HUSSAIN vs LIN, et al.

22CV019539: HUSSAIN vs LIN, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Zeena Hussain (Plaintiff) CRS# 141865613043 in Department 16

Tentative Ruling - 08/24/2026 Victoria Kolakowski

The Court is presented with three motions concerning the deposition of Plaintiff Zeena Hussain. For the sake of clarity, the Court discusses and disposes of all three in this single order.

Hussain’s Motion for Sanctions, Protective Order, and Appointment of Referee is denied.

Defendants Lingmei Lin, Warren Lin, When Wang, and SVC Corporation’s Motion for Sanctions regarding Deposition Conduct is denied.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions is denied.

I.

Background

On December 18, 2025, the parties attended Hussain’s deposition. (Frucht Decl. Supp. Hussain’s Mot. Sanctions Ex. 1, July 21, 2026.) At some point during the deposition, the proceedings began deteriorating. Defense counsel objected to what he perceived were speaking objections by Plaintiffs’ counsel and coaching of the witness. (See, e.g., id. at 27:17–29:4, 36:9–38:18.) Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that defense counsel appeared to be yelling at the witness. (See, e.g., id. at 41:16–23, 52:2–18, 56:9–58:5, 87:4–88:11,131:23–133:15.) Things then deteriorated further, and defense counsel raised the specter of sanctions. (See, e.g., id. at 42:4–46:8; see also, e.g., id. 131:25–134:17 (capturing more argument from counsel about yelling and references to sanctions).) At some point defense counsel told someone to “[b]e quiet.”1 (Id. 146:7–8.) The Court restates the entire exchange:

[Defense counsel]: So you delegated that responsibility to him, correct?

[Witness]: Both of us did.

[Defense counsel]: I didn't ask — I'm not asking about Lingmei Lin, and you keep bringing everybody else —

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: Well, you asked who —

[Defense counsel]: She'll get an opportunity to speak for her own behalf.

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: No.

[Defense counsel]: I'm asking about you.

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: You asked who delegated the authority, and she responded. 22CV019539: HUSSAIN vs LIN, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Zeena Hussain (Plaintiff) CRS# 141865613043 in Department 16 And it wasn't just her.

[Defense counsel]: And I'm going to ask Lingmei Lin.

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: And if — and if —

[Defense counsel]: That’s it.

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: — it's not just her, and — to answer the question, she has to mention Lingmei Lin. That's part of the answer. That's — that's how this process works.

[Defense counsel]: Okay.

[Witness]: And you're not letting me do that. You're.

[Defense counsel]: You're — I didn't ask a question. Be quiet. So —

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: You don't tell her to be quiet.

[Defense counsel]: I will.

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: No, you won't.

[Defense counsel]: Okay. You can't — whatever. You — you're just —

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: We're not going to stay here if —

[Defense counsel]: You're being childish. You're being very childish and immature, and —

(Simultaneous speaking.)

[Reporter]: I need one person at a time.

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: We are not going to stay here if you talk like that.

[Defense counsel]: Then I'll compel you to come back.

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: No.

[Defense counsel]: After I sanction you, in hope she pays the bill.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV019539: HUSSAIN vs LIN, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Zeena Hussain (Plaintiff) CRS# 141865613043 in Department 16 [Plaintiffs’ counsel]: You —you —she's not going to pay. You're going to pay, or Mr. Whang is going to pay. I'm not worried about it.

[Defense counsel]: Anything — anything else you want to say?

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: No.

[Defense counsel]: Okay. Feeling good. All right. My question here was —

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: The camera —

[Defense counsel]: You're interrupting. I'm not —

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: The camera is not taking a picture of me.

[Defense counsel]: I — I just like pointing to the camera.

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: Yes. I — I know you do.

[Defense counsel]: Makes me feel good. Paid for it. Might as well point to it.

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: You didn't pay for it. He paid it.

[Defense counsel]: Anything else you want to say, sir?

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: Nope. That's it. Ask a good question.

[Defense counsel]: Let the record reflect that he just — that the — Counsel is just going on a long-winded narrative to interrupt and — and — and further interfere with my deposition.

[Plaintiffs’ counsel]: I'm trying to get you to ask questions and — and — and — and let her answer the questions. You asked her who delegated the authority, and she told you two people. And then you interrupted her and said that was an improper answer. That's what happened. Continue, please.

[Defense counsel]: Ten seconds where he spoke and I'm and — and — and went on a long-winded without making a — without making actual objection.

(Id. 145:10–148:9.) Towards the end, defense counsel stated: “I'm going to tell you, if — I'm going to enjoy the sanction motion I'm going to file.” (Id. 222:4–5.)

