Shin v. Nicholson

Background

The City and County of San Francisco and Gabriel Shin submitted separate letters about discovery disputes. The disputes involved Shin’s answers to interrogatories and his responses to the City’s requests for production of documents. The court decided the disputes without oral argument.

Rulings on the discovery disputes

Requests for Production Nos. 98, 99, and 104; spousal privilege. The court stated that some issues appeared to be moot, including disputes about Requests for Production Nos. 98, 99, and 104 and Shin’s effort to claim spousal privilege for communications with his long-term partners. Shin was ordered to produce by October 1, 2025, all non-privileged documents responsive to Requests Nos. 99 and 104, as well as documents previously withheld based on spousal privilege. If Shin continued withholding responsive documents, he was required to provide a privilege log fully complying with the court’s standing order. If a dispute about Request No. 98 remained, the parties were ordered to continue meeting and discussing the issue to try to resolve it.

Interrogatory Nos. 19–21 and 24. The City sought the names of people whom Shin identified by pseudonym in his first amended complaint. The court held that those identities were relevant and discoverable because Shin had placed the people at issue through his allegations. The court also required Shin to identify which specific allegations were connected to each person. Shin’s initial disclosures did not satisfy the interrogatory requirement, and offering to provide an unnamed third-party witness was insufficient. The court held that the City was entitled to verified answers from Shin about the factual bases for his allegations.

The court rejected Shin’s work-product objection. It explained that the requested information concerned the identities of people, not protected attorney preparation, and ordered Shin to serve supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 19–21 and 24 by October 1, 2025. The court noted that Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 25 were not included in the City’s letter and therefore assumed they were not disputed.

Request for Production No. 105. This request sought documents concerning Shin’s communications with media outlets from February 1, 2022, through the present. Shin argued that he had already produced documents discussing the subject of the lawsuit and objected to producing communications that merely arranged meetings or otherwise lacked substantive content. The court disagreed, finding the communications relevant and discoverable because they could show when Shin met with media outlets and allow the City to ask what was discussed. The court also stated that concerns about attempts to damage Shin’s reputation were reduced by the existing protective order. Shin had not argued that the request was burdensome.

The court ordered Shin to produce by October 1, 2025, any remaining communications with media outlets that discussed or related to the litigation.

Disposition

The order resolved the discovery disputes by directing Shin to provide the specified supplemental responses and documents, while requiring the parties to continue discussing any remaining dispute about Request No. 98. Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu entered the order on September 24, 2025.