PAGE 1 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

Gary C. Gosha

Kit M. Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062

gcgosha@gmail.com

503-522-6571

 Plaintiffs, Pro Se

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GARY C. GOSHA, an individual, and

KIT M. GOSHA, an individual, and 

together as husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

CORPORATION FKA THE BANK OF 

NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE (CWALT 

2005-72), Delaware Corporation; BANK 

OF AMERICA N.A., a Delaware

Corporation; BAYVIEW LOAN

SERVICING LLC, a Florida Corporation;

CLEAR RECON CORP, a California 

Corporation,

Defendants.

Civil No. 3:16-CV-0073-BR

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION 

TO NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, 

INC.’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Plaintiffs submit this Response in opposition to NonParty MERSCORP HOLDINGS, 

INC’S (MERSCORP) Motion to Quash Subpoena (MTQ) and ask the Court to deny, or modify 

it, for the reasons set forth herein. 

PAGE 1 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

Gary C. Gosha

Kit M. Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way 

Tualatin, OR 97062

gcgosha@gmail.com

503-522-6571

 Plaintiffs, Pro Se

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GARY C. GOSHA, an individual, and

KIT M. GOSHA, an individual, and 

together as husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

CORPORATION FKA THE BANK OF 

NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE (CWALT 

2005-72), Delaware Corporation; BANK 

OF AMERICA N.A., a Delaware

Corporation; BAYVIEW LOAN

SERVICING LLC, a Florida Corporation;

CLEAR RECON CORP, a California 

Corporation,

Defendants.

Civil No. 3:16-CV-0073-BR

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION 

TO NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, 

INC.’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Plaintiffs submit this Response in opposition to NonParty MERSCORP HOLDINGS, 

INC’S (MERSCORP) Motion to Quash Subpoena (MTQ) and ask the Court to deny, or modify 

it, for the reasons set forth herein. 

Gary C. Gosha

Kit M. Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

gcgosha@gmail.com

503-522-6571

Plaintifls, Pro Se

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GARY C. GOSHA, an individual, and

KIT M. GOSHA, an individual, and

together as husband and Wife,

Plaintiffs,

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

CORPORATION FKA THE BANK OF

NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE (CWALT

2005-72), Delaware Corporation; BANK

OF AMERICA N.A., a Delaware

Corporation; BAYVIEW LOAN

SERVICING LLC, a Florida Corporation;

CLEAR RECON CORP, a California

Corporation,

Defendants.

Civil N0. 3:16-CV-0073-BR

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION

TO NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS,

INC.’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Plaintiffs submit this Response in opposition to NonParty MERSCORP HOLDINGS,

INC’S (MERSCORP) Motion to Quash Subpoena (MTQ) and ask the Court to deny, or modify

it, for the reasons set forth herein.

PAGE 1 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S Tualatin, OR 9706, MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 11
PAGE 2 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon (BONYM), through its agents, filed a nonjudicial foreclosure of the Plaintiffs Deed of Trust (DOT) on September 11, 2015. In response, 

the Plaintiffs commenced this litigation to stop the sale of their property and hold BONYM, and 

the other Defendants, liable for a number of nefarious acts related to it. The details of this case 

are set forth in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) (Dkt. #70). 

MERSCORP surfaced in this litigation because its MERS subsidiary is a named party to 

the DOT and MERSCORP possesses certain information related to MERS that is both relevant 

and material to the Plaintiffs case. The Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to MERS and MERSCORP 

on August 22, 2016. The Subpoena and Proof of Service are attached as Exhibit A. The 

Subpoena asks for nine documents. Plaintiffs have since withdrawn eight of the requests 

because ongoing investigations have eliminated any further need for the information sought, or 

the information was obtained from other sources. The only request that remains is for the MERS 

Milestone Report. Request One. 

Plaintiffs seek the MERS Milestone Report (MMR) related to their loan because Wall 

Street and the mortgage industry accept MERSCORP as one of the best sources of evidence as to

the legal identify of the Original Lender named in the DOT, its successors in interest and assigns, 

and the party with rights to foreclose. Defendant BANA and MERSCORP seek to suppress this 

evidence. BANA’s attorneys also represent MERSCORP in this matter. 

MERSCORP takes the legal position that “A MERS® System member can access the 

MMR for any loan that they currently service or own. Access to the MMR ceases once a MERS® 

System member is no longer the current servicer, owner, or ceases being a MERS® System 

PAGE 2 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon (BONYM), through its agents, filed a nonjudicial foreclosure of the Plaintiffs Deed of Trust (DOT) on September 11, 2015. In response, 

the Plaintiffs commenced this litigation to stop the sale of their property and hold BONYM, and 

the other Defendants, liable for a number of nefarious acts related to it. The details of this case 

are set forth in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) (Dkt. #70). 

MERSCORP surfaced in this litigation because its MERS subsidiary is a named party to 

the DOT and MERSCORP possesses certain information related to MERS that is both relevant 

and material to the Plaintiffs case. The Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to MERS and MERSCORP 

on August 22, 2016. The Subpoena and Proof of Service are attached as Exhibit A. The 

Subpoena asks for nine documents. Plaintiffs have since withdrawn eight of the requests 

because ongoing investigations have eliminated any further need for the information sought, or 

the information was obtained from other sources. The only request that remains is for the MERS 

Milestone Report. Request One. 

Plaintiffs seek the MERS Milestone Report (MMR) related to their loan because Wall 

Street and the mortgage industry accept MERSCORP as one of the best sources of evidence as to

the legal identify of the Original Lender named in the DOT, its successors in interest and assigns, 

and the party with rights to foreclose. Defendant BANA and MERSCORP seek to suppress this 

evidence. BANA’s attorneys also represent MERSCORP in this matter. 

MERSCORP takes the legal position that “A MERS® System member can access the 

MMR for any loan that they currently service or own. Access to the MMR ceases once a MERS® 

System member is no longer the current servicer, owner, or ceases being a MERS® System 

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant The Bank ofNew York Mellon (BONYM), through its agents, filed a nonjudicial foreclosure of the Plaintiffs Deed of Trust (DOT) on September 11, 2015. In response,

the Plaintiffs commenced this litigation to stop the sale of their property and hold BONYM, and

the other Defendants, liable for a number of nefarious acts related to it. The details of this case

are set forth in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) (Dkt. #70).

