Shin v. Nicholson

Background

On November 24, 2025, Gabriel Shin filed a discovery letter asking the court to compel the San Francisco Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMSA) to respond to a document subpoena issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. EMSA is a nonparty. The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) and the other CCSF Defendants did not provide their position in Shin’s letter, although Shin’s counsel said counsel had attempted to meet and confer with EMSA and CCSF.

On December 9, 2025, the court ordered EMSA to produce responsive documents by December 31, 2025. The court relied on three points: CCSF’s private counsel had stated that the firm did not represent EMSA; EMSA had failed to respond to the subpoena and therefore waived its objections; and CCSF lacked standing to assert relevance and burden objections on EMSA’s behalf.

CCSF then sought reconsideration of the December 9 order. It argued that an earlier order denying motions to quash had discouraged it from filing a motion concerning the EMSA subpoena, that Shin’s requests were overbroad and unduly burdensome, and that EMSA had not been given an opportunity to be heard. Shin filed a responsive letter.

Legal standard

The court applied Civil Local Rule 7-9, which governs requests for reconsideration of interlocutory orders. The moving party must show reasonable diligence and one of specified grounds, such as a previously unknown material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The rule does not allow a party simply to reargue points already made.

Court’s reasoning

The court first held that CCSF’s request could be denied because CCSF did not address or cite the reconsideration standard. The court nevertheless considered CCSF’s arguments and concluded that none met the rule’s high standard.

The court rejected CCSF’s claim that the earlier order prevented it from challenging the EMSA subpoena. Although the earlier order stated that certain motions to quash were denied with prejudice, the court explained that CCSF could have raised disputes about the different EMSA subpoena in a joint discovery letter after a proper meet-and-confer process. The parties acknowledged that they had not met and conferred about CCSF’s objections. CCSF also did not file, or seek permission to file, a response during the 15 days between Shin’s discovery letter and the December 9 order.

The court declined to examine CCSF’s overbreadth and burden objections. CCSF had previously maintained that EMSA was a separate third party whose records were not in CCSF’s custody or control. The court therefore reiterated that CCSF could not assert relevance and burden objections on EMSA’s behalf. EMSA’s failure to respond to the subpoena waived its objections. The court also stated that CCSF Defendants could raise an evidentiary objection later if they believed a document was irrelevant or prejudicial, and noted that the protective order mitigated their relevance and privacy concerns.

Finally, the court rejected CCSF’s argument that EMSA had not had an opportunity to be heard. Because CCSF repeatedly represented that EMSA was a distinct entity over which CCSF had no control, the court held that CCSF could not complain on EMSA’s behalf. The court also found that EMSA had opportunities to respond, object, meet and confer, or seek relief from the court after receiving the subpoena, but took none of those steps.

Disposition

The court denied CCSF’s request for reconsideration of the December 9 order. The court also denied as moot Shin’s responsive letter brief. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case; it addressed the discovery dispute concerning the EMSA subpoena.