The trial of this unlawful detainer action was electronically recorded, without a court reporter present. The recording was lost. After the Appellate Department affirmed the judgment, largely due to the lack of a reporter’s transcript of the trial, defendant moved for a new trial and appealed from denial of that motion. This decision holds that CCP 911 which allows a retrial of a case in which the reporter’s notes are lost did not apply here both because what was lost was an electronic recording, not reporter’s notes and because CCP 911 affords relief on the initial appeal from the judgment, not as here after an affirmance on appeal.