MERSCORP surfaced in this litigation because its MERS subsidiary is a named party to

the DOT and MERSCORP possesses certain information related to MERS that is both relevant

and material to the Plaintiffs case. The Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to MERS and MERSCORP

on August 22, 2016. The Subpoena and Proof of Service are attached as Exhibit A. The

Subpoena asks for nine documents. Plaintiffs have since withdrawn eight of the requests

because ongoing investigations have eliminated any further need for the information sought, or

the information was obtained from other sources. The only request that remains is for the MERS

Milestone Report. Request One.

Plaintiffs seek the MERS Milestone Report (MMR) related to their loan because Wall

Street and the mortgage industry accept MERSCORP as one of the best sources of evidence as to

the legal identify Of the Original Lender named in the DOT, its successors in interest and assigns,

and the party with rights to foreclose. Defendant BANA and MERSCORP seek to suppress this

evidence. BANA’s attorneys also represent MERSCORP in this matter.

MERSCORP takes the legal position that “A MERS® System member can access the

MMRfor any loan that they currently service or own. Access to the MMR ceases once a MERS®

System member is no longer the current servicer, owner, or ceases being a MERS® System

PAGE 2 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO (fag GoshaCh

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S Tlilaiiin $536 Way MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 11
PAGE 3 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

member” (Dkt.114 pg 8 sec vi). 

MERSCORP’ legal position is that none of the Defendants in this case currently own or 

service the Plaintiffs loan. Based on this tacit admission, the Plaintiffs ask the court to find in the 

Plaintiff’s favor on their declaratory judgment actions. None of the Defendants have the ability 

to foreclose.

II. KEY FACTS

A. MERS and MERSCORP

MERS surfaced in this litigation because it is a named party in the Plaintiff’s DOT which 

BONYM, and its agents, are foreclosing. MERS is identified in the DOT as its grantee and 

beneficiary. 

MERS is acting as nominee (or agent) for the owner of the promissory Note (the Lender). 

The Lender must be a MERS member to appoint MERS as its nominee (Exhibit B). MERS is 

the Mortgagee of record for the original Lender in the public land records. 

MERSCORP Holdings (MERSCORP) surfaced in this litigation because it is the parent 

company of MERS. As the parent of MERS, it is ultimately responsible for the actions, or 

inactions, of MERS. MERSCORP owns and operates the MERS System. 

The MERS System is a national electronic registry that tracks the changes in servicing 

rights and beneficial ownership interests in mortgage loans that are registered on the System 

(Exhibit C). 

The Plaintiff’s loan is registered in the MERS System. MERSCORP claims that the use 

of its System “eliminates breaks in the chain of title” and it provides a diagram of how the 

MERS Systems works to accomplish that task. (Exhibit D). 

PAGE 3 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

member” (Dkt.114 pg 8 sec vi). 

MERSCORP’ legal position is that none of the Defendants in this case currently own or 

service the Plaintiffs loan. Based on this tacit admission, the Plaintiffs ask the court to find in the 

Plaintiff’s favor on their declaratory judgment actions. None of the Defendants have the ability 

to foreclose.

II. KEY FACTS

A. MERS and MERSCORP

MERS surfaced in this litigation because it is a named party in the Plaintiff’s DOT which 

BONYM, and its agents, are foreclosing. MERS is identified in the DOT as its grantee and 

beneficiary. 

MERS is acting as nominee (or agent) for the owner of the promissory Note (the Lender). 

The Lender must be a MERS member to appoint MERS as its nominee (Exhibit B). MERS is 

the Mortgagee of record for the original Lender in the public land records. 

MERSCORP Holdings (MERSCORP) surfaced in this litigation because it is the parent 

company of MERS. As the parent of MERS, it is ultimately responsible for the actions, or 

inactions, of MERS. MERSCORP owns and operates the MERS System. 

The MERS System is a national electronic registry that tracks the changes in servicing 

rights and beneficial ownership interests in mortgage loans that are registered on the System 

(Exhibit C). 

The Plaintiff’s loan is registered in the MERS System. MERSCORP claims that the use 

of its System “eliminates breaks in the chain of title” and it provides a diagram of how the 

MERS Systems works to accomplish that task. (Exhibit D). 

member” (Dkt.114 pg 8 sec vi).

MERSCORP’ legal position is that none of the Defendants in this case currently own or

service the Plaintiffs loan. Based on this tacit admission, the Plaintiffs ask the court to find in the

Plaintiff’s favor on their declaratory judgment actions. None of the Defendants have the ability

to foreclose.

II. KEY FACTS

A. MERS and MERSCORP

MERS surfaced in this litigation because it is a named party in the Plaintiff’s DOT which

BONYM, and its agents, are foreclosing. MERS is identified in the DOT as its grantee and

beneficiary.

MERS is acting as nominee (or agent) for the owner of the promissory Note (the Lender).

The Lender must be a MERS member to appoint MERS as its nominee (Exhibit B). MERS is

the Mortgagee ofrecord for the original Lender in the public land records.

MERSCORP Holdings (MERSCORP) surfaced in this litigation because it is the parent

company of MERS. As the parent of MERS, it is ultimately responsible for the actions, or

inactions, of MERS. MERSCORP owns and operates the MERS System.

The MERS System is a national electronic registry that tracks the changes in servicing

rights and beneficial ownership interests in mortgage loans that are registered on the System

(Exhibit C).

The Plaintiff” s loan is registered in the MERS System. MERSCORP claims that the use

of its System “eliminates breaks in the chain of title” and it provides a diagram of how the

MERS Systems works to accomplish that task. (Exhibit D).

PAGE 3 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO (fag GoshaCh

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S Tlilaiiin $536 Way MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 11
PAGE 4 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

B. The MERS Milestone Report (MMR). 

The MERS System tracked transfers of beneficial ownership in the Plaintiff’s loan from 

“some date” to “some date”. 

The MMR is a MERS System report that lists the dates of these milestones, and others. 

MERS refuses to produce this document. 

Plaintiffs originally requested the MMR from Defendant’s BANA and BONY in 

discovery requests sent to them in May 2015 (Exhibit E). 

BANA replied that “BANA did request the MERS Milestones Report from MERS and it 

declined to provide the Report.” (Exhibit E pg 3) 

BONYM replied that “BONY and Bayview requested the MERS Milestones Report from 

MERS and it declined to provide the Report.” (Exhibit E pg 2)

MERSCORP stated in its MTQ that “Milestones have no relevancy as to who holds the 

Note or who has the authority to foreclose” (Dkt. 114 pg 5 sec i). 

