Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Yes, if it can be authenticated as a true and correct copy of the agreement, and the reason for not producing the original is legitmate.

The rule that Mr. McCormick refers to was once known as the "best evidence rule." That rule is basically states as follows: when proving the terms of a writing, where the terms are material, the original writing must be produced. Secondary evidence int eh form of copies of the document or oral testimony regarding its contents could only be permitted after it was shown that the original is unavailable for some reason other than the parties' misconduct. This rule is still applicable in the federal courts. (Fed. Rule of Evid. 1002.)

California no longer has the best evidence rule. Although California Evidence Code section 1520 states that "[t]he content of a writing may be proved by an otherwise admissible original," California has a secondary evidence rule.

(a) The content of a writing may be proved by otherwise admissible secondary evidence. The court shall exclude secondary evidence of the content of writing if the court determines either of the following:

(1) A genuine dispute exists concerning material terms of the writing and justice requires the exclusion.

(2) Admission of the secondary evidence would be unfair.

(b) Nothing in this section makes admissible oral testimony to prove the content of a writing if the testimony is inadmissible under Section 1523 (oral testimony of the content of a writing).

(c) Nothing in this section excuses compliance with Section 1401 (authentication).

(d) This section shall be known as the 'Secondary Evidence Rule.'"

(Evid. Code, sect. 1521.)

So the short answer is yes, and you do not have to explain what happened to the original.