Spiers v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The parties reached a settlement in principle on August 10, 2021, subject to approval by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. On December 22, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions.

During a December 14, 2021 deposition in a related case, Lieutenant Brendan O’Connor testified about evidence that had not been produced in this case. The evidence included interviews of Officers Stangel, Martinez, and Cabillo that were recorded the day after the incident, as well as text messages and emails. Defense counsel initially maintained that the evidence had been produced but later agreed that it had not been.

The defendants explained that the interviews were part of confidential San Francisco Police Department Investigative Services Detail and San Francisco District Attorney’s Office files. An SFPD representative stated that SFPD generally does not disclose records from open investigations because disclosure could affect pending criminal investigations or related matters. The defendants also explained that SFPD obtained the text messages from Lieutenant O’Connor in July 2021 but did not forward them to defense counsel because it prioritized other litigation after the settlement was reached in principle.

Defense counsel obtained the interviews and text messages after the deposition. The defendants produced the text messages on December 16, 2021, and the interviews on January 4, 2022.

Sanctions analysis

The court explained that it could impose sanctions under its inherent authority or under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Sanctions under the court’s inherent authority require bad faith or conduct equivalent to bad faith. The court found that the City and County, acting through SFPD, engaged in conduct equivalent to bad faith because the failure to disclose the evidence was not accidental; it resulted from an admitted SFPD policy.

The court concluded that the defendants were at least reckless about their discovery obligations. It also found an improper purpose because protecting the integrity of a criminal investigation could support a request to limit or protect discovery, but did not justify concealing from defense counsel, the plaintiff, and the court that responsive evidence existed.

The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff suffered no prejudice because the evidence was produced within three weeks of the deposition and the plaintiff still wanted to proceed with the settlement. The court stated that plaintiff’s counsel needed to obtain and review the evidence to determine whether it affected the plaintiff’s settlement position. The continuing settlement and its approval by the Board of Supervisors did not eliminate the work caused by the nondisclosure.

Disposition

The court held that an award of attorneys’ fees was appropriate but limited the award to fees caused by the misconduct. It found that the plaintiff’s request for fees for all discovery work in the case was too broad. The court instead awarded fees for 5.75 hours of discovery work performed after December 14, 2021, including time spent meeting and conferring and filing the sanctions motion, at a reasonable rate of $400 per hour.

The plaintiff’s motion for sanctions was granted in part. The City and County of San Francisco was ordered to pay $2,300 in reasonable attorneys’ fees within 30 days. The court also vacated the March 3, 2022 hearing and status conference.