MERSCORP publicly states, however, that the use of its system “eliminates breaks in the 

chain of title” when MERS is the nominee (or agent) for the owner of the promissory Note (the 

Lender). (Exhibit D)

The MERS System is the primary tracking authority for transfers of beneficial ownership 

in loan assets for the CWALT 2005072 Trust (Exhibit F). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

PAGE 4 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

B. The MERS Milestone Report (MMR). 

The MERS System tracked transfers of beneficial ownership in the Plaintiff’s loan from 

“some date” to “some date”. 

The MMR is a MERS System report that lists the dates of these milestones, and others. 

MERS refuses to produce this document. 

Plaintiffs originally requested the MMR from Defendant’s BANA and BONY in 

discovery requests sent to them in May 2015 (Exhibit E). 

BANA replied that “BANA did request the MERS Milestones Report from MERS and it 

declined to provide the Report.” (Exhibit E pg 3) 

BONYM replied that “BONY and Bayview requested the MERS Milestones Report from 

MERS and it declined to provide the Report.” (Exhibit E pg 2)

MERSCORP stated in its MTQ that “Milestones have no relevancy as to who holds the 

Note or who has the authority to foreclose” (Dkt. 114 pg 5 sec i). 

MERSCORP publicly states, however, that the use of its system “eliminates breaks in the 

chain of title” when MERS is the nominee (or agent) for the owner of the promissory Note (the 

Lender). (Exhibit D)

The MERS System is the primary tracking authority for transfers of beneficial ownership 

in loan assets for the CWALT 2005072 Trust (Exhibit F). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

B. The MERS Milestone Report (MMR).

The MERS System tracked transfers of beneficial ownership in the Plaintiff’ s loan from

“some date” to “some date”.

The MMR is a MERS System report that lists the dates of these milestones, and others.

MERS refuses to produce this document.

Plaintiffs originally requested the MMR from Defendant’s BANA and BONY in

discovery requests sent to them in May 2015 (Exhibit E).

BANA replied that “BANA did request the MERS Milestones Reportfrom MERS and it

declined to provide the Report. ” (Exhibit E pg 3)

BONYM replied that “BONY and Bayview requested the MERS Milestones Reportfrom

MERS and it declined to provide the Report. ” (Exhibit E pg 2)

MERSCORP stated in its MTQ that “Milestones have no relevancy as to who holds the

Note or who has the authority toforeclose ” (Dkt. 114 pg 5 sec i).

MERSCORP publicly states, however, that the use of its system “eliminates breaks in the

chain of title” when MERS is the nominee (or agent) for the owner of the promissory Note (the

Lender). (Exhibit D)

The MERS System is the primary tracking authority for transfers of beneficial ownership

in loan assets for the CWALT 2005072 Trust (Exhibit F).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

///

PAGE 4 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO Gary Gosha h

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 3133n $536 Way

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 4 of 11
PAGE 5 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Two basic legal standards apply to the MERS subpoena. 

First, FRCP 26 sets forth the general scope of discovery in civil suits. “Parties may 

obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or 

defense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “Although the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules is 

unquestionably broad, this right is not unlimited and may be circumscribed.” Bayer AG v. 

Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir.1999). Discovery requests may be curtailed to protect 

a person from whom discovery is sought from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 

burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, 300 

F.R.D. 234, 238 (E.D.Pa.,2014)

Second, FRCP 45 provides corresponding protections for nonparties subject to subpoena. 

After being served with a subpoena duces tecum, a nonparty may object to producing any or all 

of the requested information by serving a written objection on the party or person designated in 

the subpoena. An objection must be served to the subpoenaing party within fourteen days after 

the subpoena is served, but it need not be filed with the court.2 Fed. R. Civ P. 45(d)(2)(B). After 

providing notice to the subpoenaed nonparty, the subpoenaing party may move the court to 

compel compliance with the subpoena. Id. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust 

Litigation, 300 F.R.D. 234, 238 (E.D.Pa.,2014)

“The serve-and-volley of the federal discovery rules govern the resolution of” a motion to 

quash. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 164 F.R.D. 623, 625 (E.D.Pa.1996). The 

subpoenaing party must first show that its requests are relevant to its claims or defenses, within 

the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Id. at 625–26. Next, the burden shifts 

PAGE 5 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Two basic legal standards apply to the MERS subpoena. 

First, FRCP 26 sets forth the general scope of discovery in civil suits. “Parties may 

obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or 

defense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “Although the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules is 

unquestionably broad, this right is not unlimited and may be circumscribed.” Bayer AG v. 

Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir.1999). Discovery requests may be curtailed to protect 

a person from whom discovery is sought from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 

burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, 300 

F.R.D. 234, 238 (E.D.Pa.,2014)

Second, FRCP 45 provides corresponding protections for nonparties subject to subpoena. 

After being served with a subpoena duces tecum, a nonparty may object to producing any or all 

of the requested information by serving a written objection on the party or person designated in 

the subpoena. An objection must be served to the subpoenaing party within fourteen days after 

the subpoena is served, but it need not be filed with the court.2 Fed. R. Civ P. 45(d)(2)(B). After 

providing notice to the subpoenaed nonparty, the subpoenaing party may move the court to 

compel compliance with the subpoena. Id. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust 

Litigation, 300 F.R.D. 234, 238 (E.D.Pa.,2014)

“The serve-and-volley of the federal discovery rules govern the resolution of” a motion to 

quash. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 164 F.R.D. 623, 625 (E.D.Pa.1996). The 

subpoenaing party must first show that its requests are relevant to its claims or defenses, within 

the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Id. at 625–26. Next, the burden shifts 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Two basic legal standards apply to the MERS subpoena.

First, FRCP 26 sets forth the general scope of discovery in civil suits. “Parties may

obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or

defense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). “Although the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules is

unquestionably broad, this right is not unlimited and may be circumscribed.” Bayer AG v.

Betachem, Inc, 173 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir.l999). Discovery requests may be curtailed to protect

a person from whom discovery is sought from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, 300

F.R.D. 234, 238 (E.D.Pa.,2014)

Second, FRCP 45 provides corresponding protections for nonparties subject to subpoena.

