I.Asked to Produce, With the Police as the Collection Point
On June 11, 2025, two formal written demands were transmitted to the named parties. Each directed the recipient to preserve and produce a complete record of the tenancy at 19235 Brynn Ct — every lease, every payment record, every contract, every line of correspondence, every call log, every communication from 2022 forward — and to deliver it to Lt. Shawn Randell of the Huntington Beach Police Department. Lt. Randell was the designated collection point: a neutral law-enforcement custodian for the production. Every demand was copied to the Department. The stated deadline was June 18, 2025.
named party with the June 2025 demands
Eleven months have passed since the deadline. No party has produced the records.
II.They Were on Notice Before the Demand
A party cannot answer a production demand by claiming it did not know who was asking, or that the person asking had no standing to ask. That answer is foreclosed here. Months before the June demands, the parties were already on certified notice of the plaintiff's position before the court.
On January 21, 2025, the Substitution of Attorney — Judicial Council form MC-050, filed in this case — was served by certified mail, with signature confirmation, on the parties. The service established notice under Code of Civil Procedure § 285 of the transition from represented to self-represented status and of the plaintiff's standing before the court.
The result is a notice chain closed at both ends. The parties knew the plaintiff's standing in January 2025. They knew their duty to produce — with the police copied — in June 2025. The record carries documented notice on both sides of the non-production.
III.Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices — The Office of Record
Branch Manager · Angie Sandoval (DRE #01130478)
Held. The contracts and agreements between Phat K. Tran and the plaintiff (2022 master lease, 2023 extension, 2024 renewal documents); the intake and signature log for the May 28, 2024 certified packet — the cure-tender envelope containing cashier's check E2 in the amount of $4,338.48, USPS tracking 9534914882764149935944, signed for "H H" at the BHHS counter on May 30, 2024; Ly Construction Invoice #2412 in the amount of $7,835 (dated August 14, 2024) and any other vendor invoices behind the Move-Out Clearance Report deductions.
Not produced.
Law. Business & Professions Code § 10148 — every licensed real estate broker shall retain, for not less than three years, all transaction records and shall produce them on request. 10 CCR § 2725 — broker supervisory and record duties. Civ. Code § 1950.5(g)(2)(B) and § 1950.5(g)(4)(A) — for any deduction over $125, the landlord and the agent administering the deposit accounting must provide copies of bills, invoices, and receipts with the itemized statement.
Why it applied. The office processed the transaction documents, administered the deposit accounting, and signed for the certified cure-tender packet at its own counter. The $7,835 Ly Construction line is approximately sixty-three times the statutory $125 floor. The receipt requirement was not optional.
IV.The Licensed Brokers on the File
Anna Tran Ly · Broker (DRE #01894348)
Held. The rent-increase notice transmitted as the owner's agent; the Move-Out Clearance Report (DocuSign envelope F5D247C2) signed by her on August 5, 2024 and the supporting receipts and invoices for every line-item deduction over $125; the agent file; texts and emails with the office and with the owner across the cure window and the move-out.
Not produced.
Law. B&P § 10148 (three-year retention and production). B&P § 10145 (trust-fund handling). Civ. Code § 1950.5(g)(2)(B) and § 1950.5(g)(4)(A) (receipts and invoices for any deduction over $125, served with the itemized statement). Civ. Code § 827 (written notice of rent increase — and the duty to retain it as a transaction record).
Why it applied. She was the broker administering the transaction and the licensee who executed the move-out paperwork. The § 1950.5 receipts-over-$125 rule attaches at the moment a deduction over that floor is listed on the itemized statement.
Hanson Tri Le · Broker (DRE #01358448)
Held. The April 26–28, 2024 renewal-negotiation record — Anna Ly's April 26 SMS at 9:53 AM and the revised Authentisign envelope 46CC8725 signed April 28, 2024 at 10:36 AM Pacific (one-year term commencing June 1, 2024, $5,350 per month, rent directed to him personally); trust-fund records for funds directed to him personally; his written resignation; the agent file for the transaction.
Not produced.
Law. B&P § 10148 (three-year retention). B&P § 10145(a) (personal trust-fund duty attaches to a broker who receives or directs funds). 10 CCR § 2725 (broker records and supervisory duties).
Why it applied. He was the broker on the file when the renewal was executed. § 10145(a) attached personally the moment funds were directed to him.
V.Counsel on Both Sides
Steven D. Silverstein · Counsel for Plaintiff (CA Bar #86466)
Held. Communications with his client regarding the cashier's check disposition (the trial line of questioning "Did you cash the check?"), the off-contract telephone demand directing payment to a personal account, and the June 28, 2024 wire in the amount of $5,350.00 transmitted to Wells Fargo account #1005959166; the co-signed acknowledgment that no prior repayment had been made; trial-preparation materials, exhibits, and witness lists.
