Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCP04200, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

24STCP02299  Luchia Tsegaberhan
The Petition will be granted.  A copy of the signed decree will be available in Room 112 of the clerk’s office seven days after the date of the hearing.

Case Number: 24STCP04200    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 86

MOTION FOR ORDER TO RECEIVE AFFIDAVITS WITH ORIGINAL SIGNATURES

Date:               5/15/25 (1:30 PM)

Case:               Jasper Jackson v. Deidre M. Duhart, et al. (24STCP04200)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Jaspter Jackson’s Motion for Order to Receive Affidavits with Original Signatures is DENIED.

Registrar’s request to take judicial notice of Exhibits A-D are GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(c).

The instant motion is defective and subject to denial on several grounds. First, there is no proof that a Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents was ever served on Registrar. Petitioner attests that a Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents was personally served on Registrar on December 31, 2024. (Jackson Decl. ¶ 3.) However, with regard to such subpoena, it was withdrawn because petitioner and Registrar entered into a stipulation wherein Registrar would produce certain election materials, which it has complied with. (Baumgarten Decl. ¶¶ 2-7; Exs. 1-3; see also 3/17/25 Stipulated Order at 2:19 [“As a further result of counsels’ discussion, Petitioner agreed to withdraw the Subpoena . . .”].) Registrar denies having received any other discovery request. (Baumgarten Decl. ¶ 8.) In reply, petitioner fails to submit any documentary proof to rebut this denial.

Second, the motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(b), which is meant for party discovery. As Registrar is not a party to this action, petitioner lacks grounds to seek discovery from Registrar under § 2031.300. In reply, petitioner argues that courts are permitted to “compel election officials to produce relevant materials.” (Reply at 2:1-4, citing Elec. Code § 16100 et seq. and Clark v. McCann (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 910.) However, statute and case law cited by petitioner do not support his argument.  Notably, petitioner does not cite any specific statutory authority that would permit the release of the requested information, and the case cited by petitioner does not address the issue of compelling discovery.

Third, while petitioner seeks the requested affidavits for signature comparison purposes (Reply at 2:21-27), Election Code § 2194(b)(2) expressly limits the circumstances in which affidavits of voter registration information may be disclosed because they are confidential. Their release for viewing is only permitted if a person’s vote is challenged pursuant to “Sections 15105 to 15108, inclusive, or Article 3 (commencing with Section 14240) of Chapter 3 of Division 14.” (Elec. Code § 2194(c)(1).) These challenges would have had to have occurred during in-person voting (Elec. Code § 14240) or, for the case of mail-in voting, “prior to the opening of the identification envelope of the challenged vote by mail voter.” (Elec. Code § 15105.) The underlying petition does not assert any such challenges.

Due to the aforementioned defects, the motion is DENIED.