After being served with a subpoena duces tecum, a nonparty may object to producing any or all

of the requested information by serving a written objection on the party or person designated in

the subpoena. An objection must be served to the subpoenaing party within fourteen days after

the subpoena is served, but it need not be filed with the court.2 Fed. R. Civ P. 45(d)(2)(B). After

providing notice to the subpoenaed nonparty, the subpoenaing party may move the court to

compel compliance with the subpoena. Id. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust

Litigation, 300 F.R.D. 234, 238 (E.D.Pa.,2014)

“The serve-and-volley of the federal discovery rules govern the resolution of’ a motion to

quash. Mycogen Plant Sci, Inc. v. Monsanto C0., 164 F.R.D. 623, 625 (E.D.Pa.l996). The

subpoenaing party must first show that its requests are relevant to its claims or defenses, within

the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(l). Id. at 625—26. Next, the burden shifts

PAGE 5 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO Gary Gosha

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S $133,323;n Way

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 5 of 11
PAGE 6 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

to the subpoenaed nonparty who must show that disclosure of the information is protected under 

Rule 45(d)(3)(A) or (B). Id. at 626. If the subpoenaed nonparty claims the protections under Rule 

45(d)(3)(B) or asserts that disclosure would subject it to undue burden under Rule 45(d)(3)(A), it 

must show that disclosure will cause it a “clearly defined and serious injury.” City of St. 

Petersburg v. Total Containment, Inc., Case No. 06–cv–20953, 2008 WL 1995298, at *2 

(E.D.Pa. May 5, 2008) (undue burden under Rule 45(d)(3)(A)); In re Mushroom Direct 

Purchaser Antitrust Litig., Case No. 06–cv–0620, 2012 WL 298480, at *5 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 31, 

2012) (disclosure of trade secrets under Rule 45(d)(3)(b)(i)). “This burden is particularly heavy 

to support a motion to quash as contrasted to some more limited protection such as a protective 

order.” Frank Brunckhorst Co. v. Ihm, Case No. 12–cv–0217, 2012 WL 5250399, at *4 (E.D.Pa. 

Oct. 23, 2012). In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, 300 F.R.D. 234, 239 (E.D.Pa.,2014)

C. Balancing Test

This balancing test requires a Court to weigh (1) the relevance, (2) need, (3) and 

confidentiality of the requested materials, as well as (4) the harm that compliance would cause 

the subpoenaed nonparty. Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc. 206 F.R.D. 

525, 529 (D.Del.2002) (“[E]ven if the information sought is relevant, discovery is not allowed 

where no need is shown, or where compliance is unduly burdensome, or where the potential 

harm caused by production outweighs the benefit.”). A court should be “particularly sensitive to 

weighing the probative value of the information sought against the burden of production on 

[a] nonparty.” Fears v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., Case No. 02–cv–4911, 2004 WL 

719185, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2004).

PAGE 6 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

to the subpoenaed nonparty who must show that disclosure of the information is protected under 

Rule 45(d)(3)(A) or (B). Id. at 626. If the subpoenaed nonparty claims the protections under Rule 

45(d)(3)(B) or asserts that disclosure would subject it to undue burden under Rule 45(d)(3)(A), it 

must show that disclosure will cause it a “clearly defined and serious injury.” City of St. 

Petersburg v. Total Containment, Inc., Case No. 06–cv–20953, 2008 WL 1995298, at *2 

(E.D.Pa. May 5, 2008) (undue burden under Rule 45(d)(3)(A)); In re Mushroom Direct 

Purchaser Antitrust Litig., Case No. 06–cv–0620, 2012 WL 298480, at *5 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 31, 

2012) (disclosure of trade secrets under Rule 45(d)(3)(b)(i)). “This burden is particularly heavy 

to support a motion to quash as contrasted to some more limited protection such as a protective 

order.” Frank Brunckhorst Co. v. Ihm, Case No. 12–cv–0217, 2012 WL 5250399, at *4 (E.D.Pa. 

Oct. 23, 2012). In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, 300 F.R.D. 234, 239 (E.D.Pa.,2014)

C. Balancing Test

This balancing test requires a Court to weigh (1) the relevance, (2) need, (3) and 

confidentiality of the requested materials, as well as (4) the harm that compliance would cause 

the subpoenaed nonparty. Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc. 206 F.R.D. 

525, 529 (D.Del.2002) (“[E]ven if the information sought is relevant, discovery is not allowed 

where no need is shown, or where compliance is unduly burdensome, or where the potential 

harm caused by production outweighs the benefit.”). A court should be “particularly sensitive to 

weighing the probative value of the information sought against the burden of production on 

[a] nonparty.” Fears v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., Case No. 02–cv–4911, 2004 WL 

719185, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2004).

to the subpoenaed nonparty who must show that disclosure of the information is protected under

Rule 45(d)(3)(A) or (B). Id. at 626. Ifthe subpoenaed nonparty claims the protections under Rule

45(d)(3)(B) or asserts that disclosure would subject it to undue burden under Rule 45(d)(3)(A), it

must show that disclosure will cause it a “clearly defined and serious injury.” City ofSt.

Petersburg v. Total Containment, Inc, Case No. 06—cv—20953, 2008 WL 1995298, at *2

(E.D.Pa. May 5, 2008) (undue burden under Rule 45(d)(3)(A)); In re Mushroom Direct

Purchaser Antitrust Litig, Case No. 06—cv—0620, 2012 WL 298480, at *5 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 31,

2012) (disclosure of trade secrets under Rule 45(d)(3)(b)(i)). “This burden is particularly heavy

to support a motion to quash as contrasted to some more limited protection such as a protective

order.” Frank Brunckhorst Co. v. Ihm, Case No. 12—cv—0217, 2012 WL 5250399, at *4 (E.D.Pa.

Oct. 23, 2012). In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, 300 F.R.D. 234, 239 (E.D.Pa.,2014)

C. Balancing Test

This balancing test requires a Court to weigh (l) the relevance, (2) need, (3) and

confidentiality of the requested materials, as well as (4) the harm that compliance would cause

the subpoenaed nonparty. Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Armstrong World Indus, Inc. 206 F.R.D.

525, 529 (D.Del.2002) (“[E]ven ifthe information sought is relevant, discovery is not allowed

where no need is shown, or where compliance is unduly burdensome, or where the potential

harm caused by production outweighs the benefit”). A court should be “particularly sensitive to

weighing the probative value of the information sought against the burden of production on

[a] nonparty.” Fears v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., Case No. 02—cv—491 1, 2004 WL

719185, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1,2004).

