL COSMETICS, INC., CLINIQUE LABORATORIES, LLC on 08/24/2026 is Denied.

Estee Lauder Defendants’ Motion to Compel the Further Deposition of Plaintiff’s Medical Expert Witness, Richard Kradin, M.D., in which retailer defendants CVS Pharmacy, Longs Drugs Stores California, Safeway, and Walgreens join, is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Jovy Menor’s and Bernard Menor’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS OF MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendants seek to compel further deposition testimony from Dr. Kradin regarding eight questions or issues identified in the Moving Separate Statement. However, the Court finds that with respect to three of the questions, Dr. Kradin either provided a substantive response (see Item No. 7) or are rhetorical or argumentative questions such as “Are you really going to refuse to answer my questions about publicly filed litigation?” (Item Nos. 2 and 3), rather than questions seeking evidence that may be useful to defendants’ respective defenses at trial. The moving separate statement on a motion to compel deposition questions where the deponent has refused to provide substantive answers should identify specific questions or lines of questioning seeking discoverable evidence for which the moving party seeks to compel a substantive response.

Further, the Court finds persuasive Plaintiffs’ argument that Dr. Kradin already provided relevant deposition testimony in a federal action in which the current holder of Johnson’s Baby Powder cosmetic talc liabilities sued Dr. Kradin and the other two authors of the 2020 scientific and/or medical journal article entitled “Malignant Mesothelioma Following Repeated Exposures to Cosmetic Talc: A Case Series of 75 Patients” (the “Article”). In this prior deposition testimony, Dr. Kradin effectively admitted that with respect to three of the 75 subject patients (“subjects”) of the Article, Subjects Nos. 8, 11 and 15, he had provided medical expert witness reports in previous asbestos torts litigation, in which he provided medical expert opinion that in additional to cosmetic talc exposures, Subject No. 8’s malignant mesothelioma was caused by smoking Kent brand cigarettes containing crocidolite asbestos fibers; Subject Nos. 11’s malignant mesothelioma was caused in part by shaking out and laundering her husband’s dusty work 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RICHARD KRADIN, M.D.; filed by ESTEE LAUDER, INC. (Defendant) + CRS# 954224206030 in Department 18 clothing twice a week; and Subject No. 15’s malignant mesothelioma was caused in part by construction work involving exposures to asbestos-containing caulk, glaze and joint compound. (See Clancy Dec.

Exh. K at pp. 167:24-168:10, 214:1-21 and 219:15-223:24.)

Plaintiffs in the Opp. MPA 15:18-19 state that, “Defendants may use every page of the federal record to cross-examine Dr. Kradin at trial,” which the Court considers a binding stipulation that all defendants may use Dr. Kradin’s deposition testimony in the federal action, and also that of his co-authors, at trial in this action for that purpose.

Further, there is a protective order in the federal action that bars Dr. Kradin from identifying any of the 75 subjects of the Article. The continuing protective order provides in relevant part:

“17. The following procedures shall apply if a party seeks to disclose or make public any material containing a subject’s identifying information:

“(a) The parties shall redact the subject’s (or any of the subject’s family members’) name; date of birth; address; email address; phone number; litigation case number, jurisdiction, and caption; protected medical information as defined in subparagraph (b); and identification numbers (such as social security number, passport number, driver’s license number) from any public document. The redactions shall identify the subject of the Article by the subject’s associated Case Number in the Article.

“(b) ‘Protected medical information’ as used in subparagraph (a) is defined as: any information, regardless of the nature of the document that contains such information, that relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health condition of an individual, the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual.

“(c) In no event shall the parties redact any reference to or mention of potential, possible, alleged, investigated, or known asbestos exposures.

“(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Protective Order, material redacted in accordance with this Paragraph 17 is not Confidential and may be disclosed or made public.

“(e) The parties reserve the right to challenge the confidentiality of any material.