Not produced.
Law. Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.15 (safekeeping property and records). Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 3.4(a) — shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence, or unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal evidence. B&P § 6068(d) — duty not to mislead the court. Pen. Code §§ 132–134 (offering, preparing, or destroying false evidence) — reserved as a preservation question.
Why it applied. As opposing counsel he held the only direct record of the client-side communications behind the trial representations. Rule 3.4(a) attaches independent of case posture.
Richard J. Rosiak · Former Counsel for Plaintiff (CA Bar #141430)
Held. Itemized time and billing records for the $8,000 retainer paid in full in June 2024; the complete client file — correspondence, emails, texts, court communications, the certified USPS receipt for the May 2024 cashier's check, photographs of mold and the dishwasher condition, communications with the District Attorney and law enforcement, the 2023 lease extension, the 2024 renewal invitation, and Hanson Le's written resignation; work product; and the malpractice carrier identification (requested three times).
Not produced.
Law. Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(e)(1) — on termination, prompt release to the client of all client materials and property; no condition, no delay, no withholding. Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.15 (safekeeping client property). Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.4 (communication and information duty to the client).
Why it applied. Rule 1.16(e)(1) is unconditional on termination. The demand for the file was a restatement of an obligation that attached the moment the representation ended.
VI.Phat K. Tran — The Records Custodian on the Landlord Side
Held. The 2022 lease originals (Authentisign envelope E1408B26 — operative master lease — and envelope 5D80110C — Pet Addendum) and the 2023 extension he signed; bank records for Wells Fargo account #1005959166 (the personal account where the off-contract June 28, 2024 wire was directed); the deposit accounting ($6,375 total — $5,000 security, $375 keys/openers, $1,000 pet) and any trust-handling record; the disposition record for cashier's check E2 in the amount of $4,338.48; the phone record of the off-contract telephone demand; the dishwasher pre-tenancy repair documentation; and the complete § 1950.5 itemized statement of deductions with copies of bills, invoices, and receipts for every deduction over $125.
Not produced.
Law. Civ. Code § 1950.5(g) — itemized statement of deductions to the tenant within 21 calendar days, accompanied by copies of bills, invoices, and receipts for any deduction over $125 (§ 1950.5(g)(2)(B) and § 1950.5(g)(4)(A)). Civ. Code § 1950.5(b)–(e) — limits on use of deposit funds; trust-like duty over deposit. Civ. Code § 827 — written notice of rent increase. The common-law duty to preserve evidence once litigation is reasonably anticipated, triggered no later than the June 11, 2025 preservation demand.
Why it applied. He was the party in possession of the funds, the lease originals, and the personal bank account that received the off-contract wire. The § 1950.5 documentation duty runs to him by statute. The litigation-hold duty attached the moment he received the written preservation demand.
VII.Lt. Shawn Randell — Huntington Beach Police Department
Lt. Randell is not a duty-bearer on this page. He is the designated recipient. Every demand named above was directed to him and copied to the Department. He is the neutral law-enforcement custodian of the fact that the demands were made — and the fact that, as of his desk, no producing party has come in.
The Department's role is custodial and witnessing. By naming a single, neutral collection point at HBPD and copying the Department on every transmission, the demands converted private correspondence into a documented law-enforcement record. The attempts are not asserted here. They are on file with the Department.
VIII.Six Records Custodians. One Collection Point. No Productions.
Six retention or preservation duties. Six distinct sets of documents the case turns on. One written direction to deliver. One neutral law-enforcement collection point. One deadline. Eleven months of silence.
Each duty stands on its own statute or rule. Each party held records material to the controversy. Each was personally noticed of the demand and personally noticed — months earlier, by certified mail under Code of Civil Procedure § 285 — of the plaintiff's standing. The non-production is not one failure repeated six times. It is six independent failures, after individual notice, witnessed throughout by the Huntington Beach Police Department.
California law treats willful suppression of evidence by a party with a duty to preserve as the foundation for an adverse inference. The Judicial Council's standard jury instruction on the point — CACI 204 (Willful Suppression of Evidence) — permits the trier of fact to conclude that the suppressed evidence would have been unfavorable to the suppressing party. Destruction or non-production after the duty attaches is treated as spoliation.
This page documents written demands, a certified proof of service, and the statutory and ethical duties they invoked. No tribunal has made any finding as to any party's reason for non-production. No adverse inference is drawn at the page level; the legal consequence is identified and reserved. The matters are catalogued under Agency Proceedings; the demands and the proof of service are held in the case record.
When every party holding records it was legally bound to keep is asked, in writing, with law enforcement copied, to produce them — and over eleven months, none does — the question is what the silence means.