PAGE 6 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO fary Gosha h

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S $55313n $52316 Way

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 6 of 11
PAGE 7 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

IV. ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs have reviewed FRE 401, FRCP 45, and FRCP 26, and the December 2015 

amendments to Rule 26, and they believe that they have complied in all respects. 

A. Plaintiff’s Subpoena is Not Technically Defective 

MERSCORP first moves to quash Plaintiffs subpoena claiming it is technically defective 

because the Plaintiffs failed to have the Court Clerk sign and issue it. MERSCORP points the 

Court to the subpoena cover page where Plaintiff Gary Gosha signed his name in the signature 

block designated for an attorney. Mr. Gosha is not an attorney. He is a pro se litigant and signed 

the subpoena in that capacity. MERSCORP asserts that a pro se litigant may not sign a subpoena 

in federal court because FRCP 45 states that only a Court Clerk or an Attorney may sign a 

subpoena. MERSCORP then cites the following case:

“A pro se litigant who is not a licensed attorney with the appropriate federal district court 

has no power to issue subpoenas. Accordingly, the subpoenas completed by [the pro se 

plaintiff] were invalid.” United States v. Meredith, 182 F.3d 934 (10th Cir. 1999)

The Plaintiffs respond that the subpoena issued is not technically defective in a manner 

that would constitute the quashing of if as demanded by MERSCORP. Plaintiff’s consulted the 

Court’s 2013 Guide for Self-Represented Parties, FRCP 45, and Local Rule 45 prior to issuing 

the MERSCORP subpoena. The Court’s guide for Self-Represented Parties instructs pro se 

litigants to file a motion with the Court asking for a subpoena and stating the reasons why it 

should be issued (Exhibit G). Since the Plaintiffs had already asked the Court for permission to 

subpoena MERS, and were instructed that they did not need the Court’s permission to do so

(Exhibit H), the Plaintiffs believed they had satisfied the “permissions” requirement for a pro se 

subpoena as required by the Court’s Guide for Self-Represented parties. In an abundance of 

PAGE 7 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

IV. ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs have reviewed FRE 401, FRCP 45, and FRCP 26, and the December 2015 

amendments to Rule 26, and they believe that they have complied in all respects. 

A. Plaintiff’s Subpoena is Not Technically Defective 

MERSCORP first moves to quash Plaintiffs subpoena claiming it is technically defective 

because the Plaintiffs failed to have the Court Clerk sign and issue it. MERSCORP points the 

Court to the subpoena cover page where Plaintiff Gary Gosha signed his name in the signature 

block designated for an attorney. Mr. Gosha is not an attorney. He is a pro se litigant and signed 

the subpoena in that capacity. MERSCORP asserts that a pro se litigant may not sign a subpoena 

in federal court because FRCP 45 states that only a Court Clerk or an Attorney may sign a 

subpoena. MERSCORP then cites the following case:

“A pro se litigant who is not a licensed attorney with the appropriate federal district court 

has no power to issue subpoenas. Accordingly, the subpoenas completed by [the pro se 

plaintiff] were invalid.” United States v. Meredith, 182 F.3d 934 (10th Cir. 1999)

The Plaintiffs respond that the subpoena issued is not technically defective in a manner 

that would constitute the quashing of if as demanded by MERSCORP. Plaintiff’s consulted the 

Court’s 2013 Guide for Self-Represented Parties, FRCP 45, and Local Rule 45 prior to issuing 

the MERSCORP subpoena. The Court’s guide for Self-Represented Parties instructs pro se 

litigants to file a motion with the Court asking for a subpoena and stating the reasons why it 

should be issued (Exhibit G). Since the Plaintiffs had already asked the Court for permission to 

subpoena MERS, and were instructed that they did not need the Court’s permission to do so

(Exhibit H), the Plaintiffs believed they had satisfied the “permissions” requirement for a pro se 

subpoena as required by the Court’s Guide for Self-Represented parties. In an abundance of 

IV. ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs have reviewed FRE 401, FRCP 45, and FRCP 26, and the December 2015

amendments to Rule 26, and they believe that they have complied in all respects.

A. Plaintiff’s Subpoena is Not Technically Defective

MERSCORP first moves to quash Plaintiffs subpoena claiming it is technically defective

because the Plaintiffs failed to have the Court Clerk sign and issue it. MERSCORP points the

Court to the subpoena cover page where Plaintiff Gary Gosha signed his name in the signature

block designated for an attorney. Mr. Gosha is not an attorney. He is a pro se litigant and signed

the subpoena in that capacity. MERSCORP asserts that a pro se litigant may not sign a subpoena

in federal court because FRCP 45 states that only a Court Clerk or an Attorney may sign a

subpoena. MERSCORP then cites the following case:

“A pro se litigant who is not a licensed attorney with the appropriate federal district court

has no power to issue subpoenas. Accordingly, the subpoenas completed by [the pro se

plaintiff] were invalid.” United States v. Meredith, 182 F.3d 934 (10th Cir. 1999)

The Plaintiffs respond that the subpoena issued is not technically defective in a manner

that would constitute the quashing of if as demanded by MERSCORP. Plaintiff’s consulted the

Court’s 2013 Guide for Self-Represented Parties, FRCP 45, and Local Rule 45 prior to issuing

the MERSCORP subpoena. The Court’s guide for Self-Represented Parties instructs pro se

litigants to file a motion with the Court asking for a subpoena and stating the reasons why it

should be issued (Exhibit G). Since the Plaintiffs had already asked the Court for permission to

subpoena MERS, and were instructed that they did not need the Court’s permission to do so

(Exhibit H), the Plaintiffs believed they had satisfied the “permissions” requirement for a pro se

subpoena as required by the Court’s Guide for Self-Represented parties. In an abundance of

PAGE 7 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO (fag GoshaCh

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S $13,:n5;n Way MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 7 of 11
PAGE 8 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

caution, however, the Plaintiffs personally checked with the Clerk of the Court on August 15, 

2016 (while making a PI bond payment) and asked if the Court needed to sign and issue the 

subpoena because the Plaintiffs were appearing pro se. The Clerk responded that the Court does 

not issue subpoenas nor will it sign them. This policy is consistent with the Court’s earlier 

directive that Plaintiffs did not need the Court’s permission to subpoena MERSCORP and 

declined to grant it. There were two clerks at the counter when the Plaintiffs ask about the 

signature requirements on the subpoena cover sheet. Both Clerks agreed that as long as we were 

proceeding pro se it was proper to sign our names in the “attorney signature” block on the cover 

page. The Plaintiffs then signed the subpoena on page one as shown in Exhibit A and served it 

upon MERS and MERSCORP on August 22, 2016. 

