Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco
- Lin
- 3:25-cv-03758
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Anna Mishina Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Lin denied early discovery, stayed service on individuals, and extended entity-service deadline.
Anna Mishina Shteerman and the named entity and individual defendants, particularly the entity defendants who must be served by December 15, 2025, and the individual defendants whose service deadline was stayed.
What happened
Anna Mishina Shteerman, who is representing herself, sued the City and County of San Francisco, Sotheby’s International Reality [sic] San Francisco Brokerage, and numerous individual defendants. She had not filed valid proof that any defendant had been served, and no defendant had appeared.
Shteerman asked the court to compel responses to subpoenas seeking the individual defendants’ addresses, allow alternative service, and impose fees. The court treated the filing as a request for early discovery so she could serve the individual defendants.
Judge Lin denied the early-discovery request without prejudice, meaning it may be renewed after the entity defendants appear. The court stayed the deadline to serve the individual defendants, extended the deadline to serve the entity defendants to December 15, 2025, and denied alternative service without prejudice under the court’s prior order.
The detailed version
- Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:25-cv-03758
- Lin
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
Anna Mishina Shteerman, who is representing herself, filed a complaint against the City and County of San Francisco, Sotheby’s International Reality [sic] San Francisco Brokerage, and numerous individual defendants. No defendant had appeared, and Shteerman had not filed valid proof of service on any defendant.
Shteerman stated that she had served subpoenas on the two entity defendants seeking the individual defendants’ addresses so she could serve them. She said the entity defendants had not adequately responded and requested an order compelling production, permission for alternative service, and fees for the alleged failure to respond.
Court’s analysis
The court treated the filing as a request for early discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally requires a court order before discovery may begin, including before the parties’ required conference. Courts in the Ninth Circuit generally apply a “good cause” standard, weighing the need for expedited discovery against prejudice to the responding party.
The court found that Shteerman appeared to be making a good-faith effort to serve the individual defendants and needed their addresses. But it also identified possible practical solutions after the entity defendants appeared, including acceptance of service by counsel who might represent both the entity and individual defendants.
Rulings
The court modified its prior order to require service only on the entity defendants for the time being and stayed the service requirement for the individual defendants. Shteerman’s motion for early discovery was DENIED without prejudice to being renewed after the entity defendants have appeared. The court also denied the request for alternative service without prejudice for the reasons stated in its prior order.
The deadline to serve the individual defendants was stayed. The court extended the deadline for Shteerman to serve the summons and complaint on the entity defendants to December 15, 2025, stating that any further extension would require a showing of good cause. Shteerman was ordered to serve this order on the entity defendants along with the summons and complaint. The order addressed service and discovery only; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.