Shin v. Nicholson
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:23-cv-00456
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Shin v. Nicholson, Chief Magistrate Judge Ryu ordered discovery production from three agencies and companies but denied a deposition request.
Gabriel Shin, the nonparties San Francisco Emergency Medical Services Agency, AT&T, and Verizon, and Defendant CCSF were affected. EMSA, AT&T, and Verizon were ordered to produce responsive documents; CCSF’s objections did not block production; and Shin’s request for an EMSA deposition was denied.
What happened
In Gabriel Shin v. Jeanine Nicholson, et al., Gabriel Shin asked the court to enforce subpoenas for records from the San Francisco Emergency Medical Services Agency, AT&T, and Verizon. The subpoenas sought records related to a defendant and several phone numbers.
The court treated the Emergency Medical Services Agency as a third party because counsel for San Francisco repeatedly said it did not represent the agency. The agency, AT&T, and Verizon did not timely object or seek court protection, and San Francisco’s objections alone were insufficient to block production. The court ordered the agencies and companies to produce responsive documents by December 31, 2025.
Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denied Shin’s request to require the Emergency Medical Services Agency to appear for a deposition because Shin had subpoenaed only documents, not testimony. The court issued the discovery order without oral argument.
The detailed version
- Shin v. Nicholson · No. 3:23-cv-00456
- Vince Chhabria
- Dec. 9, 2025
Background
Gabriel Shin filed two discovery letters concerning subpoenas to the San Francisco Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMSA), AT&T, and Verizon. The court decided the matters without oral argument.
EMSA subpoena
Shin’s Rule 45 subpoena sought documents concerning Defendant Robert Muhammad, San Francisco Fire Department members facing certain licensure actions, EMSA licensure policies, and EMSA investigative policies and practices. EMSA did not respond to the subpoena. The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office contacted Shin about extending the response deadline, but counsel for the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) repeatedly stated that the law firm represented CCSF, not EMSA, and that EMSA was a separate entity whose records had to be obtained by subpoena.
Based on those representations, the court treated EMSA as a third party for purposes of the subpoena. The court found that EMSA received notice but did not timely object, seek a protective order, or move to quash or modify the subpoena. The court therefore found that EMSA waived objections. CCSF also had not moved to quash or sought a protective order, and its objections were insufficient because CCSF lacked standing to object on EMSA’s behalf. The court ordered EMSA to produce all documents responsive to the subpoena by December 31, 2025.
Shin also asked for permission to depose EMSA after the documents were produced. The court denied that request because the subpoena before it sought only documents, not testimony, and Shin did not explain why the court should expand the scope of the discovery served.
AT&T and Verizon subpoenas
Shin served two Rule 45 subpoenas on Verizon and six on AT&T. The subpoenas sought business and billing records, call records, and text-message records from August 1, 2021, through August 31, 2025, for eight phone numbers. Shin said the numbers included work phones associated with Defendants Jeanine Nicholson, Robert Postel, and Tom O’Connor, as well as a number associated with nonparty Shon Buford.
Shin represented that AT&T and Verizon acknowledged having responsive documents and wanted a court order. Neither company served written responses or objections, appeared to seek a protective order, or moved to quash or modify the subpoenas. The court found that any objections were waived. CCSF objected but did not move to quash or seek a protective order, so its objections did not preclude production. The court ordered AT&T and Verizon to produce all documents responsive to Shin’s subpoenas by December 31, 2025.
Disposition
The court ordered EMSA, AT&T, and Verizon to produce responsive documents by December 31, 2025, and denied Shin’s request for an EMSA deposition. The order was signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.