Plaintiffs move the Court to modify the subpoena reflecting the one remaining request 

and either compel MERSCORP to answer it, or in the alternative, have the Plaintiffs create a new 

limited subpoena and have Clerk of the Court sign and place it on the record. The Plaintiffs will 

then serve the appropriate party. 

B. MERS Milestone Report (MMR)

As previously stated, Wall Street and the mortgage industry trust MERSCORP as one of 

the best sources of evidence as to the legal identify of the Original Lender named in the DOT, its 

successors in interest and assigns, and the party with rights to foreclose a loan. The MMR is a 

simple one-page report. There is no undue burden here at all. It can literally be produced with a 

mouse click. 

The MERS System tracked the Plaintiffs loan for many years and recorded many 

milestones (servicing and transfer of beneficial ownership events) related to it. The MMR is a 

PAGE 8 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

caution, however, the Plaintiffs personally checked with the Clerk of the Court on August 15, 

2016 (while making a PI bond payment) and asked if the Court needed to sign and issue the 

subpoena because the Plaintiffs were appearing pro se. The Clerk responded that the Court does 

not issue subpoenas nor will it sign them. This policy is consistent with the Court’s earlier 

directive that Plaintiffs did not need the Court’s permission to subpoena MERSCORP and 

declined to grant it. There were two clerks at the counter when the Plaintiffs ask about the 

signature requirements on the subpoena cover sheet. Both Clerks agreed that as long as we were 

proceeding pro se it was proper to sign our names in the “attorney signature” block on the cover 

page. The Plaintiffs then signed the subpoena on page one as shown in Exhibit A and served it 

upon MERS and MERSCORP on August 22, 2016. 

Plaintiffs move the Court to modify the subpoena reflecting the one remaining request 

and either compel MERSCORP to answer it, or in the alternative, have the Plaintiffs create a new 

limited subpoena and have Clerk of the Court sign and place it on the record. The Plaintiffs will 

then serve the appropriate party. 

B. MERS Milestone Report (MMR)

As previously stated, Wall Street and the mortgage industry trust MERSCORP as one of 

the best sources of evidence as to the legal identify of the Original Lender named in the DOT, its 

successors in interest and assigns, and the party with rights to foreclose a loan. The MMR is a 

simple one-page report. There is no undue burden here at all. It can literally be produced with a 

mouse click. 

The MERS System tracked the Plaintiffs loan for many years and recorded many 

milestones (servicing and transfer of beneficial ownership events) related to it. The MMR is a 

caution, however, the Plaintiffs personally checked with the Clerk of the Court on August 15,

2016 (while making a PI bond payment) and asked ifthe Court needed to sign and issue the

subpoena because the Plaintiffs were appearing pro se. The Clerk responded that the Court does

not issue subpoenas nor will it sign them. This policy is consistent with the Court’s earlier

directive that Plaintiffs did not need the Court’s permission to subpoena MERSCORP and

declined to grant it. There were two clerks at the counter when the Plaintiffs ask about the

signature requirements on the subpoena cover sheet. Both Clerks agreed that as long as we were

proceeding pro se it was proper to sign our names in the “attorney signature” block on the cover

page. The Plaintiffs then signed the subpoena on page one as shown in Exhibit A and served it

upon MERS and MERSCORP on August 22, 2016.

Plaintiffs move the Court to modify the subpoena reflecting the one remaining request

and either compel MERSCORP to answer it, or in the alternative, have the Plaintiffs create a new

limited subpoena and have Clerk of the Court sign and place it on the record. The Plaintiffs will

then serve the appropriate party.

B. MERS Milestone Report (MMR)

As previously stated, Wall Street and the mortgage industry trust MERSCORP as one of

the best sources of evidence as to the legal identify of the Original Lender named in the DOT, its

successors in interest and assigns, and the party with rights to foreclose a loan. The MMR is a

simple one-page report. There is no undue burden here at all. It can literally be produced with a

mouse click.

The MERS System tracked the Plaintiffs loan for many years and recorded many

milestones (servicing and transfer of beneficial ownership events) related to it. The MMR is a

PAGE 8 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO Gary Gosha h

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S flflflg$536 Way

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 8 of 11
PAGE 9 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

record of those milestones and can confirm the following: 

1. Who registered the loan with MERS, and when;

2. Who serviced the loan, and when;

3. Who had beneficial ownership of loan, and when, and; 

4. Which MERS members had access to the loan’s data & reports, and when. 

The MMR is therefore relevant because it is both probative and material in determining 

the legal identify of the Original Lender named in the DOT, its successors in interest and assigns, 

and the party with rights to foreclose a loan. As the court is aware, FRCP 26 grants litigants 

“wide access to relevant facts.” Shoen, 5 F.3d at 1292. 

MERSCORP moves to quash the MMR because the “Milestones have no relevancy as to 

who holds the Note or who has the authority to conduct foreclosure proceedings” (Dkt. 114 pg 5 

sec i). This is an absurd statement on its face. The very purpose of the MERS System and the 

MMR is to track this type of information. MERSCORP also states that “A MERS® System 

member can access the MMR for any loan that they currently service or own. Access to the MMR 

ceases once a MERS® System member is no longer the current servicer, owner, or ceases being 

a MERS® System member” (Dkt. 114 pg 8 sec vi.). Both BANA and BONYM have taken the 

position that they asked MERSCORP for the MMR and it declined to produce it (Exhibit E). 

MERSCORP took this position to avoid having to produce the document. 

