PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike; or Order Compelling Production of Original Signed Documents Purs. CA Rules of Court 2.257(B)(2)(C) in Department 8D

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

In pro per Defendant/Cross-Complainant Joseph Sherrill’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Strike or for Order Compelling Production of Original Signed Documents under California Rules of Court, rule (“CRC”) 2.257(B)(2)(c) is DENIED as follows.

Background

Over the course of this action, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Joseph Padilla (“Plaintiff”) has electronically filed several documents where he and/or his attorney provided a signature under penalty of perjury.

In November and December 2025, Defendant propounded demands to Plaintiff, seeking the production/inspection of original signed documents within five days from the date of service of the demands for each electronically filed document signed under penalty of perjury.

Plaintiff responded to the demands by stating, inter alia, that no wet-ink/original signatures exist.

The instant motion followed.

Discussion

Defendant “moves . . . for an order to strike or deem inadmissible at trial all documents . . . [electronically] signed under penalty of perjury and filed with the court . . ., as original signed documents were not retained or produced by Plaintiff . . . per demands served pursuant to [CRC] 2.257(b)(2)(A) and (B), and Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1010.6[(e)](2)(B).” (Def.’s Mot. 1:23-2:2.) Defendant argues that “Plaintiff’s non-compliance [with CRC 2.257] and clear admittance that ‘no original signed documents exist’ warrant evidentiary procedural sanctions of striking the effected [sic] documents or deeming them inadmissible.” (Id. at 6:9-12.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion, rejoining, inter alia:

Plaintiff and counsel properly used electronic signatures authorized by statute and rule. Defendant’s reliance on the absence of wet-ink originals reflects a misunderstanding of Rule 2.257. The rule does

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike; or Order Compelling Production of Original Signed Documents Purs. CA Rules of Court 2.257(B)(2)(C) in Department 8D

not require creation or production of handwritten originals where documents were electronically signed.

....

Defendant’s motion is based on a misreading of the California Rules of Court, seeks relief not authorized by statute, and improperly attempts to use discovery to challenge the validity of electronically filed documents. The motion should be DENIED in its entirety.

(Pl.’s Opp’n 4:19-22, 5:14-16.)

The Court agrees.

CRC 2.257(b) governs the requirements for the electronic filing of documents that provide for a signature under penalty of perjury. It states in pertinent 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. . . .

(Emphasis added.)[1]

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike; or Order Compelling Production of Original Signed Documents Purs. CA Rules of Court 2.257(B)(2)(C) in Department 8D

“In the event this second method of submitting documents electronically under penalty of perjury is used,” CRC 2.257(b)(2) provides for the application of additional conditions, including the ability for a party to serve a demand for the production of the original signed document(s) and the Court’s ability to order the filing party to produce the original signed document(s) in court for inspection and copying by the court. The plain language of the Rule makes clear that the demand and court order provisions only apply to the second permitted method of submitting documents electronically under penalty of perjury.

Here, Plaintiff states in his opposition that “Plaintiff and counsel properly used electronic signatures authorized by statute and rule[,]” and “[n]o separate wet-ink originals exist for those electronically signed filings.” (Opp’n 3:6-10, 4:19-20.) Accordingly, there was nothing for Plaintiff to produce in response to Defendant’s demands for production, and there is nothing for the Court to order Plaintiff to produce for inspection.

Since Defendant has not shown a violation of CRC 2.257 or CCP section 1010.6, no sanctions are awardable under CRC 2.30 (providing for the award of monetary sanctions for the violation of the Rules of Court without good cause) or otherwise.

For the stated reasons, Defendant’s motion is denied in its entirety.

To the extent Defendant challenges Plaintiff’s compliance with CRC 2.257(b)(1), he may raise that issue at the time the subject document(s) are submitted as evidence, either in connection with a noticed motion or at trial.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (e)(2)(B) similarly provides for two permissible methods for the electronic filing of a signature under penalty of perjury – (1) the signor has signed a printed form of the document before or on the same day as the date of filing, or (2) the person signs the document using a computer or other technology pursuant to the procedure set forth in a rule of court adopted by the Judicial Council by January 1, 2019.