Shin v. Nicholson et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GABRIEL SHIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEANINE NICHOLSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00456-VC (DMR)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 184, 185
Plaintiff Gabriel Shin filed two unilateral discovery letters regarding subpoenas to San
Francisco Emergency Medical Services Agency (“EMSA”), AT&T, and Verizon. [Docket Nos.
184, 185.] Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds these matters suitable for disposition
without oral argument and issues the following order.
I. DOCKET NO. 184
Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena to EMSA seeks documents related to Defendant Robert
Muhammad, “members of the San Francisco Fire Department being subject to EMSA licensure
actions . . . for violence, threats of violence, or criminal actions[,]” “EMSA policies pertaining to
licensure actions . . . against members of the San Francisco Fire Department,” and “standard EMSA
investigatory policies, practices, and processes[.]” [Docket No. 184-1 at ECF p.7.] The subpoena
requested a response by October 17, 2025. Id. at ECF p.1. As explained further below, it appears
that EMSA received the subpoena because a San Francisco Deputy City Attorney contacted
Plaintiff’s counsel seeking an extension to the response date. Ultimately, EMSA did not respond to
the subpoena. Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) served objections to the
EMSA subpoena. [Docket No. 184-1 at ECF pp.8–15.] However, CCSF’s outside counsel, CDF
Labor Law LLP, has repeatedly disclaimed representation of EMSA and instead asserts that EMSA
is a third party over which CCSF has no control.
Case 3:23-cv-00456-VC Document 200 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 6

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
On August 14, 2025, attorney Christopher Dawood of CDF Labor Law and lead counsel for
CCSF emailed Plaintiff that “CCSF has produced all EMSA records related to Mr. Muhammad in
its possession, custody or control. If Plaintiff seeks additional records from the EMSA, it must
subpoena those records as they are not under CCSF’s custody and control.” [Docket No. 184-2 at
ECF p.6.]
Plaintiff pushed back, asserting that
Postel’s Exhibit 9, which I shared with you in my August 13 email
below, contains an email and an official letter from Andrew Holcomb,
the Acting EMS Director for the San Francisco EMS Agency for the
City and County of San Francisco (you can see that in his signature
blocks and in the letterhead). As you know, your client is CCSF, not
the SFFD. Thus, anything held by the San Francisco EMS Agency
that relates to Mr. Muhammad is in CCSF’s custody and control,
including the investigation that the San Francisco EMS Agency is
spearheading.”
Id. (emphasis in the original).1
Mr. Dawood’s August 20, 2025 response reiterated that
As we stated previously, we do not have access to EMSA records,
which are confidential pursuant to Health and Safety Code section
1798.200(d) and not subject to public disclosure. Those records are
maintained separately by the EMSA, and must be obtained via
subpoena. . . . Please follow up with a subpoena to EMSA for the
records you are seeking.
Id. at ECF p.5. To that end, CCSF served its own subpoena on EMSA seeking documents. [Docket
No. 179 at 6 (“As Plaintiff’s counsel is also aware -- because CCSF subpoenaed the documents from
EMSA and subsequently provided them to Plaintiff -- Muhammad’s license was subsequently
renewed in 2022 and again in 2024.”) (emphasis added)2; Docket No. 184 at 1 (“In fact, CCSF
issued its own subpoena to EMSA because the agency is a nonparty and CCSF wished to review
relevant evidence to the case.”).]
1 Postel Exhibit 9, referenced in Plaintiff’s August 15, 2025 email (Docket No. 184-2 at ECF p.6),
was not submitted to the court.
2 CCSF’s statement in the parties’ joint discovery letter concerning Plaintiff’s requests for
production to CCSF indicates that EMSA produced documents in response to CCSF’s subpoena.
[Docket No. 179 at 6.] However, nothing in that letter or in Plaintiff’s instant letter regarding
EMSA’s response to Plaintiff’s subpoena indicates who represented EMSA in response to CCSF’s
subpoena, or why the same attorneys did not respond to Plaintiff’s subpoena.
Case 3:23-cv-00456-VC Document 200 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 6

