Motion to Quash
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: 06/17/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 22CV403688 Santa Clara County Motion to Set Aside Dismissal Federal Credit Union vs Naotala Tafua-Teo Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 23CV421818 Greenberg Motion to Strike Answer & Enter Default Development & Construction, Inc. vs Fernando Pio-Molinero The Court has received no opposition from Defendant PMC. “[T]he et al failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Good Cause Appearing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.
Plaintiff to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 10 days of the date of the hearing.
LINES 3-4 24CV433114 Storesund Motion to Strike & Demurrer Construction, Inc.vs Christopher Quinn et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINE 5 24CV443503 Linda Dashell vs Louie Motion to Quash Goros et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 5
Calendar Line 5 Dashiell v. Goros, Pori, Kingsbarn Real Estate Capital et al.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SUBPOENA TO ENTERPRISE BANK & TRUST
The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The Court previously (April 4, 2025 Order – not Tentative Ruling) quashed Plaintiff's first subpoena without prejudice as overbroad. Plaintiff thereafter served a narrowed subpoena directed to Enterprise Bank concerning the KB Littlefield transaction. While the revised subpoena is narrower than its predecessor, certain requests remain overbroad as to both subject matter and time.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010, discovery is permitted regarding nonprivileged matters relevant to the subject matter of the action. Plaintiff's claims place at issue the financing structure of the KB Littlefield transaction, including the alleged transition from a Delaware Statutory Trust ("DST") structure to a Tenancy in Common ("TIC") structure and the existence of lender consent and subordination arrangements. Documents and communications concerning those subjects are relevant and discoverable.
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?”
However, requests seeking all documents and communications regarding or related to financing, lending, etc on the KB Littlefield project are overly broad. As drafted, the subpoena would encompass Enterprise Bank's internal underwriting analyses, credit reviews, loan committee materials, communications concerning confidential financial information of borrowers, and other materials that are only tangentially related, if at all, to the claims and defenses in this action. The Court further finds that requests directed to the personal financial dealings of individual defendants Goros and Pori implicate substantial privacy interests under California law and are not shown on the present record to be sufficiently tailored to justify the intrusion.
The Court declines to quash the subpoena in its entirety. Plaintiff has shown a sufficient basis to seek discovery from the lender concerning lender consent and transaction-structure issues that are central to the dispute. However, the subpoena must be narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary intrusion into protected financial and privacy interests.
Accordingly, the subpoena shall be modified as follows:
1. Production shall be limited to documents and communications concerning: (a) lender consent; (b) loan subordination; (c) approval or disapproval of a DST or TIC ownership structure; (d) communications between Enterprise Bank and Defendants concerning whether the proposed DST or TIC structure could be financed; and (e) final or operative transaction documents relating to those subjects.
2. The subpoena shall not require production of: (a) tax returns; (b) internal underwriting analyses, credit committee materials, risk assessments, or other internal bank evaluations of borrower creditworthiness; (c) confidential financial information unrelated to lender consent, subordination, or approval of the transaction structure; (d) communications concerning the personal banking or financial affairs of Goros or Pori unrelated to the KB Littlefield transaction.
3. The temporal scope shall be limited to August 1, 2023 through May 31, 2024. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that communications extending "through the present" are proportional to the needs of the case or reasonably related to the claims arising from Plaintiff's decision not to participate in the transaction before the March 2024 exchange deadline.
Requests for sanctions are DENIED. The Court finds that both the motion and opposition were brought with substantial justification.
Defendant to submit the proposed order accompanied by the necessary Form EFS- 020 within 7 days of the hearing.
- oo0oo -