J. v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The court addressed discovery issues raised in the case-management statements and at an April 30, 2024 case-management conference in two related cases. The cases concern alleged police conduct, including the circumstances of the plaintiffs’ arrests and the 2023 Dolores Hill Bomb. The court stated that discovery was open in both cases. The defendants’ motions to dismiss and motion to strike remained under submission for later orders.

Named plaintiffs’ arrest records

The plaintiffs sought police records concerning their own arrests. The defendants objected that state law protected those records because the plaintiffs were minors and that state-law procedures were available to request disclosure.

The court stated that the arrest records were highly relevant and noted that the named plaintiffs were represented by counsel and court-appointed guardians ad litem and sought access to records about their own arrests. Because the issue had not yet been formally presented by motion or discovery letter brief, the court did not enter a final disclosure ruling. Instead, it ordered the parties to meet and confer about whether the defendants objected to a court order allowing discovery of the records without restrictions based on the named plaintiffs’ privacy interests. The parties had to file a letter brief or joint statement by May 10, 2024. Any disclosure could still involve redaction of identifying information about other minors, but the court indicated that a potential order would not allow the defendants to withhold entire documents that concerned both named plaintiffs and other minors.

Records of other proposed class members

The J.T. plaintiffs also sought police records concerning other members of the proposed class, many of whom were minors. The court was concerned that some of those people might not want to participate or have records connecting them to an arrest disclosed. The court was inclined to defer this class-related discovery until after, or closer to, class certification. If the court denied the defendants’ pending motion to strike the class allegations and the plaintiffs believed earlier production was necessary, they could make a document request and use the court’s discovery-dispute procedures.

Preservation of evidence

The court found that Microsoft Teams messages could be relevant if named defendants or other San Francisco Police Department employees discussed the intended or actual police response to the 2023 Dolores Hill Bomb. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about preserving or attempting to recover relevant messages and to file by May 10, 2024 either a joint statement listing agreed steps or a discovery letter brief presenting their positions.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ apparent position that only defendants’ evidence could be relevant. Depending on the claims pursued, evidence about the plaintiffs’ locations and activities, messages describing confinement conditions or force, and related photographs, videos, or messages could be relevant. The court found that some method of backing up each named plaintiff’s smartphone was reasonable and proportional, but it did not decide whether forensic imaging or commercial backup software was required. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about a specific process and submit a joint statement or discovery letter brief by May 10, 2024.

The court also directed plaintiffs’ counsel to ask whether the individual plaintiffs had communicated about the incidents through gaming consoles or platforms. If so, the plaintiffs had to preserve relevant messages. Complete backup imaging of gaming devices was not required if another reliable preservation method was available. The court left any possible sanctions for lost evidence for a later stage if the parties believed relevant evidence had been irrevocably lost when an opposing party had a preservation duty.

Identifying and serving R.P.’s unnamed defendants

R.P.’s only federal claims were against unidentified and unserved individual defendants referred to as Doe defendants. The court allowed R.P. to conduct discovery to identify the individuals he wished to sue because it did not find clear grounds at that time to dismiss all claims against them.

The court extended the deadline for service through July 29, 2024, and allowed R.P. to amend the complaint before that deadline to name the defendants he intended to serve. The court also stated that R.P. could seek another extension through an administrative motion if he believed good cause required one.

While the Doe defendants remained unidentified and unserved, the court declined to rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the R.P. case. That motion concerned state-law claims against the City and County of San Francisco that might ultimately fall outside federal subject-matter jurisdiction if R.P. could not identify and serve a defendant against whom he could state a viable federal claim.

Judge J. Cisneros, a United States Magistrate Judge, issued the order on May 2, 2024.