Shin v. Nicholson

Background

The court had previously ordered Plaintiff Gabriel Shin and Defendant City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) to meet in person to address eight discovery disputes. The meeting occurred on December 5, 2025. The court had ordered the parties to file a new joint discovery letter by December 12 if disputes remained.

The parties did not file that letter by the deadline. Instead, they filed a status report that did not identify specific remaining issues and later filed a nine-page joint discovery letter on December 24. The court found that the December 24 letter was unauthorized and untimely. It also stated that many of the disputes were not sufficiently developed. The court nevertheless addressed several issues that appeared close to resolution and one issue that was not ready for decision.

Rulings

For Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics concerning CCSF’s racial-equity plan, the parties agreed that CCSF would provide a declaration authenticating the plan documents and stating that the racial statistics were accurate and correct to the best of CCSF’s knowledge and ability to determine. The court ordered CCSF to serve that declaration no later than January 7, 2026.

The parties agreed that Shin would make Martin Beltran available for up to three hours to complete his deposition. If they had not agreed on a date, the court ordered them to do so by January 5, 2026.

The parties disputed whether CCSF had waived attorney-client privilege or work-product protection concerning the San Francisco City Attorney’s 2025 investigation into Defendant Robert Muhammad. The court declined to rule on that issue because it was not ripe, meaning the issue depended on events that had not yet occurred. The court said Shin’s argument was based on hypothetical scenarios about whether CCSF would rely on the investigation at trial. It also said that Shin could raise the issue again at an appropriate time.

For a Rule 30(b)(6) witness concerning Muhammad’s job duties at Treasure Island before December 2024, the court ordered CCSF to identify the witness by January 5, 2026, and required the deposition to occur by January 16, 2026.

For drafts and edits of an investigation report concerning Muhammad’s discipline and recommended termination, the court ordered CCSF, by January 5, 2026, either to produce all responsive documents or to provide a declaration signed under penalty of perjury describing the searches. The required description included the search terms, sources searched, timing of the searches, and who conducted or supervised them.

Disposition

Chief Magistrate Judge LP M. Ryu entered the discovery order on December 30, 2025. The order did not adjudicate the remaining untimely discovery disputes and declined to decide the privilege and work-product issue because it was not ripe.