Preview
YD WB WwW DN
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER, Siate Bar #173180
Chief Labor Attorney
JONATHAN YANK, State Bar #215495
Deputy City Attorney
KATE KIMBERLIN, State Bar #261017
Deputy City Attorney
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, Sth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3816
Facsimile: (415) 554-4248
E-Mail: jonathan. yank @stcityatty.org
kate. kimberlin@sfcityatty.org
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
01/22/2019
Clerk of the Court
BY: CAROL BALISTRERI
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
JOSEY RUSSELL, an individual, and NADIA
MOHAMED, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, Governmental Entity; and
DOES 1 through 30, inclusive,
Defendants.
I, JONATHAN YANK, declare as follows:
Case No. CGC-17-562245
DECLARATION OF JONATHAN YANK IN
SUPPORT OF STIPULATED EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE
AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES
Hearing Date: January 23, 2019
Hearing Judge: Hon. Garrett L. Wong
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Place: 206
Date Action Filed:
Trial Date:
November 1, 2017
July 15, 2019
1, lam an attorney admitted to practice law in California and to appear before this Court.
Iam a Deputy City Attorney in the Office of the City Attorney for the City and County of San
Francisco and represent Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (“the City”) in this
action. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this declaration, and if called upon to testify, I could
and would testify competently to the facts contained herein.
1
"DEC YANK ISO EX PARTE APP TO CONT TRIAL; CGC-17-562245
nMabor\li2017\180552\01331877.docx2. J submit this declaration in support of the Stipulated Ex Parte Application to Continue
Trial Date and Pretrial Deadlines (“the Stipulated Application”).
3. The current trial date is July 15,2019. The parties stipulate and request that the date be
continued to November 18, 2019 or a date soon thereafter, as may please the Court. This is the second
request for a continuance by the parties.
4. NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF OF EX PARTE APPEARANCE: Karine Bohbot of
Bohbot & Riles represents the Plaintiffs in this matter, Police Sergeant Josey Russell and Police
Officer Nadia Mohamed (“Plaintiffs”), Ms. Bohbot’s contact information is as follows:
KARINE BOHBOT
Bohbot & Riles, PC
4319 Piedmont Ave., 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94611
Telephone: 510-250-7278
Facsimile: 510-273-8911
E-Mail: kbohbot@strikebacklaw.com
On January 18, 2019, at approximately 11:30 a.m., I informed Ms. Bohbot by email of my plan and
obtained her approval and agreement that I appear on January 23, 2019 at 11:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 206 of the San Francisco Superior Court, located
at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California, to bring this stipulated ex parte application before
the court and seek the requested relief. Plaintiffs support this application and do not intend to appear.
5. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE: As detailed below
and in the supporting papers filed and served herewith, the parties seek this trial continuance to allow
sufficient time to complete complex discovery and to address scheduling conflicts in this matter.
a. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter on November 01, 2017 and served
the City on November 15, 2017. The City filed and served its Answer on January 3, 2018. On
March 16, 2018, the Court set this matter for trial on March 4, 2019. Trial was continued to
the currently-assigned date, July 15, 2019, by order of the Court granting a stipulated ex parte
motion filed by the parties.
b. As with most employment litigation involving claims of discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation, this case is complex, involves numerous causes of action, relates to
matters occurring over a period of years, and, thus, requires extensive and complex discovery
2
DEC YANK ISO EX PARTE APP TO CONT TRIAL; CGC-17-562245 n\labor\li2017\180552101331877.docxto an extent not required in many other types of litigation brought before this Court.
c. Beginning in February 2018 and continuing to the present, the parties have
exchanged numerous sets of written discovery and conducted several depositions. However, in
spite the parties’ diligence in this regard, the discovery process has been hampered and greatly
slowed due to the application of Penal Code section 832.7!. Pursuant to that provision, peace
officer personnel records are confidential and only discoverable pursuant to the so-called
“Pitchess” procedures codified in Evidence Code section 1043 et seq.
d. Based on the above-described statutory scheme, the City was prohibited from
producing peace officer personnel records requested in written discovery propounded by
Plaintiffs under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 et seg. Thus, Plaintiffs filed a
Pitchess motion on July 13, 2018. However, due to scheduling conflicts and a continuance
ordered by Judge Harold Kahn, the matter was not heard until October 2, 2018, whereupon
Judge Kahn ordered meticulous redaction and production of nearly 2000 pages of confidential
peace officer personnel records.
