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

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel defendant Noxell Corporation Further Responses to FROG1 and RPD1; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 909177075615 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 09/08/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT NOXELL CORPORATION TO PROVIDE FURTHER, VERIFIED, CODECOMPLIANT RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE filed by BERNARD MENOR, JOVY MENOR on 08/14/2026 is Granted in Part.

On August 14, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Noxell Corporation (“Defendant”)’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories Set One (“FROGs”) and Requests for Production of Documents Set One (“RFPDs”) and order monetary sanctions. Following meet and confer after the Defendant filed the opposition, Plaintiffs state in reply that they withdraw their motion as to FROGs 14.2, 16.4, 16.5, 16.9 and 16.10 and RFPDs 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 21, 26, 27, 29 and 30. The reply also identifies ten requests/issues in particular for which Plaintiffs seek a court order. The court’s order will focus on these categories.

1. Form Interrogatory No. 1.1.

Plaintiffs ask the court to require Defendant to identify the individuals who prepared its responses to this set of FROGs. Defendant served a supplemental response to this interrogatory on September 2. (Clancy Reply Decl., Exh. F.) The response states: “Noxell responds that the information used in responding to these interrogatories was derived and assembled over the years by authorized employees and counsel for Noxell, both past and present; from information compiled from past and ongoing discussions with Noxell’s current and former employees; from an ongoing review of the limited records available; and from the review of documents gathered by counsel for Noxell during the course of handling litigation on its behalf over the years.

This information was gathered in a cumulative fashion for the overall purpose of litigation rather than on an individual question-by-question basis for this particular set of interrogatories. It is therefore not possible to identify by name each person who could be said to have answered these interrogatories.”

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as to this request. While it may be impossible, or at a minimum unduly burdensome, for Defendant to identify each and every person who made contributions to the institutional knowledge required to respond to these interrogatories over the course of years, Defendant is ORDERED to serve a supplemental response to this FROG identifying, at a minimum, those persons involved in preparing the responses to this set of FROGs.

2. Form Interrogatories 4.1 and 4.2; RFPD No. 9 – Insurance

FROG 4.1 asks Defendant to identify insurance policies in effect at the time of the “incident”, 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel defendant Noxell Corporation Further Responses to FROG1 and RPD1; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 909177075615 in Department 18 which in an asbestos context would be Ms. Menor’s exposure period as to Defendant’s products. Defendant’s response states that it has not located any information responsive to this request, but adds the qualification that it is still investigating.

RFPD No. 12 asks Defendant to produce documents relating to the insurance policies it identifies in response to FROG 4.1. Defendant’s response states that it has not located any documents.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to these requests. Given the imminent trial date, Defendant is ORDERED to immediately make a reasonable inquiry and diligent search to include, as suggested by Plaintiffs, discussion with its risk-management personnel and insurance brokers and anyone else with potential knowledge, and serve a complete, code-compliant response to each subpart of this interrogatory. If, after this inquiry, Defendant cannot identify responsive policies or information, its supplemental response must so state. If policies are identified, Defendant is ORDERED to produce responsive documents pertaining to these policies in response to RFPD No.

12.

FROG 4.2 asks Defendant to identify whether it is self-insured under statute for the claims that have arisen in this action. Defendant’s response states only that investigation continues.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to this request. Defendant’s objections are overruled. This information should be within Defendant’s knowledge and in its possession. Defendant is ORDERED to serve a code-compliant response to this FROG after a reasonably inquiry, if necessary, is made.

3. FROG 12.2 and RFPDs 12, 13

FROG 12.2 asks Defendant to identify individuals who were interviewed concerning the incident and provide contact information. Defendant’s response to each subpart states “not applicable.” In reply, Plaintiffs refer to Dr. Sutton’s deposition testimony, which identified previous employees who were present in the late 70s and 80s, Taras Wojtowcyz, and Daniel Lewis as people with whom he had spoken. Upon review of Dr. Sutton’s transcript, it is not clear that “talking to previously employees who were present in the late ‘70s and ‘80s” refers to interviews conducted in response to this litigation or since the inception of this litigation; it seems more likely to be a recollection of conversations he has had in the past on the general topic of asbestos in Defendant’s products. (Clancy Reply Decl., Exh.

A at 45:2-45:9.) Mr. Sutton’s later identification of “statements from multiple individuals” is similarly vague. (Id. at 107:1-107:9.) The same could be said of Taras Wojtowcyz, but that testimony identifies more specific information and the existence of a deposition transcript containing potentially relevant information. Dr. Sutton’s reference to Dan Lewis more strongly indicates an “interview” for purposes of this request. RFPD 12 requests production of all documents identified in response to FROG 12.2.

RFPD 13 seeks production of all written or recorded statements responsive to FROG 12.3. Plaintiffs do not move to compel as to FROG 12.3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel defendant Noxell Corporation Further Responses to FROG1 and RPD1; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 909177075615 in Department 18

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as to these requests. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Dan Lewis and Taras Wojtowcyz, at a minimum, appear to have been interviewed for purposes of this FROG. Dr. Sutton may be able to specifically identify other individuals who were interviewed. Defendant is ORDERED to serve a code-compliant supplemental response to this FROG identifying Lewis and Wojtowcyz and anyone else Dr. Sutton can recall. As to RFPDs 12 and 13, Defendant is further ORDERED to produce any responsive documents and/or produce a privilege log identifying responsive documents being withheld on a valid basis; or, if after reasonable inquiry, Defendant can locate no responsive documents, it must amend its written response to RFPDs 12and 13 to so state.

