DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV110665·alameda·Civil·Protective Order
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED, IN PART

LINGAM vs LORD TENNYSON VOA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LP, et al.

Motion for Protective Order

Hearing date
Jul 9, 2026
Department
24
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLINGAM
DefendantLORD TENNYSON VOA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LP
DefendantFFAH V Lord Tennyson Apartments, LLC

Ruling

25CV110665: LINGAM vs LORD TENNYSON VOA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LP, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by FFAH V Lord Tennyson Apartments, LLC (Defendant) CRS# 076709315519 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 07/06/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Motion for Protective Order filed by FFAH V Lord Tennyson Apartments, LLC on 03/26/2026 is Granted in Part.

The Motion by Defendant FFAH V Lord Tennyson Apartments LLC (“FFAH”) for a Protective Order is GRANTED, IN PART, as follows.

FFAH’s request to quash Plaintiff’s First Amended Notice of Deposition is DENIED.

FFAH’s alternative request to limit the deposition testimony and document production in Plaintiff’s First Amended Notice of Deposition is GRANTED, IN PART.

FFAH shall produce a person most knowledgeable on the topics specified in Categories Nos. 1- 6; however, the designated witness is only required to be knowledgeable about, and to testify with regard to, the period from July 1, 2016 to the present.

FFAH shall produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s document requests as follows.

FFAH shall produce documents responsive to Requests Nos.1- 2, 5, 13, 16-20, 22, 26, 31, 33, 39-40, 44, 47, and 50-51, but limited to the time period from July 1, 2016 to the present.

FFAH shall produce documents responsive to Requests Nos. 4, 14, 28-29, 36, and 52, without any time limitation.

FFAH need not produce any documents responsive to Requests Nos. 3, 6-12, 15, 21, 23-25, 27, 30, 32, 34-35, 37-38, 41-43, 45-46, 48-49, and 53-60.

Counsel shall meet and confer to schedule the deposition.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share