DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV424874·santaclara·Civil·Contract
Hearing 3 months agoWITHDRAWN

Shatonn Woods vs Tuem Ngo et al

Motion to Quash Subpoena & Protective Order

Hearing date
May 21, 2026
Department
1
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffShatonn Woods
DefendantTuem Ngo

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: May 21, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 22CV401891 Zowie Mason et Motion Summary Judgment al vs Aurelia Scroll down to Line 1 for Tentative Ruling. Amezcua et al LINE 2 23CV424874 Shatonn Woods Motion to Quash Subpoena & Protective Order vs Tuem Ngo et OFF CALENDAR. On January 8, 2026, defendants filed a motion to stay al deposition, quash subpoena, and protective order. Plaintiff filed opposition papers on May 8, 2026. On May 15, 2026, moving party/Defendants filed a notice of withdrawal for the motion. The motion is WITHDRAWN and MOOT.

LINES 23CV426924 Robert M. Branch Motion to Compel and Sanctions (Line #3) & 3-4 et al vs Spacelink Motion to Compel and Sanctions (Line #4) & Corporation SV et Scroll down to Lines 3-4 for Tentative Ruling. al LINES 24CV455059 Niraj Gandhi et al Motion to Intervene and Expunge Lis Pendens (Line #5) & 5-6 vs Matthew Motion for Protective Order and Request for Sanctions (Line #6) Ginsberg et al Scroll down to Lines 5-6 for Tentative Ruling. LINE 7 25CV457476 Cavalry Spv I, Motion: Admissions Deemed Admitted Llc vs Gisela Scroll down to Line 7 for Tentative Ruling. Rosas-Deciga

- oo0oo -

9:01 A.M. NULL NULL NULL NULL

- oo0oo -

2

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