Shiferaw v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Agonafer Shiferaw sued the City and County of San Francisco and several individual defendants, alleging that he was denied an equal opportunity to own and operate the Fillmore Heritage Center. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corle for discovery matters.

Shiferaw sought to depose San Francisco Mayor London Breed. He alleged that the City’s request-for-proposals process for the Center was a sham intended to steer the Center to Breed’s political allies and supporters. According to the materials discussed in the order, Breed was involved before, during, and after the bidding process. The parties agreed that Breed was a high-level official whose deposition implicated the “apex” deposition doctrine, which generally protects senior government officials from burdensome depositions when the information can be obtained more conveniently or less expensively elsewhere.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may limit discovery to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Courts considering whether to allow a deposition of a high-ranking government official often examine whether the official has unique, firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge and whether the requesting party has pursued less intrusive discovery methods. The party seeking to block the deposition bears a heavy burden, and there is no absolute requirement that all alternative discovery methods be exhausted first.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court held that the City had not shown extraordinary circumstances justifying an order preventing Breed’s deposition. Shiferaw had agreed to buy the Center from Michael Johnson for $6.5 million, and his letter of intent was delivered to then-Supervisor Breed. Shiferaw also met with Breed and other defendants about the Center’s future. After the bidding process began, Breed reportedly said she would make the final decision about the Center and used her personal email address to offer a tour to Dr. Bates. The court concluded that Breed might have unique knowledge about her personal role in the sale and the process by which the Center’s fate was decided.

The court also rejected the argument that Shiferaw’s failure to serve interrogatories on Breed or use other less intrusive discovery methods barred the deposition. It found that the allegations about Breed’s role were relevant and not well-suited to written questions. Breed’s busy schedule and claimed lack of knowledge did not justify denying the deposition, although her job responsibilities justified accommodations.

The court granted Shiferaw’s request for an order compelling Breed’s deposition, subject to limitations. The deposition may not exceed three hours, must be conducted remotely, and may, at Breed’s discretion, occur in the evening or on a weekend. The order disposed of Docket No. 106.