J.T. v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The defendants filed a letter seeking to compel document production from non-party witness H.H., non-party witness Suzanne Schaefer, and plaintiff Jack Brundage. Schaefer is identified as the guardian of plaintiff S.H., and all three people were represented by plaintiffs’ counsel. The discovery cutoff for this category of discovery was December 1, 2025.

The court had previously allowed 60 days from the filing of the corrected second amended complaint to conduct fact discovery concerning Brundage and S.H. The complaint was filed on October 2, 2025, making December 1 the end of that 60-day period. Under Civil Local Rule 37-3, a discovery motion had to be filed within seven days after the applicable discovery cutoff. December 8 was therefore the filing deadline.

Discovery-dispute procedure

The defendants filed their letter unilaterally at 5:34 p.m. on December 8, stating that they intended to file a corrected version with the plaintiffs’ position on December 9. The parties had met and conferred by videoconference on December 8, but they had not filed a joint letter containing the positions of the plaintiffs and the non-party witnesses.

The court’s standing order requires the parties to make a good-faith effort to resolve discovery disputes, hold a formal in-person or video conference, and then file a joint letter within the required time. The court also had previously established a process for exchanging drafts of joint filings. The court explained that this process contemplated several days between the conference and filing the letter, with final exchanges on the filing date.

Order

The court stated that, by waiting until the filing deadline to meet and confer, the defendants did not appear to have left enough time to file a timely joint letter complying with the standing order. The court ordered the defendants to show cause—meaning to explain—why their requests should not be denied as procedurally improper with respect to the unilateral letter or untimely with respect to the expected joint letter.

The court directed the defendants to address the good-cause standard for modifying a scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. That standard requires a showing of diligence. The defendants had to file a letter brief of no more than two pages by December 12, 2025. The plaintiffs and the non-party witnesses sharing their counsel could also file a letter brief by that date.

The order did not prevent the parties from filing a joint letter by December 12. However, the court would consider the merits of that letter only if the defendants showed that they raised the discovery requests on time or established sufficient cause for their delay. The court therefore issued an order to show cause rather than finally granting or denying the discovery requests.