Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC03447, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC03447    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL, SIGNED DECLARATION

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.257)

TENTATIVE RULING:               

Plaintiff Northern California Collection Service, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Original, Signed Declaration is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Northern California Collection Service, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant collections action against Defendant Martin Diaz dba West Net Commercial Construction Co. adba West Net Commercial (“Defendant”) on May 3, 2021. Following Defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading, Plaintiff requested entry of default on June 22, 2021. Defendant filed the first Motion to Vacate Default on July 13, 2021.

On August 11, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s first Motion to Vacate Default (“the first Motion to Vacate”). (Minute Order, 08/11/21.) The Court instructed Defendant to give notice of the order and to file and serve the Answer within 20 days of the order. (Ibid.)

On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a second request for entry of default, which was entered by the clerk’s office on the same date. On October 20, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the second default. (Minute Order, 10/20/21.) Defendant filed an Amended Answer on October 21, 2021. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication on February 18, 2022, which the Court took under submission on June 1, 2022. The Court denied the Motion for Summary Adjudication on June 3, 2022. (Minute Order, 06/03/22.) Then, on June 8, 2022, the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike Affirmative Defenses. (Minute Order, 06/08/22.)

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Production of Original, Signed Declaration. Defendant filed an opposition on July 15, 2022 and Plaintiff replied on July 18, 2022.

Discussion

Plaintiff brings the Motion pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.257, which states in relevant part:

When a document to be filed electronically provides for a signature under penalty of perjury of any person, the document is deemed to have been signed by that person if filed electronically provided that either of the following conditions is satisfied:

(1) The declarant has signed the document using an electronic signature and declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the information submitted is true and correct. If the declarant is not the electronic filer, the electronic signature must be unique to the declarant, capable of verification, under the sole control of the declarant, and linked to data in such a manner that if the data are changed, the electronic signature is invalidated; or

(2) The declarant, before filing, has physically signed a printed form of the document. By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer certifies that the original, signed document is available for inspection and copying at the request of the court or any other party.

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.257(b).) Plaintiff moves for an order under subdivision (b)(2) of the Rule compelling Defendant to produce the original, signed declaration Defendant filed in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication.

However, the Motion does not demonstrate any violation of the Rule. Under Rule 2.257, a document is that is to be filed under penalty of perjury is deemed to have been signed by that person if filed electronically and if the conditions under either subdivision are met. Under subdivision (b)(1), the declarant must “declare[] under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the information submitted is true and correct.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.257(b)(1).) Defendant’s declaration in opposition to the Motion for Summary Adjudication includes the necessary statement. (Diaz Decl., filed 05/18/22, 2:12-13.) To the extent the Rule requires that “the electronic signature must be unique to the declarant, capable of verification, under the sole control of the declarant, and linked to data in such a manner that if the data are changed, the electronic signature is invalidated,” there is no requirement in the statute that the declaration include a statement attesting to these facts. Therefore, Defendant’s failure to include a statement in the opposing declaration to that effect does not violate the Rule. Nor has Plaintiff offered any evidence that Defendant’s electronic signature violates the second part of subdivision (b)(1), or that it is Defendant burden to show compliance with that part. The Court previously considered and overruled Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to Defendant’s signature. The Motion simply argues in vague terms that Defendant’s credibility is at issue because Plaintiff is suspicious of “the unexplained signatures.” (Motion, p. 4:9-12.) This is insufficient to demonstrate any issue with Defendant’s declaration in opposition to the Motion for Summary Adjudication.

In light of Defendant’s compliance with the requirements set forth at subdivision (b)(1), there is no basis for the Court to delve into Defendant’s compliance with subdivision (b)(2).

Conclusion

Plaintiff Northern California Collection Service, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Original, Signed Declaration is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.