“18. Pursuant to the Court’s Order directing Defendants to file an amended answer, see ECF No. 73 at 22-24, and consistent with the Court’s decision that the names and other information (as set forth above) concerning all Article subjects, including those whose names are alleged in the Complaint, should remain confidential, Defendants’ publicly filed answer may redact any portion of their responses to Complaint Paragraphs 74, 89, 93, 100, 109, 117, 118, 127 and 128 that would require Defendants to reveal a subject’s name. Defendants shall provide an

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RICHARD KRADIN, M.D.; filed by ESTEE LAUDER, INC. (Defendant) + CRS# 954224206030 in Department 18 unredacted answer to Plaintiff and the Court.” (Clancy Dec. Exh. J; see also ¶¶ 2,3 and 19 thereof.)

The position Dr. Kradin took at his deposition in this action regarding what he may permissibly testify about pursuant to the federal action protective order appears far more expansive than what the federal court ordered above. The federal protective order expressly provides that “in no event shall the parties redact any reference to or mention of potential, possible, alleged, investigated, or known asbestos.” This exclusion would appear to allow Dr. Kradin to testify regarding his admissions that he had previously provided expert medical witness testimony that Subjects Nos. 8, 11 and 15 had asbestos exposures other than those attributable to allegedly asbestoscontaminated cosmetic talcum powder, at least so long as he does not provide any other personally identifying information about them.

Similarly, Dr. Kradin could be deposed regarding any other knowledge he has that any of the other 72 subjects has testified or otherwise asserted that they have had exposures to allegedly asbestos-containing products other than cosmetic talc products. Also, regardless of what the federal protective order might provide, the cat has been let out of the bag that all of the 75 subjects of the Article have been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, a health condition, since the publication of the Article.

Further, questions regarding Dr. Kradin’s intent to seek to publish a correction or errata to the Article in light of his and his co-authors’ admissions described above or seeking information from Dr. Kradin regarding whether anyone else has contributed funds for his or his co-authors’ defense of the federal court action are clearly not barred by the federal protective order. However, Dr. Kradin did respond substantively to questioning in his federal action deposition regarding his intent to seek to correct the Article based on his admissions regarding Subject Nos. 8, 11, and 15; and, as stated above, he testified in this action that he paid for his own defense of the federal action and that he was not aware if anyone else contributed to his defense of the federal action.

Nevertheless, a further deposition of Dr. Kradin does not appear to be reasonably necessary or appropriate in light of the impending preference trial date in this action because the issues identified in the moving Separate Statement appear to have been fully investigated in the federal action. As stated above, the moving Separate Statement does not identify any line of questioning defendants wish to pursue other than the admissions Dr. Kradin made in his federal action testimony that he had provided prior expert witness opinion that three of the Article’s 75 subjects’ malignant mesotheliomas were caused in part by non-cosmetic talc asbestos exposures.

The Court declines to award Plaintiffs monetary sanctions on this motion. As stated above, Dr. Kradin took an unreasonably expansive position regarding the scope of the federal action protective order, as discussed above.

As a final note, Estee Lauder Defendants’ moving MPA at 11:19-20 states in relevant part: “Dr. Kradin earned $500,000 from asbestos litigation in 2025 (Dr. Kradin Dep. At 130:6-10.)” The

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RICHARD KRADIN, M.D.; filed by ESTEE LAUDER, INC. (Defendant) + CRS# 954224206030 in Department 18 cited testimony at Lewis Dec. Exh. B contains no mention of Dr. Kradin’s expert witness compensation, and no portion of Dr. Kradin’s testimony attached as Exhibit B to the Lewis Declaration contains any such evidence. To the extent that Estee Lauder Defendants were citing to Dr. Kradin’s deposition testimony in the federal action, the moving papers are devoid of any reference to Dr. Kradin’s federal action testimony and do not attach it as an exhibit to the Lewis Declaration. Therefore, Estee Lauder’s counsel should anticipate that future similar lack of candor to this tribunal may result in an Order to Show Cause re: 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.