Shin v. Nicholson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GABRIEL SHIN, Case No. 23-cv-00456-VC (DMR)

8 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY ORDER 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 154, 155 10 JEANINE NICHOLSON, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“the City”) and Plaintiff Gabriel Shin filed 13 unilateral discovery dispute letters regarding Shin’s responses to certain interrogatories and requests 14 for production propounded by the City. [Docket No. 154 (CCSF Ltr.); Docket No. 155 (Shin Ltr.).] 15 Having reviewed the parties’ positions, the court finds the disputes can be determined without oral 16 argument (Civ. L.R. 7-1(b)), and issues the following order. 17 RFP Nos. 98, 99, and 104 & Spousal Privilege. In reviewing the two unilateral letters, it 18 appears that certain issues are now moot. These include disputes about RFP Nos. 98, 99, and 104, 19 as well as Shin’s attempt to claim spousal privilege for communications with his long-term partners. 20 Shin Ltr. at 2. By October 1, 2025, Shin shall produce all non-privileged documents responsive to 21 RFP Nos. 99 and 104, and documents previously withheld on grounds of spousal privilege. If Shin 22 is withholding any responsive documents, he must produce a privilege log that fully complies with 23 the undersigned’s standing order. If disputes regarding RFP No. 98 remain, the parties shall 24 continue to meet and confer to resolve them. 25 Interrogatory Nos. 19-21 and 24.1 The City seeks the names of individuals who Plaintiff 26 1 Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 25 ask Shin to identify an individual or individuals specifically alleged 27 under a pseudonym. [Docket No. 154-1 at 8 (“IDENTIFY the firefighter towards whom Defendant 1 identified in the first amended complaint (“FAC”) by pseudonym. Shin contends he named these 2 individuals in his initial disclosures, and that CCSF has been “directed to an actual witness who can 3 identify” them. Shin Ltr. at 1. According to Shin, “the only goal here seems to be to try and further 4 probe Plaintiff’s counsel’s mind and work product, which is improper.” Id. 5 The names of individuals identified by pseudonym in the FAC are relevant and discoverable. 6 Shin placed them at issue when he made allegations about them in his FAC; the City is entitled to 7 test the factual basis of Shin’s allegations through discovery. See Andino v. Apple Inc., No. 20-CV- 8 01628 DAD AC, 2024 WL 200997, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2024) (finding “the discovery is 9 relevant because defendant is entitled to test plaintiff’s allegations . . .”); Nunes v. Cnty. of 10 Stanislaus, No. 17-cv-00633-DAD-SAB, 2020 WL 1324808, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2020) 11 (“Defendants are entitled to conduct discovery regarding the allegations against the county . . .”). 12 This necessarily includes the identity of individuals whose conduct forms the basis of Shin’s claims. 13 The fact that Shin included their names in his initial disclosures does not satisfy his 14 obligation to respond to the interrogatories. Shin also must explain which specific allegation(s) are 15 tied to each of them.2 Plaintiff’s offer to provide “an actual witness” who can identify the individuals 16 is insufficient, particularly where Shin does not name this witness and Shin is presumably not 17 referring to himself. The City is entitled to verified interrogatory responses from Shin—not a third 18 party—about the factual bases for the allegations of his own FAC. 19 Shin’s assertion of work product privilege is meritless. The case upon which Shin relies, 20 Garcia v. Stemilt Ag Services LLC, No. 20-CV-00254-SMJ, 2020 WL 7495584 (E.D. Wash. 21 Dec. 21, 2020), confirms this. There, the defendant sought the production of declarations from the 22 plaintiffs that had been drafted and prepared by the plaintiffs’ counsel. Id. at *1. The court ordered 23 the plaintiffs to produce declarations for individuals outside the United States who could not be 24 Association” with whom Defendant Nicholson met as alleged in paragraph 68 of YOUR 25 COMPLAINT.”).] The City did not include Interrogatory No. 18 or 25 in its letter, so the court assumes there is no dispute about them. 26 2 Shin asserts that “Defendant has already been . . . informed that the identities of these individuals 27 have been disclosed in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures,” (Shin Ltr. at 1), but tellingly does not give any 1 made available for deposition. Jd. at *2. However, the court found that, “[f]or declarants living in 2 the United States, Plaintiffs need only disclose their identities.” /d.; id. at *3 (“Plaintiffs cannot 3 || conceal critical, non-privileged, discoverable information simply by attempting to hide behind the 4 || work product doctrine.”) (cleaned up). Interrogatory Nos. 19-21 and 24 seek nothing more than the 5 identities of the persons—the same information the Garcia court ordered the plaintiffs to provide. 6 Shin shall serve supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 19-21 and 24 by October 1, 7 |} 2025. 8 RFP No. 105. The City seeks “All DOCUMENTS that constitute, mention, refer, or reflect 9 || to any COMMUNICATIONS by Plaintiff to any media outlet (television, newspaper, periodical, 10 || blog) from February 1, 2022, through the present.” [Docket No. 154-2 at 17.] Shin says he has 11 already produced “documents that discuss the real subject matter of this lawsuit,” and complains 12 || that the City is really “seeking communications with media outlets, even if they contain no substance 5 13 and are just arranging meetings, etc.” Shin Ltr. at 2 (emphasis omitted). Shin “does not believe this 14 || information is discoverable and believes that Defendant is seeking such information simply in an 3 15 attempt to try and smear Plaintiff for exercising his first amendment rights.” Jd. 16 The court disagrees with Shin. The disputed communications are relevant and discoverable. 3 17 For example, documents arranging meetings will show when Shin met with media outlets and allow 18 the City to ask what was discussed during specific meetings. Any concerns about alleged 19 || “attempt[s] to try and smear Plaintiff for exercising his first amendment rights” are mitigated by the 20 || protective order. [See Docket No. 99.] Shin also does not argue that RFP No. 105 is burdensome. 21 Accordingly, Shin shall produce any remaining communications with media outlets that discuss or 22 || relate to this litigation by October 1, 2025. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: September 24, 2025 26 L yi Donna M. Ryu 27 Chief Magistrate Judge 28