April 2026 Production Holds Proof of Service Sworn Three Days After the File Was Made

2 — Expanded Header

The April 2026 case-file production was created on April 20, 2026 at 1:46:33 PM PDT — its own PDF metadata carries that CreationDate A, and the requester's April 24, 2026 record-integrity notice independently confirmed the same minute and producer ("Microsoft Print to PDF") R.26-1549. At its final pages that same file carries a "Proof of Service by Certified Mail CCP § 1013a CCP § 2015.5" A635–A636 signed by Desere Williams, declaring: "On 04/23/2026, I served the following document: Notice of Hearing - Housing & Dangerous Buildings Costs Packet" addressed to "JACKIE BARITELL TRUST, 4880 T ST," and "I declare under penalty of perjury … that this declaration was executed at Sacramento, California, on 04/23/2026." The packet it swears was served is the one for the June 10, 2026 HCAAB cost-recovery hearing on invoice CDDCHC24459 C13. A proof of service swearing a mailing was made — and the declaration executed — on April 23 sits inside a file the City created on April 20.

A proof of service under CCP § 1013a is a signed statement, sworn under penalty of perjury under CCP § 2015.5, that a document already went into the mail on a specific date. The city's official case file — the digital copy it produced in response to CPRA Request 26-1549 — was created on April 20, 2026; the file's own internal stamp and the "Print to PDF" conversion timestamp both say so, down to the minute A R.26-1549. The last two pages of that file contain a sworn proof of service stating that a hearing notice was put in the mail, and the statement signed, on April 23, 2026 A635–A636 — three days later. The city's own running case notes confirm the April 23 mailing was still a scheduled future event as of April 17 M040. A file made on the 20th already contained a signed oath that something happened on the 23rd.

3 — Record Chain

4 — Requested City Action

1. Produce a City export log, custodian declaration, or corrected metadata record showing the April 2026 production was assembled or finalized on or after April 23, 2026, if the City contends the date difference is a workflow artifact and the proof of service reflects a declaration executed before the mailing date it recites A R.26-1549.
2. Identify the workflow, system, or policy that permits or results in a CCP § 1013a proof of service being included in a case file prior to the mailing date it attests, and produce any policy, directive, or training document authorizing pre-dating of service declarations A635–A636 CCP § 1013a CCP § 2015.5.
3. Confirm whether the April 23, 2026 mailing actually occurred — the April 28, 2026 log records receipt of a signed green card dated April 24, 2026 M040 — and produce the certified-mail tracking record and signed green card for the June 10, 2026 HCAAB hearing notice on invoice CDDCHC24459 C13.
4. Respond to the requester's April 24, 2026 portal notice R.26-1549 C45 requesting a stay of the June 10, 2026 hearing, and state the City's position on the production-integrity discrepancy identified in that notice.
5. If no export log, custodian declaration, or corrected metadata record exists, acknowledge the record discrepancy and explain what the City will produce or correct in the CPRA-production record for Case 23-009185 R.26-1549 C47.

5 — Full Circle

The City created the April production on April 20, 2026 — its own metadata and its own "Print to PDF" timestamp say so A, and the requester's notice independently confirmed the same minute R.26-1549. Inside that file, on its final pages, is a proof of service sworn under penalty of perjury that the June 10 hearing packet was served, and the declaration executed, on April 23, 2026 A635–A636 — and the note log confirms the April 23 mailing was still a scheduled future event when the file was made M040. A sworn declaration recites a completed mailing three days ahead of the mailing date it states.

Anticipated City defense: The Proof of Service was prepared in advance for a scheduled mailing; staff routinely pre-generate service declarations for a planned certified-mail date; the April 20 production simply captured a form already in the system, so the date difference is a workflow artifact, not a defect.

Answer: That explanation states the problem rather than curing it. A proof of service under CCP § 1013a attests that a mailing was made on the date recited and that the declaration was executed on that date; both the service and the execution are sworn in the past tense to April 23, 2026 A635–A636. If the signed declaration already sat inside a file created April 20 A, it recited a service and an execution that had not yet occurred. The note log itself describes the April 23 mailing in the future tense as of April 17 M040. This proof of service sits in the same April production the requester separately flagged for record-integrity defects C45, and it serves the very June 10 hearing that notice asked the City to stay R.26-1549. A City export log, custodian declaration, or corrected metadata showing the April production was in fact assembled on or after April 23, 2026 would resolve the date difference; absent that, disproving this requires the City to introduce records that contradict a production it has already closed as complete — the completeness trap at C47. The City's April 20, 2026 production holds a proof of service, sworn under penalty of perjury, executed April 23, 2026 — three days after the file that holds it was created.

---

Applicable Law

• CCP § 1013a — California Code of Civil Procedure § 1013a — proof of service by mail; form and requirements; attests that a mailing was made on the date recited.
• CCP § 2015.5 CCP § 1013a CCP § 2015.5 — California Code of Civil Procedure § 2015.5 — declaration under penalty of perjury; execution requirements. While courts generally treat a proof of service as presumptively valid once service is shown, CCP § 1013a and CCP § 2015.5 require the declarant to attest to the mailing and execution as past-tense events.