Motion for Protective Order
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 06/10/2026 TIME: 9:00 and 9:01 A.M.
LINES 6- 25CV457483 Richard Chamberlain Line 6: Motion - Declare Plaintiff Vexatious Litigant 12 vs Please control click or scroll down to Line 6 Jason Chamberlain Lines 7 – 12: In light of 5/8/2026 dispositive ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the remaining motions are rendered moot and ordered off calendar. LINE 13 24CV469611 Danea Burleson Motion: Protective Order vs Bay Area Ketamine Center, Inc. et al LINE 14 25CV472916 Immigration Hearing: Demurrer Resettlement and Cultural Center Please control click or scroll down to Line 14 (“IRCC”), Inc. vs Cuong Nguyen et al LINE 15 25CV474936 Hoswualdo Lopez Hearing: Petition Compel Arbitration vs Ford Motor Company Please scroll down to Line 15 et al 9:01 CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 21CV37621 George Ku vs.
Hearing: Order of Examination Harald Herchen LINE 2 24CV430720 Capital One N.a. vs Hearing: Claim of Exemption Maurice Mcintosh et al The Court defers ruling on the debtor’s Claim of Exemption and requests additional documentation pursuant to CCP §703.540. Within 30 days, the debtor shall file and serve documentation supporting the claimed monthly expenses, including but not limited to:
• Proof of earnings; • Proof of rent or housing payments (such as a lease agreement, rent receipts, or bank statements reflecting rent payments);
Calendar Line 13 Danea Burleson vs Bay Area Ketamine Center, Inc. et al. 25CV469611
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a former patient and former employee of Defendant, moves for a protective order restricting Defendant’s communications with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, and further seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5, 128.7, and 2023.030. Defendant, in propria persona, opposes and argues the motion is procedurally improper and must proceed under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.
LEGAL STANDARD
Defendant’s reliance on Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 is misplaced. That statute governs standalone civil harassment restraining order proceedings and is not a prerequisite to issuance of a case-management protective order within pending civil litigation. The Court has broad authority to control proceedings and regulate litigant conduct under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128, subdivision (a)(3) and (a)(5), and 187, as well as authority to issue protective orders to prevent harassment, annoyance, and undue burden, including under section 2017.020 where appropriate. Defendant’s procedural objection is therefore overruled.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
ANALYSIS
The Court finds good cause for a narrowly tailored protective order. The record reflects ongoing direct communications from Defendant to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s representation by counsel, including communications that are not necessary to the litigation and are reasonably characterized as harassing or inappropriate in tone. The Court finds that restrictions on direct party-to-party contact are necessary to preserve orderly litigation and protect Plaintiff from improper contact.
The Court further finds it appropriate to regulate Defendant’s communications with Plaintiff’s counsel to the extent such communications occur, limiting them to those expressly permitted by law or court order and requiring that any such communications be professional and limited to legitimate litigation matters.
SANCTIONS
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5, 128.7, and 2023.030 is denied without prejudice. While the Court does not impose sanctions at this time, the Court expressly admonishes Defendant that the conduct at issue is improper; future violations may result in sanctions or other corrective orders.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant shall not directly contact Plaintiff in any manner, including email, telephone, text message, written correspondence, or in person. All communications shall be directed through Plaintiff’s counsel.
2. Defendant shall not contact Plaintiff’s counsel directly except as expressly permitted by law or court order. Any permitted communications shall be limited to legitimate litigation matters and conducted in a professional manner.
3. Defendant is ordered to cease and desist from harassing, threatening, intimidating, or abusive communications directed to Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel in connection with this action.
4. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5. Defendant is admonished that future violations of this order may result in sanctions or other appropriate court action.
6. This order is issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128, subdivision (a)(3) and (a)(5), 187, and 2017.020 (to the extent applicable), and remains in effect pending further order of the Court.
Plaintiff to prepare the order accompanied by Form EFS-020 within 7 days of hearing.
- oo0oo –