In January 2026, the parties filed their respective motions. Defendants moved for issue,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV019539: HUSSAIN vs LIN, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Zeena Hussain (Plaintiff) CRS# 141865613043 in Department 16 evidentiary, and monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs arising from what they deem was misconduct during Hussain’s deposition. (Defs.’ Mot. Sanctions re Dep. Misconduct, Jan. 29, 2026.) Defendants also moved to compel Hussain to search her cellphone for a phone number at the deposition. (Mot. Compel Answers Dep., Jan. 29, 2026; see also Frucht Decl. Ex. 1, at 105:7–107:1 (showing exchange seemingly at issue).) Hussain moved for a protective order, appointment of a discovery referee, and monetary sanctions against defense counsel. (Mot. Sanctions, July 21, 2026.2)

The Motions were all opposed. (See Defs.’ Opp’n to Mot. Sanctions, Aug. 5, 2026; Hussain’s Opp’n to Mot. Compel & Sanctions, Aug. 5, 2026.)

II.

Discussion

At the threshold, in its discretion, the Court considered Defendants’ late opposition to Hussain’s Motion for Protective Order and Defendants’ late replies to Hussain’s opposition to Defendants’ motions to compel and sanctions.

A. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Answers The Court denies this Motion as it was not supported by a memorandum or accompanied by a separate statement. (See Reg. Actions; see also Cal. R. Ct. 3.1113(a) (requiring a supporting memorandum); Cal. R. Ct. 3.1345(a)(4) (requiring a separate statement for a motion “[t]o compel answers at a deposition”).) Accordingly, the issues raised by this Motion were not adequately briefed and precluded meaningful analysis.

The Court declines Defendants’ request to continue the hearing to permit them to file a separate statement. There is no reason to do so. The Court expects counsel to timely submit all filings and ensure any motion is appropriately accompanied by memoranda, evidence, or other material.

B. Cross-Requests for Sanctions The Court finds that monetary sanctions — at this time — are unwarranted. Instead, the Court finds it appropriate to admonish Terance D. Orme of The Law Offices of Terrance Orme for his unacceptable behavior at the deposition of Hussain. The Court reminds Orme of his oath: “As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.” (Cal. R. Ct. 9.7.) Raising his voice or yelling at the witness, repeatedly interrupting the witness, and stating “I'm going to enjoy the sanction motion I'm going to file” is conduct that falls short of his oath. The Court notes:

Civility is not about etiquette. This is not a matter of bad manners. Incivility slows things down, it costs people money — money they were counting on their lawyers to help them save. And it contravenes the Legislature's directive that “all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV019539: HUSSAIN vs LIN, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Zeena Hussain (Plaintiff) CRS# 141865613043 in Department 16

Incivility is the adult equivalent of schoolyard bullying and we will not keep looking the other way when attorneys practice like this. They will be called out and immortalized in the California Appellate Reports.

(Masimo Corp. v. Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal. App. 5th 902, 911 (quoting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 583.130).) The Court also notes that incivility may merit a reduction in the requested attorneys’ fees. (See Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Inc. (2023) 96 Cal. App. 5th 908, 932 (finding no abuse of discretion by reducing lodestar by 40 percent because of counsel’s incivility).)

The Court did not find Plaintiffs’ counsel’s behavior meriting any reprimand or sanction. But the Court notes that while defense counsel’s behavior was the primary cause of this discovery dispute, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s behavior was a contributing factor.

C. Requests for Protective Order and Discovery Referee The Court denies the requests for a protective order concerning further depositions without prejudice. As the Court is not compelling Hussain to appear for further deposition, this request appears partly moot. The parties must confer about the propriety of a protective order governing all future deposition proceedings.

The Court denies the request for a discovery referee as unmerited. Considering the conduct at Hussain’s deposition in December 2025, the parties should also confer about the propriety of a discovery referee to attend and supervise any future depositions in this action.

IV. Orders Hussain’s Motion for Sanctions, Protective Order, and Appointment of Referee is denied.

Defendants Lingmei Lin, Warren Lin, When Wang, and SVC Corporation’s Motion for Sanctions regarding Deposition Conduct is denied.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions is denied. 1 Counsel jointly state that this comment was directed at Plaintiffs’ counsel. (See, e.g.,

Reply 6:5–7, Aug. 6, 2026.) Maybe. The Court lets the reader decide who that comment was directed at. 2 The parties agree that Hussain initially filed her motion in January 2026, but that the

Clerk’s office rejected the filing. (See Stip. & Order, Aug. 11, 2026.)

***

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV019539: HUSSAIN vs LIN, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by Zeena Hussain (Plaintiff) CRS# 141865613043 in Department 16

The Motion re: Memorandum in Support of Motion for Sanctions for discovery abuse, request for sanctions and and discovery referee, protective order filed by Zeena Hussain on 07/21/2026 is Denied.

The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling? Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/ using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in) Select the Tentative Rulings Tab Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue. Select "Proceed"

You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing parties by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.

Please provide this information to any opposing parties.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN- PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017 Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017