PLAINTIFF DEUTSCHE BANK’S MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 27, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 22CV01328
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO. v. GINSBURG, et al.
PLAINTIFF DEUTSCHE BANK’S MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA
The motion is denied. The Court orders plaintiff Deutsche Bank to produce responsive documents for all six requested categories.
This is a case relating to an improperly released deed of trust for the property located at 3015 Buckingham Lane #30, Santa Cruz. Plaintiff Deutsche Bank (“DB” or “plaintiff”) sued Mark Ginsburg (current owner), Rhonda Harris (prior owner) and Rocket Mortgage on June 21, 20200 for three causes of action: (1) quiet title; (2) cancellation of instrument; and (3) declaratory relief. Plaintiff alleges that it is the beneficiary of a deed of trust securing a $450,400 loan on the property made to borrower Harris in June 2005 (“Long Beach Mortgage loan”).
In 2006, a “Full Reconveyance” was recorded by Executive Trustee Services (“ETS”) for that loan, but ETS did so in error. Plaintiff alleges that ETS had no right, title or interest in the Long Beach deed and therefore the reconveyance should be void. (It appears ETS should have reconveyed a smaller $90,000 subordinate loan paid off by Harris.) Several years later in 2020, Harris sold the property to Ginsburg, and in 2021 he obtained a mortgage loan secured by the property. Plaintiff asserts it retains superior title to the property via its improperly reconveyed loan and Ginsburg is not a bona fide purchaser against its deed.
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?”
Ginsburg cross-complained against plaintiff on August 4, 2022 alleging quiet title.
The case is set for a short court trial on June 22, 2026, for the phase I bifurcated issue of whether the reconveyance of plaintiff’s deed of trust is void.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 27, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
Plaintiff seeks to quash defendant Ginsberg’s trial subpoena on the grounds no good cause is shown and it has already objected to these requests in regular discovery and Ginsberg failed to bring any timely motion to compel. It also argues the requests are overly broad and will not lead to any relevant admissible evidence. Defendant contends the requested documents are directly relevant to the dispute and no good cause need be shown.
The documents defendant seeks from plaintiff are:
1. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2005, for the Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-3, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-3.
2. The SERVICING AGREEMENTS governing the FIRST LOAN and/or FIRST DEED OF TRUST in effect at any time between September 1, 2005 and December 31, 2021.
3. SERVICING AGREEMENTS between DEUTSCHE BANK and GMAC Mortgage Corporation and its successors, affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries including, without limitation, GMAC Mortgage, LLC, in connection with mortgage loans for which DEUTSCHE BANK acted as trustee in effect at any time between September 1, 2005 and December 31, 2013.
4. SERVICING AGREEMENTS between DEUTSCHE BANK and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and its successors, affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries, in connection with mortgage loans for which DEUTSCHE BANK acted as trustee in effect at any time between September 1, 2005 and December 31, 2013.
5. SERVICING AGREEMENTS between DEUTSCHE BANK and Executive Trustee Services, LLC, and its successors, affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries, in connection with mortgage loans for which DEUTSCHE BANK acted as trustee in effect at any time between September 1, 2005 and December 31, 2013.
6. YOUR policies and procedures in effect at any time between September 1, 2005 and December 31, 2021, that CONCERN performing a title search in connection with any mortgage loans for which DEUTSCHE BANK acted as trustee.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987, subdivision (b) allows a party to request a witness to produce specified documents or items at trial. “If the notice specified in subdivision (b) is served at least 20 days before the time required for attendance, or within any shorter period of time as the court may order, it may include a request that the party or person bring with him or
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 27, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
her books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987, subd. (c).) The statute requires the notice to “state the exact materials or things desired and that the party or person has them in his or her possession or under his or her control.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987, subd. (c).) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, the court may, upon motion reasonably made, make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
The Court denies the motion for several reasons. First, plaintiff’s motion is based entirely on Code of Civil Procedure section 1985. That section only applies to trial subpoenas directed to non-parties. While defendant used a civil subpoena form, he did not have to, and the Court interprets his request to plaintiff as a trial notice to produce. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987, subd. (b).) Plaintiff has not made any showing that the subpoena seeks non-party records, and as such the requirements of section 1985 for good cause do not apply.
Second, there is no requirement that the records not be previously requested in discovery. In fact, the purpose of the trial notice to produce is to ensure that a party’s documents that are relevant to the dispute and in its custody and control are produced for trial, and to ensure admissibility of the records. Finally, the Court finds the records are directly relevant to the issue of the validity of plaintiff’s deed.