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Plaintiff issued its Rule 45 subpoena to EMSA on October 3, 2025. [Docket No. 184-1 at
ECF pp.1–7.] On October 14, 2025, a Deputy City Attorney from the San Francisco City Attorney’s
Office emailed Plaintiff regarding the subpoena, seeking an extension of the response deadline and
requesting to discuss a timeframe for production. [Docket No. 184-2 at ECF p.3.] The Deputy City
Attorney followed up the next day. Id. at ECF p.2. In response, Plaintiff sought clarification about
EMSA:
Before we engage on substance, given the fact that CCSF is a
Defendant in this case, and you work for CCSF, we will need
clarification on the nature of your representation of the San Francisco
Emergency Medical Services Agency. Is the San Francisco
Emergency Medical Services Agency an agency controlled by CCSF
and/or a CCSF entity, and is that why your office is representing it?
Please explain the nature of the relationship between CCSF and the
San Francisco Emergency Medical Services Agency. I ask because I
need to ensure that it is proper for us to be discussing anything of
substance related to this case with your office.
Id.
The Deputy City Attorney’s November 20, 2025 response did not provide answers to
Plaintiff’s questions. Id. at ECF p.1. Instead, the Deputy City Attorney stated that “CCSF is
represented by CDF Labor Law LLP in this matter” and directed Plaintiff to “communicate with
those attorneys regarding your subpoena and anything else related to this matter.” Id. The Deputy
City Attorney copied two CDF Labor Law attorneys on her email. Id. Plaintiff responded to the
Deputy City Attorney and the CDF Labor Law attorneys that same day, stating that “[t]hat is not
possible, as CDF specifically advised that Plaintiff had to issue a subpoena because they did not
represent SFEMSA due to the fact that SFEMSA is not associated with CCSF.” Id.
To the extent there was any response by the Deputy City Attorney or CDF Labor Law to
Plaintiff’s November 20, 2025 email, it was not included in the email thread submitted to the court.
[See Docket No. 184-2.] According to Plaintiff, “[t]hereafter, CDF Labor Law attorney Dawood
disclaimed representation of EMSA: ‘Regarding EMSA, our firm does not represent EMSA, and I
can’t speak to EMSA’s email. We represent CCSF’.”3 [Docket No. 184 at 1.] Plaintiff further
3 This email was not included in the submission to the court.
Case 3:23-cv-00456-VC Document 200 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 6

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
represents that “Mr. Dawood confirmed the same over the phone when explaining that he could not
meet and confer about the Subpoena for EMSA because it is a separate entity from CCSF.” Id.
Under these circumstances, where CCSF counsel has repeatedly insisted that EMSA is a
third party over which CCSF has no control, the court treats EMSA as such for purposes of
Plaintiff’s subpoena. In addition, notwithstanding CDF Labor Law’s disclaimer of representation,
the fact that the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office affirmatively reached out to Plaintiff to seek
an extension and discuss the scope of production indicates that EMSA received notice of the
subpoena. EMSA nevertheless failed to respond to the subpoena and has therefore waived any
objection thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B) (A written objection to a Rule 45 subpoena “must
be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is
served.”); AEC Yield Cap., LLC v. Am. Home Energy, Inc., No. 24-MC-80225-PHK, 2025 WL
3085720, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2025) (“Failure to timely and properly object to the subpoena
generally constitutes a waiver of all grounds for objection, including privilege.”) (citing Pizzuto v.
Tewalt, 136 F.4th 855, 868 (9th Cir. 2025)). EMSA has also not appeared in this action to seek a
protective order or to quash or modify the subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d)(3).
CCSF likewise did not move to quash or seek a protective order. See Huynh v. Wal-Mart
Assocs., Inc., No. 18-CV-01631-VC (SK), 2019 WL 13221170, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019) (“A
party cannot object to a subpoena duces tecum served on a nonparty, but rather, must seek a
protective order or make a motion to quash.”) (cleaned up); Khosroabadi v. Mazgani Soc. Servs.,
Inc., No. 17-cv-00644-CJC-KESx, 2018 WL 1858153, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) (“A party
cannot object to a subpoena duces tecum served on a nonparty, but rather, must seek a protective
order or make a motion to quash. . . . Where a party fails to file a motion to quash or a motion for
protective order before the deadline for the non-party to respond to the subpoena, the party generally
waives its right to object.”) (citations omitted). CCSF’s objections alone are insufficient to preclude
EMSA from producing responsive documents, as CCSF lacks standing to object on EMSA’s behalf.
See Doe v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., No. 23-cv-02865-EMC (PHK), 2023 WL 8714880,
at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2023) (“[T]o the extent that [defendant] objects to the subpoenas directed
Case 3:23-cv-00456-VC Document 200 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 6

