Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Plaintiff Anna Mishina Shteerman, who is representing herself, moved to lift a stay on discovery that had been imposed while the court considered the defendants’ dispositive motions. A discovery stay pauses the parties’ exchange of evidence. Because the parties had not yet held the required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Shteerman had to show good cause for expedited discovery. The court described good cause as a need for early discovery that, considering the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.

Shteerman requested documents concerning Defendant Brendan Dwyer, whom she allegedly identified as the purchaser of her property: an ALTA Settlement Statement, a photograph of the buyer’s identification used at closing, a Residential Purchase Agreement, three years of communications between the Sotheby’s Defendants and Dwyer, and San Francisco Planning Information Map database records and access logs. She said she needed the documents to determine whether the buyer was the same Brendan Dwyer employed by the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Shteerman had not shown good cause to lift the stay. First, the court noted that Shteerman conceded that the existing record already established Dwyer’s identity through five independent public sources, including Dwyer’s declaration in this litigation. The court therefore found that expedited discovery was not needed to identify Dwyer at this stage.

Second, the court found that the requests were overbroad. For example, Shteerman sought approximately three years of communications to prove coordination between enforcement actors and the buyer, but did not explain why such a broad request was necessary to identify Dwyer.

Third, the court considered whether the discovery was justified by ongoing harm or a risk that evidence would be destroyed or lost. Shteerman based her request for the database logs on an assertion that records had been deleted after the litigation began. The City Defendants attributed her inability to locate the records to user error and argued that searching for nonexistent deletions or unspecified modifications would impose a substantial burden without advancing the case while the dispositive motions were pending. Shteerman offered no contrary evidence. Based on the existing record, the court found that she had not shown ongoing harm or likely destruction of evidence and that the likely burden outweighed the limited usefulness of the requests.

Disposition

Judge Rita F. Lin denied Plaintiff’s motion to lift the discovery stay. The opinion does not rule on the defendants’ pending dispositive motions.