IN RE: WANDA HANSEN ASHE
Petition To Quash Petitioner Kristine Klussman'S Deposition Subpoena; Motion for Protective Order; Motion for Stay of Deposition
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
Matter on calendar for Friday, August 21, 2026, Line 2, PETITIONER WANDA ASHE's Hearing Re: Petition To Quash Petitioner Kristine Klussman's Deposition Subpoena For Personal Appearance In Action Pending Outside California, In The Alternative Motion For Protective Order, And For A Stay Of The Deposition.
Ashe Advisors, LLC's petition to quash Kristine Klussman's deposition subpoena is denied and its alternate motion for protective order is granted in part. Wanda Ashe must make herself available for a deposition lasting no more than two hours excluding breaks and attorney colloquy at a location of her choosing which could be at her home on a mutually agreeable date no later than September 4, 2026 to start at a time chosen by Ms. Ashe. During the deposition Ms. Ashe may take breaks any time she wishes for however long she wishes, but during the breaks she must not discuss any pending or possible questions with anyone including any attorney purporting to represent her at the deposition.
If the deposition taker has any additional questions after the two hours have elapsed, those questions will need to be submitted by written questions, which must be answered under oath within 10 days of receipt of the questions.
Ms. Ashe may have a healthcare professional, either a physician or a registered nurse, with whom she has had no previous relationship of any kind and who has no relationship of any kind with any of the parties or attorneys to this case or the South Dakota litigation, attend the deposition at her or Ashe Advisors' expense. If such healthcare professional attends the deposition, Ms. Ashe may, at any time during the deposition, confer with that person in the presence of all persons attending the deposition about any claimed severe negative impact of continuing with the deposition on her health and, if in the opinion of that healthcare professional stated on the record that continuing with the deposition would severely negatively impact Ms.
Ashe's health, the deposition must cease and all further questions of the deposition taker will need to be submitted by written questions, which must be answered under oath within 10 days of receipt of the questions.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/HEK). | |
Cited authorities
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?”