The Recording
Requested.
Transferred.
Receipt confirmed.
Later unavailable.
Ultimately recovered.
A public record of Minor v. CSLB
When CSLB's Own Warning Became the Issue
CSLB's investigator duty statement warns that failures to follow Board investigative procedures can result in a “miscarriage of justice” and harm to the contractor.
Years later, a missing investigative recording, a replaced state laptop, conflicting explanations, forensic recovery, dismissed felony allegations, and unanswered records questions became central issues in state and federal litigation.
This site is maintained by Plaintiffs Zachary and Angela Minor. It contains court filings, public records, agency correspondence, records obtained through discovery, and Plaintiffs' analysis. Allegations remain allegations unless identified as an established court finding or undisputed public record.
Independent CSLB research
Understand the Agency, the Records, and the Case
Use these evidence-aware guides to distinguish official CSLB services, agency processes, public records, retention rules, and the specific record in Minor v. CSLB.
CSLB license search
Find the official lookup and understand status, classifications, and disclosures.
Read guide →Complaints and investigations
Separate contractor complaints, staff concerns, records requests, and legal claims.
Read guide →Enforcement process
Review citations, accusations, discipline, investigations, and criminal referrals.
Read guide →Public records requests
Learn how to frame a focused California Public Records Act request.
Read guide →Records retention
Read Schedule 2023-168, Item 140, electronic-record, and CalRIM context.
Read guide →Minor v. CSLB
Start with the source-backed overview of the pending civil cases.
Read guide →CSLB's own warning
This is not language written by Plaintiffs.
It appears in the official duty statement for the CSLB investigator involved in this case.
The statement identifies the foreseeable consequences of investigative failures in a position whose work can result in court appearances, criminal prosecution, and arrest.
Exhibit · Duty StatementSection F
Failure to properly conduct investigations according to Board procedures and the Contractors License Law could result in miscarriage of justice, harm to the consumer, the public, as well as the contractor. The liability to CSLB is great…
The core question
So What Happened Here?
- 01September 28, 2022Interview recorded.The interview of Zachary and Angela Minor was recorded at the Napa County District Attorney's Office.SourceS002
- 02Same dayRecording transmitted.Napa Investigator Robert Yeager emailed a Dropbox link for file 220723_0161.MP3 directly to CSLB Investigator Amanda Martinez. Yeager later wrote that he confirmed by telephone that she received it.SourceS002S003
- 03February 6, 2023Criminal referral signed.The criminal referral / arraignment package was signed.SourceS005
- 04February 9, 2023Dropbox deletion.Dropbox records identify deletion of 220723_0161.MP3 from Robert Yeager's account three days after the referral.SourceS004
- 05March 27, 2023Original CSLB laptop replaced.CSLB records identify Martinez's original assigned laptop as having been replaced.SourceS011
- 06August 2025Recording forensically recovered.After repeated public-records efforts, Napa County examined the original recorder and recovered the audio.SourceS009
What happened next is documented.
Court / Case Outcome
- — Zachary Minor was permitted to withdraw his earlier felony plea.
- — Financial, theft, diversion, elder-abuse and related felony allegations against him were dismissed before preliminary hearing.
- — Angela Minor's entire criminal case was dismissed.
- — Zachary Minor's remaining resolution involved a separate temporary licensing-lapse misdemeanor that Plaintiffs expressly do not challenge in the civil litigation.
Plaintiffs' Allegation
Plaintiffs contend that the chronology is circumstantial evidence of the recording's materiality. The state pleading expressly states that Plaintiffs do not purport to establish the prosecutor's subjective reason for dismissal.
Read the criminal-outcome pageThe Original Laptop
The CSLB investigative laptop assigned during the relevant period was replaced approximately seven weeks after the referral.
Plaintiffs contend its later disposition and relevant ESI remain unaccounted for in the produced records.
The Records Rules
CSLB's Secretary-of-State-approved records-retention schedule provides lengthy retention periods for multiple enforcement records, including a ten-year period for DA criminal referrals.
The original investigative laptop
Where is asset 0021688?
Martinez's CSLB-issued HP 640 G4 was replaced on March 27, 2023 — about seven weeks after the referral. Plaintiffs contend it was the device most capable of showing what happened to the recording after CSLB received it, and that the produced records do not identify its final disposition or a preserved forensic image.
Follow the DeviceReplacement is documented.
Disposition is not.
Plaintiffs' description of CSLB's verified production. The absence of a produced record does not itself prove a particular event occurred.
What the Documents Establish — and What Remains Disputed
Documented Record
- The September 28, 2022 interview was recorded.
- Yeager sent the Dropbox link directly to Martinez.
- Yeager says he confirmed receipt.
- Martinez later said she initially accessed the recording.
- The referral incorporated information from the September 28 meeting.
- The referral was signed in February 2023.
- Dropbox records identify a February 9, 2023 deletion from Yeager's Dropbox account.
- Martinez's original CSLB laptop was replaced March 27, 2023.
- The recording was forensically recovered in August 2025.
- The earlier felony plea was withdrawn.
- Angela Minor's case was dismissed.
- The financial and felony allegations against Zachary Minor were dismissed before preliminary hearing.
- CSLB has a Secretary-of-State-approved records retention schedule.
- POST reported no serious-misconduct complaint/allegation records for Martinez or Flores responsive to the requests made.
Disputed
- Whether CSLB was required to retain this particular audio as part of Item 140.
- Whether Martinez saved or downloaded a durable local copy.
- What relevant ESI existed on the original laptop.
- The ultimate disposition of that original laptop.
- Whether relevant ESI was migrated, wiped, preserved, or destroyed.
- Whether the written referral accurately represented the recorded interview.
- Whether any reporting obligation to POST was triggered.
- Whether a CalRIM loss notification should have occurred.
- What internal review CSLB conducted after learning the recording could not be located.
- Whether agency procedure was followed.
Documented chronology
Feb. 6, 2023
Referral signed
→ 3 days later
Feb. 9, 2023
Dropbox file deletion
→ ≈ 6 weeks later
Mar. 27, 2023
Original CSLB laptop replaced
Temporal proximity alone does not establish intent.
The Question Is No Longer Whether the Recording Existed.
The recording existed.
It was transmitted.
Receipt was confirmed.
It was later unavailable.
Years later, it was recovered.
The remaining questions concern what happened in between — and what CSLB did after those questions became known.
Read the documents. Follow the dates. Reach your own conclusion.