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.
A proof of service is a signed statement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that says a document already went into the mail on a specific date. CCP §1013a CCP §2015.5 The city’s official case file for this property — the digital copy it handed over in response to a records request — was created on April 20, 2026; the file’s own internal stamp and the city’s own “print to PDF” time both say so, down to the minute. R.26-1549 But tucked into the last pages of that very file is a sworn proof of service stating that a hearing notice was put in the mail, and the statement signed, on April 23, 2026 — three days later. A635–A636 The notice it describes was for a June 10, 2026 hearing about an unpaid $410.40 bill. Card 13 The city’s own running case notes even say, days earlier, that the packet “will be sent” on April 23, in the future tense. M040 So a file made on the 20th already contained a signed oath that something happened on the 23rd. This only became visible because the property owner’s representative kept pushing the city for fresh copies of the record and then compared the file’s hidden creation date against the dates written inside it. R.26-1549
Bottom line: a file the city created on April 20 already held a proof of service swearing that a mailing was made, and the statement signed, on April 23 — three days that had not yet happened when the file was made.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, R.26-1549 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” 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.” A635–A636 The packet it swears was served is the one for the June 10, 2026 HCAAB cost-recovery hearing on invoice CDDCHC24459. Card 13 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.
The April production’s format, metadata baseline, and provenance are documented at Card 40. Card 40 The request-integrity notice and the City’s non-response to it are documented at Card 45. Card 45
The April production’s PDF metadata reads: CreationDate April 20, 2026 1:46:33 PM PDT, ModDate April 20, 2026 5:57:50 PM PDT, Producer “Microsoft: Print To PDF,” Author Melanie Haage, 636 pages. R.26-1549 The same creation minute was independently confirmed in the requester’s April 24 notice posted to the portal. R.26-1549 The April production’s format, metadata baseline, and provenance are documented at Card 40. Card 40
The final two pages of the April file are a Proof of Service by Certified Mail, invoking CCP §1013a and CCP §2015.5, signed by Desere Williams: served “On 04/23/2026 … Notice of Hearing — Housing & Dangerous Buildings Costs Packet”; addressed “JACKIE BARITELL TRUST, 4880 T ST”; “executed … on 04/23/2026”; hand-signed; Case 23-009185; barcode LH23-009185. A635–A636 Page 636 duplicates page 635; the same declaration appears twice.
The City’s note log records the chain: on 04/17/2026 Desere Williams entered that the City scheduled the June 10, 2026 HCAAB hearing on invoice CDDCHC24459 ($410.40) and that “A Notice of Hearing packet will be sent by certified mail on 04.23.2026” — future tense, as of April 17. M040 On 04/28/2026 the same log records: “Received signed certified green card for the 06/10/2026 HCAAB hearing packet. Signature unknown dated 04/24/2026.” M040 As of the April 20 production date, the April 23 mailing was a future event the City itself described in the future tense. The fee-ledger context for invoice CDDCHC24459 is at Card 13. Card 13
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 past tense, both sworn under penalty of perjury per CCP §2015.5. The April 20, 2026 production already held a proof of service stating both the service and the execution occurred on April 23, 2026 A635–A636 — three days after the creation date embedded in the file’s own metadata. R.26-1549
The City created the April production on April 20, 2026 — its own metadata and its own “Print to PDF” timestamp say so, R.26-1549 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.
The strongest City response is that 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. The answer is 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, it recited a service and an execution that had not yet occurred. R.26-1549 The note log itself describes the April 23 mailing in the future tense as of April 17. M040 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. Card 47 R.26-1549