These statements are tacit admissions by MERSCORP that BONYM does not currently 

own the Plaintiffs loan. These admissions are troubling because the CWALT 2005-72 PSA

controlling BONYM’s legal authority to foreclose a loan on its behalf, specifically requires that 

its MOM (MERS Originated Mortgage) loan assets are to be assigned to the Trustee (BONYM) 

PAGE 9 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

record of those milestones and can confirm the following: 

1. Who registered the loan with MERS, and when;

2. Who serviced the loan, and when;

3. Who had beneficial ownership of loan, and when, and; 

4. Which MERS members had access to the loan’s data & reports, and when. 

The MMR is therefore relevant because it is both probative and material in determining 

the legal identify of the Original Lender named in the DOT, its successors in interest and assigns, 

and the party with rights to foreclose a loan. As the court is aware, FRCP 26 grants litigants 

“wide access to relevant facts.” Shoen, 5 F.3d at 1292. 

MERSCORP moves to quash the MMR because the “Milestones have no relevancy as to 

who holds the Note or who has the authority to conduct foreclosure proceedings” (Dkt. 114 pg 5 

sec i). This is an absurd statement on its face. The very purpose of the MERS System and the 

MMR is to track this type of information. MERSCORP also states that “A MERS® System 

member can access the MMR for any loan that they currently service or own. Access to the MMR 

ceases once a MERS® System member is no longer the current servicer, owner, or ceases being 

a MERS® System member” (Dkt. 114 pg 8 sec vi.). Both BANA and BONYM have taken the 

position that they asked MERSCORP for the MMR and it declined to produce it (Exhibit E). 

MERSCORP took this position to avoid having to produce the document. 

These statements are tacit admissions by MERSCORP that BONYM does not currently 

own the Plaintiffs loan. These admissions are troubling because the CWALT 2005-72 PSA

controlling BONYM’s legal authority to foreclose a loan on its behalf, specifically requires that 

its MOM (MERS Originated Mortgage) loan assets are to be assigned to the Trustee (BONYM) 

record of those milestones and can confirm the following:

1. Who registered the loan with MERS, and when;

2. Who serviced the loan, and when;

3. Who had beneficial ownership of loan, and when, and;

4. Which MERS members had access to the loan’s data & reports, and when.

The MMR is therefore relevant because it is both probative and material in determining

the legal identify of the Original Lender named in the DOT, its successors in interest and assigns,

and the party with rights to foreclose a loan. As the court is aware, FRCP 26 grants litigants

“wide access to relevant facts.” Shoen, 5 F.3d at 1292.

MERSCORP moves to quash the MMR because the “Milestones have no relevancy as to

who holds the Note or who has the authority to conductforeclosure proceedings” (Dkt. 114 pg 5

sec i). This is an absurd statement on its face. The very purpose of the MERS System and the

MMR is to track this type of information. MERSCORP also states that “A MERS® System

member can access the MMRfor any loan that they currently service or own. Access to the MMR

ceases once a MERS® System member is no longer the current servicer, owner, or ceases being

a MERS® System member” (Dkt. 114 pg 8 sec vi.). Both BANA and BONYM have taken the

position that they asked MERSCORP for the MMR and it declined to produce it (Exhibit E).

MERSCORP took this position to avoid having to produce the document.

These statements are tacit admissions by MERSCORP that BONYM does not currently

own the Plaintiffs loan. These admissions are troubling because the CWALT 2005-72 PSA

controlling BONYM’s legal authority to foreclose a loan on its behalf, specifically requires that

its MOM (MERS Originated Mortgage) loan assets are to be assigned to the Trustee (BONYM)

PAGE 9 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO fag Ggshzh NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S TililftinY‘OR $536 Way MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 9 of 11
PAGE 10 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

and recorded in the MERS System. MERSCORP’S admission that its milestones are not 

relevant as to who owns the loan clearly supports the Plaintiffs claims that BONYM has no 

standing to foreclose and its actions are deceptive as prescribed under ORS 646.608. Oregon 

courts liberally allow broad testimony into evidence to establish fraud claims. Columbia River 

Door Co. v. Priest, 128 Or. 359, 362, 274 P. 116 (1929). This includes the use of circumstantial 

evidence that is clear and satisfactory in nature. Conzelmann v. Northwest Poultry & Dairy 

Products Co., 190 Or. 332, 350-51, 225 P.2d 757 (1950).

V. CONCLUSION

MERSCORP appears to be facilitating the Defendant’s foreclosure in this case by 

suppressing documents that would support the Plaintiff’s allegations that the foreclosure is 

unlawful. It is clear that BANA has stepped in front of MERSCORP and is protecting it from 

the Plaintiff’s inquiries. Why else would they have the same counsel?

MERSCORP refuses to produce the MERS Milestone Report and represents to the Court 

that it will not produce the Report because none of the Defendants are current owners of the loan. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask the court to find in the Plaintiff’s favor on their declaratory 

judgment actions. None of the Defendants have the ability to foreclose.

Date: September 26, 2016 

/s/ Gary Gosha 

Gary C. Gosha, Kit M. Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way, 

Tualatin, OR 97062, 

gcgosha@gmail.com, 

503-522-6571

Plaintiffs, Pro Se

PAGE 10 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

and recorded in the MERS System. MERSCORP’S admission that its milestones are not 

relevant as to who owns the loan clearly supports the Plaintiffs claims that BONYM has no 

standing to foreclose and its actions are deceptive as prescribed under ORS 646.608. Oregon 

courts liberally allow broad testimony into evidence to establish fraud claims. Columbia River 

Door Co. v. Priest, 128 Or. 359, 362, 274 P. 116 (1929). This includes the use of circumstantial 

evidence that is clear and satisfactory in nature. Conzelmann v. Northwest Poultry & Dairy 

Products Co., 190 Or. 332, 350-51, 225 P.2d 757 (1950).

V. CONCLUSION

MERSCORP appears to be facilitating the Defendant’s foreclosure in this case by 

suppressing documents that would support the Plaintiff’s allegations that the foreclosure is 

unlawful. It is clear that BANA has stepped in front of MERSCORP and is protecting it from 

the Plaintiff’s inquiries. Why else would they have the same counsel?

MERSCORP refuses to produce the MERS Milestone Report and represents to the Court 

that it will not produce the Report because none of the Defendants are current owners of the loan. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask the court to find in the Plaintiff’s favor on their declaratory 

judgment actions. None of the Defendants have the ability to foreclose.

