KIM MCLAUGHLIN ET AL VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

Matter on the LAW AND MOTION / DISCOVERY CALENDAR FOR MONDAY, JUN-30-2025, LINE 12. 3-PLAINTIFFS KIM MCLAUGHLIN, and GARY SPICER'S Motion To Compel Defendant To Further Respond To Request For Production Of Documents, Set One, And For Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant And Its Attorneys.

As described in the motion to compel form interrogatories, the meet and confer efforts were reasonable. As for the names and contact information of witnesses reporting the sidewalk, Plaintiffs seek documents regarding sidewalk defects identified since 2012. Defendant asserts that a stipulated protective order moots the motion. Not so. A protective order does not necessarily mean the documents have been produced to Plaintiffs without redactions. Based on the reply, it appears that an unredacted copy was received earlier, and subsequently, Defendant sent a redacted copy. There is a live controversy about whether further responses are needed.

Defendant asserts privacy objections to 311 callers' identity and contact information. The request seeks relevant and discoverable information about similar incidents and notice to Defendant of the dangerous condition. The privacy of the 311 callers is protected. These reports are confidential under Vehicle Code Section 20012. Limited disclosure for similar incidents is limited to the contents of the report, provided that the identifying information of the caller is redacted. (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 298-301.) Here, Plaintiffs request the very information that the court in Davies decided should be redacted under Section 20012. Thus, the motion is denied.

Both parties acted with substantial justification. Therefore, the court declines to issue sanctions.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the moving party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.