DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD24674774·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 1 year agoDENIED

3450 BERKELEY TRUST VS. GIL DORON ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Protective Order

Hearing date
Aug 1, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff3450 BERKELEY TRUST
DefendantGIL DORON

Attorneys

Matthew H. Weinerfor Plaintiff

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD24674774 - August 1, 2025 Hearing date: August 1, 2025 Case number: CUD24674774 Case title: 3450 BERKELEY TRUST VS. GIL DORON ET AL Case Number: | | CUD24674774 | Case Title: | | 3450 BERKELEY TRUST VS. GIL DORON ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-01 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Protective Order; Declaration Of Matthew H. Weiner | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for August 1, 2025, line 4.

Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. Under the Civil Discovery Act, a defendant in a civil action may propound interrogatories at any time. There is no statutory hold until after the pleadings are finalized. Plaintiff has not shown any good cause why the Court should limit defendant's rights as afforded by statute. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849).

Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required.

Notice of contesting a tent ative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear. | |

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