Date: September 26, 2016 

/s/ Gary Gosha 

Gary C. Gosha, Kit M. Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way, 

Tualatin, OR 97062, 

gcgosha@gmail.com, 

503-522-6571

Plaintiffs, Pro Se

and recorded in the MERS System. MERSCORP’S admission that its milestones are not

relevant as to who owns the loan clearly supports the Plaintiffs claims that BONYM has no

standing to foreclose and its actions are deceptive as prescribed under ORS 646.608. Oregon

courts liberally allow broad testimony into evidence to establish fraud claims. Columbia River

Door Co. v. Priest, 128 Or. 359, 362, 274 P. 116 (1929). This includes the use of circumstantial

evidence that is clear and satisfactory in nature. Conzelmann v. Northwest Poultry & Dairy

Products Co., 190 Or. 332, 350-51, 225 P.2d 757 (1950).

V. CONCLUSION

MERSCORP appears tO be facilitating the Defendant’s foreclosure in this case by

suppressing documents that would support the Plaintiff’s allegations that the foreclosure is

unlawful. It is clear that BANA has stepped in front of MERSCORP and is protecting it from

the Plaintiff’S inquiries. Why else would they have the same counsel?

MERSCORP refuses to produce the MERS Milestone Report and represents to the Court

that it will not produce the Report because none of the Defendants are current owners of the loan.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask the court to find in the Plaintiff’s favor on their declaratory

judgment actions. None of the Defendants have the ability tO foreclose.

Date: September 26, 2016

/s/ Gary Gosha

Gary C. Gosha, Kit M. Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way,

Tualatin, OR 97062,

gcgosha@gmail.com,

503-522-6571

Plaintiffis, Pro Se

PAGE 10 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO (fag GoshaCh

NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S TfilftiflR $536 Way

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 10 of 11
PAGE 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 26, 2016, the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 

IN OPPOSITION TO NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION TO 

QUASH SUBPOENA was served via the CM/ECF System of the UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.

James P. Laurick OSB 821530

Kilmer, Voorhees & Laurick, P.C. 

732 NW 19th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97209 

Telephone: (503) 224-0055 

Fax: (503) 222-5290 

Email: jlaurick@kilmerlaw.com

Attorneys for Bank of America.

Attorneys for MERS and MERSCORP.

□ Via Delivery by Messenger

□ Via First Class Mail

X Via Court Electronic Service

Danielle Crockford, Attorney 

McGuireWoods LLP 

201 North Tryon Street 

Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202-2146 

T: +1 704.343.2370 

M: +1 704.221.8269 

F: +1 704.444.8827 

dcrockford@mcguirewoods.com

www.mcguirewoods.com

Attorneys for Bank of America.

Attorneys for MERS and MERSCORP. 

X Via Email

□ Via Delivery by Messenger

□ Via First Class Mail

□ Via Court Electronic Service

Peter J. Salmon

Aldridge Pite LLP

4375 Jutland Drive, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92117

Email: psalmon@aldridgepite.com

Of Attorneys for Defendants Bayview Loan 

Servicing LLC and Clear Recon Corp.

□ Via Delivery by Messenger

□ Via First Class Mail

X Via Court Electronic Service

Dated: September 26, 2016. 

/s/ Gary Gosha

Gary C. Gosha, Kit M. Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

gcgosha@gmail.com, 503-522-6571

Plaintiffs, Pro Se

PAGE 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 26, 2016, the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 

IN OPPOSITION TO NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION TO 

QUASH SUBPOENA was served via the CM/ECF System of the UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.

James P. Laurick OSB 821530

Kilmer, Voorhees & Laurick, P.C. 

732 NW 19th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97209 

Telephone: (503) 224-0055 

Fax: (503) 222-5290 

Email: jlaurick@kilmerlaw.com

Attorneys for Bank of America.

Attorneys for MERS and MERSCORP.

□ Via Delivery by Messenger

□ Via First Class Mail

X Via Court Electronic Service

Danielle Crockford, Attorney 

McGuireWoods LLP 

201 North Tryon Street 

Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202-2146 

T: +1 704.343.2370 

M: +1 704.221.8269 

F: +1 704.444.8827 

dcrockford@mcguirewoods.com

www.mcguirewoods.com

Attorneys for Bank of America.

Attorneys for MERS and MERSCORP. 

X Via Email

□ Via Delivery by Messenger

□ Via First Class Mail

□ Via Court Electronic Service

Peter J. Salmon

Aldridge Pite LLP

4375 Jutland Drive, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92117

Email: psalmon@aldridgepite.com

Of Attorneys for Defendants Bayview Loan 

Servicing LLC and Clear Recon Corp.

□ Via Delivery by Messenger

□ Via First Class Mail

X Via Court Electronic Service

Dated: September 26, 2016. 

/s/ Gary Gosha

Gary C. Gosha, Kit M. Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

gcgosha@gmail.com, 503-522-6571

Plaintiffs, Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 26, 2016, the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE

IN OPPOSITION TO NONPARTY MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION TO

QUASH SUBPOENA was served via the CM/ECF System of the UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.

James P. Laurick OSB 821530

Kilmer, Voorhees & Laurick, RC.

732 NW 19th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97209

Telephone: (503) 224-0055

Fax: (503) 222—5290

Email: jlaurick@kilmerlaw.com

Attorneysfor Bank ofAmerica.

Attorneysfor MERS and MERSCORP.

Danielle Crockford, Attorney

McGuireWoods LLP

201 North Tryon Street

Suite 3000

Charlotte, NC 28202-2146

T: +1 704.343.2370

M: +1 704.221.8269

F: +1 704.444.8827

dcrockford@mcguirewoods.com

www.mcguirewoods.com

Attorneysfor Bank ofAmerica.

Attorneysfor MERS and MERSCORP.

Peter J. Salmon

Aldridge Pite LLP

4375 Jutland Drive, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92117

Email: psalmon@aldridgepite.com

0fAttorneysfor Defendants Bayview Loan

Servicing LLC and Clear Recon Corp.

Dated: September 26, 2016.

El Via Delivery by Messenger

El Via First Class Mail

X Via Court Electronic Service

X Via Email

El Via Delivery by Messenger

El Via First Class Mail

El Via Court Electronic Service

El Via Delivery by Messenger

El Via First Class Mail

X Via Court Electronic Service

/s/ Gary Gosha

Gary C. Gosha, Kit M. Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

gcgosha@gmail.com, 503-522-6571

Plaintififs, Pro Se

PAGE 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Gary Gosha

17590 SW Cheyenne Way

Tualatin, OR 97062

Case 3:16-cv-00073-BR Document 121 Filed 09/26/16 Page 11 of 11