Khan v. City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health

Background

The court resolved discovery disputes raised in a letter filed by the City and a response filed by Mahroofa Khan. Khan alleges that she was treated differently from other probationary employees and terminated because of her race. The opinion addresses requests for production, requests for admission, and the City’s request for Khan’s medical records concerning emotional distress.

RFP Nos. 2–3

The City represented that it had produced all responsive documents and had not withheld any documents based on attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The court held that the City did not need to provide a privilege log if it was not withholding privileged information, but ordered the City to amend its responses to confirm that it was not withholding documents on that basis. If not already produced, the City also had to produce the December 20, 2023 emails concerning Khan’s termination date. The amended responses and supplemental documents were due March 20, 2026.

RFP Nos. 14–15

Khan requested performance-related records and other personnel files for employees who held the same job title and reported to the same supervisors. The City objected that the requests sought irrelevant and overly broad information and that the records were protected by the official-information privilege, a qualified protection sometimes asserted for government records.

The court rejected those objections. It found that the personnel files could support or undermine Khan’s claim that similarly situated employees of different races were treated differently. The court limited the production period to June 10, 2022, through January 4, 2025, and ordered the City to produce responsive personnel files and documents by March 20, 2026. The court also expected the parties to follow the existing protective order and to redact sensitive, unrelated information as appropriate.

Requests for Admission

The court had previously ordered the City to amend its responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 7, 11, 36, 43, and 47. Because the City had supplemented those responses and the court found them compliant with the applicable rule, it ruled that no further responses were necessary.

Medical records and emotional-distress damages

Khan alleged emotional distress, including feeling belittled and intimidated and experiencing constant anxiety. The City sought her medical records to evaluate her damages claim. Khan objected that the request was too broad because it could include unrelated records, such as laboratory results, X-rays, gynecological records, and other medical history.

The court concluded that Khan did not appear to allege more than ordinary, or “garden variety,” emotional distress. On that basis, the City was not entitled to all of Khan’s medical records. But because Khan had produced letters from medical providers, the court recognized that she might intend to present evidence of severe or continuing emotional harm.

The court therefore gave Khan a choice. She could stipulate that she was seeking no more than garden-variety emotional-distress damages, was not seeking damages for continuing emotional distress or mental-health treatment, and would not introduce expert testimony about emotional distress. If she made that stipulation, the City’s request for medical records would be quashed. Alternatively, she could authorize disclosure of records concerning only her mental health, emotional health, and related treatment—not her entire medical history. Her filing or authorization was due March 19, 2026.

Conclusion and deadlines

The court ordered the City to complete the required productions by March 20, 2026. It stated that fact discovery had closed on March 6, 2026, and that any additional discovery letter briefs were due March 13, 2026. The signature line in the provided text is not sufficiently clear to identify the judge by name.