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 Ulta, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc.'s Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 954882375946 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 09/09/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. on 08/12/2026 is Granted in Part.

Plaintiffs Jovy Menor (“Mrs. Menor”) et al.’s Motion to Compel (“MTC”) defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Ulta”) Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPD”) and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth below.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide verified Further Responses to the extent Ordered below no later than 10:00 a.m. on Monday, 9/21/2026.

ANALYSIS OF MTC FURTHER SROG RESPONSES

In Reply, Plaintiffs limit the at issue SROG to Nos. 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 14, 35, 36 and 47-53.

The Moving papers contain no evidence regarding what Ulta specific products Mrs. Menor testified at deposition or otherwise presented evidence she was exposed to and the periods of those exposures. In Opposition, Defendant presents evidence that Mrs. Menor testified at deposition she used bare Minerals pressed powder between 2005 to the present and that she also used unidentified loose powder and eyeliner from 2010 to the present. The deposition testimony cited by Defendant indicates that Mrs. Menor may still have some of these products in her possession. However, as stated above, no evidence regarding the specific Ulta loose powders or eyeliners Mrs. Menor was exposed to is presented in the moving papers. The Court will not consider Plaintiffs’ Reply evidence that could and should have been presented in the moving papers.

The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Objections that SROG Nos. 1 and 3, seeking identification of all talc-containing products Defendant manufactured or labeled, as facially overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this trial preference action.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Request for verified Further Responses to SROG Nos. 1 and 3.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Request for a Further Response to SROG No. 8, seeking information regarding the years “DEFENDANT” manufactured each of its talc-containing products. The Court finds that Defendant’s Amended Response to SROG No. 8 stating that “DEFENDANT” never manufactured any talc-containing products is adequate based on the 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel defendant Ulta, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc.'s Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 954882375946 in Department 18 definition for DEFENDANT provided in the moving Separate Statement.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Request for verified Further Responses to SROG Nos. 10, 11 and 14. The Court LIMITS each of these SROG solely to Defendant’s Bare Minerals pressed powder product. As stated above, the moving papers have not identified any other specific Ulta product Mrs. Menor was exposed to in spite of the fact that Mrs. Menor testified she still had some of the products in her possession. As limited, the Court OVERRULES all of Defendants Objections and ORDERS Defendant to provide a verified Second Amended Responses to SROG Nos. 10, 11 and 14 that comply with the requirements of CCP §§ 2030.210- 2030.240 by the date set forth above.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Request for Further Responses to SROG Nos. 35-36. Under the circumstances in this trial preference action, the Court finds Defendant’s Amended Responses to SROG Nos. 35-36 acceptable.

The Court LIMITS SROG Nos. 47-49 to talcs used to make Defendant’s pressed powder, loose powder and eyeliner products. As limited, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Objections to SROG Nos. 47-49 and ORDERS Defendant to provide verified Second Amended Responses to SROG Nos. 47-49. Defendant’s Amended Responses to SROG Nos. 47 and 48 both state in relevant part: “ULTA is aware that some talc samples that were tested using x-ray defraction and polarized light microscopy to detect asbestiform fibers in talc used by some vendors.” Defendant’s Second Amended Responses must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to it regarding whatever testing was performed by its vendors.

Defendant’s Amended Response to SROG No. 49 that it cannot describe the methodology used to test talc is inconsistent with the above-quoted statement in the Amended Responses to SROG Nos. 47 and 48.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide verified Further Responses to SROG Nos. 50-51. The SROG request that Defendant identify testing labs, not describe them. If Defendant does not know the identities of the testing labs used by its product suppliers, Defendant’s Second Amended Responses should clearly so state, subject to Defendant’s obligations under CCP § 2030.220(b) to make reasonable inquiries to its vendors.

The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Objections to SROG Nos. 52-53 except for attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide verified Further Responses to SROG Nos. 52-53. The Requests seek identification of documents, not information. To the extent that Defendant is withholding responsive documents based on attorney-client or attorney work product privileges, the Court ORDERS Defendant to provide Plaintiffs with a privilege log containing sufficient factual information for Plaintiffs to analyze Defendant’s claim of privilege no later than 10:00 a.m. on 9/21/2026.

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 Ulta, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc.'s Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 954882375946 in Department 18

ANALYSIS OF MTC FURTHER RFPD RESPONSES

In Reply, Plaintiffs limit the at issue RFPD to Nos. 70-74, 77, 79, 81, 85, 107, 110, 123 and 140- 143.

The Court LIMITS RFPD Nos. 70-74 to Defendant’s pressed powder, loose powder and eyeliner products. As limited, the Court OVERRULES all of Defendant’s Objections and ORDERS Defendant to provide a verified Further Response that complies with the Requirements of CCP § 2031.230.

If Defendant is aware that some of its product or talc suppliers conducted testing using x-ray diffraction and polarized light microscopy, Defendant must provide a verified further response that either states all responsive documents regarding that testing in Defendant’s possession, custody or control will be produced; or, if no responsive documents exist in Defendant’s possession, custody or control, a response that complies with CCP § 2031.230 including without limitation the names and addresses of any natural persons or entities likely to have responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.

Wherefore, the Court ORDERS Defendant to provide verified Further Responses to RFPD Nos. 70-74.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide verified Further Responses to RFPD Nos. 77 and 79. If it is Defendant’s position that it has no responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, Defendant must provide a Second Amended Response that conforms to the requirements of CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2) and 2021.230. To the extent that any responsive documents are withheld on the basis of an asserted privilege, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with a privilege log conforming to the requirements of § 2031.240(c).

The Court LIMITS RFPD Nos. 81 and 85 to Defendant’s pressed powder, loose powder and eye liner products. As limited, the Court ORDERS Defendant to comply with its statements of compliance as to RFPD Nos. 81 and 85 in its Amended Response. However, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for further Responses to RFPD Nos. 81 and 85.

The Court LIMITS RFPD No. 107 to the bare Minerals pressed powder product Mrs. Menor testified to using for the period from 2005 to the present. As limited, the Court ORDERS Defendant to comply with its statement of compliance as to RFPD No. 107 in its Amended Response. However, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for further Responses to RFPD No. 107.

The Court LIMITS RFPD No. 110 to talc specifications for Defendant’s pressed powder, loose powder and eyeliner products. As limited, the Court ORDERS Defendant to provide a verified

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 Ulta, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc.'s Further Responses to SROG1 and RPD2; filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 954882375946 in Department 18 Further Response to RFPD No. 110 that responds to the RFPD propounded.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Request for a Further Response to RFPD No. 123. The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s objection that the RFPD No. 123 is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs do not allege that Mrs. Menor has ever been diagnosed with talcosis.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Request for Further Responses to RFPD Nos. 140-143. The Court finds the current Amended Responses adequate under the circumstances in this trial preference action.

The Court DENIES each party’s request for monetary sanctions in any amount.

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.