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
to third parties based on relevance or burden, the Court agrees that [defendant] lacks standing to do
so.”) (citations omitted); Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Inc., No. 17-cv-04165-MMC (RMI),
2019 WL 2499710, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2019) (“Generally speaking, a party to an action does
not have standing to move to quash a subpoena served upon a nonparty unless the party claims a
personal right or privilege with respect to the documents requested in the subpoena.”) (collecting
cases).
In light of the foregoing, the court orders EMSA to produce all documents responsive to
Plaintiff’s subpoena no later than December 31, 2025.
Plaintiff also requests “permission to depose the EMSA after such documents are produced.”
[Docket No. 184 at 2.] The record does not show that Plaintiff served EMSA with a subpoena to
testify at a deposition; the only subpoena before the court seeks the production of documents. [See
Docket No. 184-1 at ECF pp.1–7.] If Plaintiff wanted to depose EMSA, it could and should have
subpoenaed EMSA accordingly, and Plaintiff offers no explanation for why the court should exceed
the scope of the discovery that Plaintiff served. Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring EMSA to
sit for a deposition is therefore denied.
II. DOCKET NO. 185
On September 19, 2025, Plaintiff served two Rule 45 subpoenas on nonparty Verizon and
six Rule 45 subpoenas on nonparty AT&T. [Docket No. 185-1 at ECF pp.1–40.] The subpoenas
seek business and billing records, call records, and records of text messages between August 1, 2021
and August 31, 2025 for eight phone numbers. Id. at ECF pp.4, 9, 14, 19, 24, 29, 34, 39. Plaintiff
explains that the subpoenas seek records for the “fire department-issued phone numbers (including
work office . . . and work cell phones . . .)” of Defendants Jeanine Nicholson, Robert Postel, and
Tom O’Connor. [Docket No. 185 at 1.] Plaintiff also seeks documents related to the phone number
associated with nonparty Shon Buford, who “was in simultaneous communication with the SFFD’s
top three department officials and Muhammad immediately before and after his assault on Plaintiff.”
Id. at 2.
Plaintiff represents that he “met and conferred with ATT and Verizon, who acknowledged
proper service of subpoenas, but both expressed a request for a Court order before producing
Case 3:23-cv-00456-VC Document 200 Filed 12/09/25 Page 5 of 6

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
responsive documents to the Subpoenas.” Id. at 1; see id. (“ATT and Verizon do not object to the
Subpoena, but rather indicate that they want a Court order.”).
Neither Verizon nor AT&T served written responses or objections to the subpoenas. Id. Nor
did they appear in this litigation to seek a protective order or move to quash or modify the subpoenas.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). Thus, for the reasons stated above, the court
finds that any objections have been waived.
CCSF served objections to the subpoenas (Docket No. 185-1 at ECF pp.41–53), but did not
move to quash or for a protective order. For the reasons stated above, the court finds that CCSF’s
objections do not preclude production.
Accordingly, the court orders AT&T and Verizon to produce all documents responsive to
Plaintiff’s subpoenas no later than December 31, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2025
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
Chief Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00456-VC Document 200 Filed 12/09/25 Page 6 of 6