Have you heard the term 'and or in merits of hall (hull)' or something similar?
The scope of permissible discovery includes "any matter not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . [that is] itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Code of Civil Procedure §2017.010.
The scope of permissible discovery is very broad. "Reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" means that you are allowed to probe into areas that may themselves not be admissible, if doing so would shed light on other evidence that is admissible. See, Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (Clay) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 384. Therefore, the proper grounds for objecting to questions in a deposition is more limited than at trial.
Under Code of Civil Procedure §2025.460, subdivision (b), unless objections to the form of a question are raised in the deposition, they are waived. Such objections include assertions that the question is ambiguous, confusing, compound, calls for an undue narrative, calls for speculation, is argumentative or leading. An attorney may instruct the client not to answer the ojjectionable question, in which case the asking party will typically rehrase it.
I am unable to determine what Hull or Hall may refer to, it may be the name of a party in a case, referred to as a precedent for taking a certain action, but I am unable to locate case law relevant to objections with those names. Please provide further information and I will try to further assist you.