The inspector’s 01/12/2026 case note records photographing a handyman’s letter “about the city of Sacramento and me as the inspector”; the City’s document inventory labels the two 01/12/2026 photographs as “Letter provided by handyman to neighbors”; the two produced images are a blank Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury about whether access was given to the inspector, and its instruction sheet.
A city inspector wrote in his own case file that some neighbors told him a handyman had sent them a letter complaining about the city and about him, and that he had photographed that letter and added it to the file. M038 The city’s list of documents then logs two photos taken that day, both labeled “Letter provided by handyman to neighbors.” M023 But the two photos that were actually produced — the only two in the entire file carrying that date — are not a letter at all. M045 They are a blank, unsigned form: a “declaration under penalty of perjury” asking whether the property owner had let the inspector into the backyard, plus a one-page sheet explaining how to fill the form out. M045 So the note and the label both promise one thing — a handyman’s complaint letter — while the file holds something else entirely. This only became clear after the owner’s representative pushed the city to produce the actual images and someone opened them, instead of trusting the label; the label said “letter,” but the picture is a blank access form. R.26-1965
Bottom line: the inspector’s note and the city’s own label say two photos show a handyman’s letter attacking the city and the inspector, but the two photos the city actually produced under that label are a blank form about whether the inspector was let onto the property — a different document than the one the record describes.On 01/12/2026 the inspector logged a case note recording a 10:30 a.m. meeting with neighbors at a Starbucks. The note records the neighbors saying the handyman “sent a letter to them about the city of Sacramento and me as the inspector,” followed by the inspector’s own line: “I took pictures of the letter and put it in the case documents.” M038 The City’s document inventory registers two photo uploads dated the same day — IMG_0754.jpg and IMG_0755.jpg — both labeled “Letter provided by handyman to neighbors.” M023 Those two photographs are the only two in the entire production carrying a “Date Taken” of 01/12/2026, and both are mounted on the City’s standard Photograph Declaration pages, “Taken By: Paul Lovato.” M045
The images are not a handyman’s letter about the City. IMG_0754 is a one-page “how to complete” instruction sheet, and IMG_0755 is a blank Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury — a form asking whether the property owner allowed the inspector access to the backyard in this code-enforcement matter, with DID / DID NOT checkboxes for whether the declarant allowed the inspector “to access my backyard and/or property on that date,” the 03/20/2023–04/11/2023 case timeline reprinted in the body, and blank signature, printed-name, telephone, and date fields. M045 The note and the label describe a handyman’s complaint letter; M038 M023 the photos the City produced under that label are a blank access-declaration form.
The 01/12/2026 note records the neighbors describing a letter “about the city of Sacramento and me as the inspector,” and the inspector writing that he “took pictures of the letter and put it in the case documents.” M038
The City’s document inventory records IMG_0754.jpg and IMG_0755.jpg, dated 01/12/2026, both as “Letter provided by handyman to neighbors.” M023 These are the only two documents in the inventory carrying that date.
On the two Photograph Declaration pages dated 01/12/2026 — the only two photos in the production carrying that date M023 — IMG_0754 is a one-page “how to complete” instruction sheet, M045 and IMG_0755 is a blank “Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury” form documenting “my personal recollection regarding that visit and access by parties involved in the related code enforcement matter,” with DID / DID NOT checkboxes for whether the declarant allowed the inspector “to access my backyard and/or property on that date,” the 03/20/2023–04/11/2023 case timeline reprinted in the body, and blank signature, printed-name, telephone, and date fields. M045
A blank access-recollection declaration and its instruction sheet are not “a letter … about the city of Sacramento and me as the inspector.” M038 The document the note describes M038 and the inventory names M023 is not the document produced under that label. M045 If the letter the note describes exists, it should be producible; the document produced under that label is, on its face, something else.
The inspector logged photographing a handyman’s letter about the City and himself, M038 and the City’s own document inventory labeled the two 01/12/2026 photographs as exactly that. M023 The produced images — the only two photos in the production carrying that date — are instead a blank Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury about whether access was given to the inspector, plus the instruction sheet that explains how to fill it out. M045 The note and the label describe one kind of document; the record holds another. The correction is direct: produce the letter, or reconcile what the inspector logged against what the City produced — and do so against a production the City has already certified as complete. Card 47 R.26-1965 Govt Code §7920.000