4. FROG No. 12.1(d) and RFPD No. 11 – Persons with Knowledge FROG 12.1(d) asks Defendant to identify who, acting on its behalf, has knowledge of the incident. RFPD 11 ask Defendant to produce all documents identified in or responsive to FROG 12.1. Defendant’s responses identify no one and state that no documents have been identified.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to this request. Defendant’s objections are overruled. The court finds it improbable that Defendant is aware of no individual with knowledge related to this litigation. Defendant is ORDERED to serve a code-compliant response identifying such individuals, or, if none can be identified, to clearly so state. Defendant is further ORDERED to produce any responsive documents to RFPD No. 11, or, if no documents are identified after diligent search, amend its written response to so state.

5. FROG 15.1, RFPD No. 22 – Facts and documents supporting affirmative defenses

The court has dealt with numerous motions to compel regarding these requests. Upon review of Defendant’s response to FROG 15.1(a), while Defendant provides substantive responses as to each affirmative defense, they mostly consist of contentions simply restating the elements of the defense, not facts. Defendant’s response to FROG 15.1(b) only identifies Plaintiffs and their acquaintances. Defendant’s response to FROG 15.1(c) identifies pleadings and discovery taken in this action.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to this request. To the extent that Defendant can assert specific facts, witnesses, and documents in response to this interrogatory, it is ORDERED to do so, or to amend its response to state that it is not aware of additional responsive facts, witnesses, or documents. As to RFPD 22, Defendant is ORDERED to produce any responsive documents it identifies in the course of supplementing or amending FROG 15.1.

6. FROG 16.1, RFPD No. 23 – Whether Defendant contends any other person contributed to Plaintiffs’ injuries

Defendant’s response to FROG 16.1 is “[c]urrently unknown. Noxell’s investigation into this

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel defendant Noxell Corporation Further Responses to FROG1 and RPD1; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 909177075615 in Department 18 matter remains ongoing.”

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to these requests. It is the eve of trial. Defendant is ORDERED to serve a code-compliant response to FROG 16.1 identifying any persons it contends was responsible for Ms. Menor’s injuries, or, if after reasonable inquiry, it does not identify any such individual, amend its response to so state. Defendant is further ORDERED to produce any responsive documents to RFPD No. 23 or, if none are located after diligent search, amend its written response to so state.

7. Form Interrogatories 14.1, 16.2, 16.2 – Contention Interrogatories

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to these requests. It is the eve of trial. Defendant is ORDERED to serve a code-compliant response to each FROG based on its knowledge after reasonable inquiry, or if its inquiry does not identify responsive facts, amend its responses to so state.

8. RFPDs 11, 12, 14, 16, 20, 24, 25 – “has not located”

As Plaintiffs note, the court has previously ordered this defendant and others to amend or supplement their responses to RFPDs when their only substantive response is that they have not located responsive documents. These requests present a similar situation, warranting a similar order.

Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore GRANTED IN PART to these requests. Defendant’s responses do not state that it conducted a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, only that no responsive documents have been located. Defendant is ORDERED to perform a diligent search, if it has not already done so, and provide an amended response to this request which so states, and produce any responsive documents identified or, if no responsive documents are located, so state.

9. FROG 12.6, RFPD 16 – Reports

FROG 12.6 asks Defendant a yes or no question as to whether any person prepared reports as to the incident, and if so, to identify the person, date of the report, contact information of the report’s recipient, and contact information for anyone who may be in possession of the report. Defendant’s response does not answer the yes/no question, then repeats “not applicable” for each subpart. RFPD 16 seeks production of any documents identified or responsive to FROG 12.6.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to these requests. Defendant is ORDERED to serve an amended or supplemental response to FROG 12.6. If Defendant’s answer to the yes/no question is “no”, it should so state. If Defendant’s answer is “yes”, it should so state and answer the subparts to the best of its present knowledge. Defendant is also ORDERED to produce responsive documents in response to RFPD 16 if any are identified or, if no documents are

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel defendant Noxell Corporation Further Responses to FROG1 and RPD1; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 909177075615 in Department 18 identified, amend its written response to so state.

10. FROGs 3.1(e), 3.6, 3.7, 12.4, 12.5, 13.1, 13.2, RFPDs 2, 18, 19 – “Not applicable”

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s response of “not applicable” to these requests is improper. The court agrees.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to these requests. Each of these FROGs asks a yes/no question, followed by subparts. Defendant is ORDERED to serve an amended or supplemental response to each FROG as follows: If Defendant’s answer to the yes/no question is “no”, it should so state. If Defendant’s answer is “yes”, it should so state and answer the subparts to the best of its present knowledge. Similarly, DEFENDANT is ordered to make a diligent search and either produce any responsive documents to RFPDs 2, 18, and 19 (which are companion requests to FROGs 3.1, 13.1, and 13.2) or, if no documents are identified, amend its written response to so state.

ORDER For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART in accordance with the above. In light of the approaching trial date, Defendant is ordered to serve complete, codecompliant responses in compliance with the court’s order within 5 days of entry of this order and produce any and all responsive documents within 7 days of entry of this order.

In light of Defendant’s apparent reluctance to amend or supplement its responses despite obvious deficiencies, the court also awards sanctions to Plaintiffs in the reasonable amount of $750. Defendant is ORDERED to pay this amount care of counsel for Plaintiffs within 30 days of entry of this order.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel defendant Noxell Corporation Further Responses to FROG1 and RPD1; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 909177075615 in Department 18