€. The paralegal in my office assigned to this matter has begun the process of
redacting those materials, but has been hampered by health issues, by his own full caseload,
and by paralegal understaffing in our office. He estimated that it will take an additional 200
hours of paralegal work to complete the redactions in the manner ordered by the Court. In
light of his full caseload, he is able to devote only a portion of each day to this process. We
' Penal Code section 832.8 broadly defines peace officer “personnel records” as records relating to any
of the following:
(a) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment
history, home addresses, or similar information.
(b) Medical history.
(c) Election of employee benefits.
(d) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline.
(e) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which he
or she participated, or which he or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which he or
she performed his or her duties.
(f) Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy.
3
DEC YANK ISO EX PARTE APP TO CONT TRIAL; CGC-17-562245 nMaborli2017\180552\01331877.docxhave obtained part-time assistance from another paralegal, but she has her own caseload as
well. Thus, while I have begun a rolling production of documents as they are redacted, it is
unlikely that production will be completed before mid-March.
f. Due to the foregoing, neither party has been able to complete depositions of the
parties and witnesses in this matter, and they will be prevented from doing so without the
requested trial continuance. Plaintiff's counsel informs me that, once production is completed,
she expects she will need to propound further written discovery and to schedule many
additional depositions.
g. Meanwhile, I have been assigned to represent the City in labor negotiations with
the City’s largest labor union, Service Employees International Union, Local 1021, which
represents approximately 14,000 City employees across all City’s departments. Preparation for
those negotiations are underway, and bargaining will begin in late January of 2019, continuing
through May 2019. As a result of my role in what will certainly be protracted and difficult
labor negotiations, I will be unable to adequately prepare to try this matter on the assigned
date, July 15, 2019.
h. Furthermore, my colleague assigned to this matter, Deputy City Attorney Kate
Kimberlin, is out on maternity leave and will not return for several months.
6. Plaintiffs and their counsel do not oppose and have stipulated to this requested
continuance. (See the Stipulation filed herewith.)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct under the laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed on January 22, 2019, at San Francisco, California.
\ eo
JONATHAN YANK
\
4
DEC YANK ISO EX PARTE APP TO CONT TRIAL; CGC-17-562245 Mabor\li2017\180552\01331877.docx
Preview
YD WB WwW DN DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER, Siate Bar #173180 Chief Labor Attorney JONATHAN YANK, State Bar #215495 Deputy City Attorney KATE KIMBERLIN, State Bar #261017 Deputy City Attorney Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Sth Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3816 Facsimile: (415) 554-4248 E-Mail: jonathan. yank @stcityatty.org kate. kimberlin@sfcityatty.org Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 01/22/2019 Clerk of the Court BY: CAROL BALISTRERI Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION JOSEY RUSSELL, an individual, and NADIA MOHAMED, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Governmental Entity; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Defendants. I, JONATHAN YANK, declare as follows: Case No. CGC-17-562245 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN YANK IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES Hearing Date: January 23, 2019 Hearing Judge: Hon. Garrett L. Wong Time: 11:00 a.m. Place: 206 Date Action Filed: Trial Date: November 1, 2017 July 15, 2019 1, lam an attorney admitted to practice law in California and to appear before this Court. Iam a Deputy City Attorney in the Office of the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco and represent Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (“the City”) in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this declaration, and if called upon to testify, I could and would testify competently to the facts contained herein. 1 "DEC YANK ISO EX PARTE APP TO CONT TRIAL; CGC-17-562245 nMabor\li2017\180552\01331877.docx2. J submit this declaration in support of the Stipulated Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date and Pretrial Deadlines (“the Stipulated Application”). 3. The current trial date is July 15,2019. The parties stipulate and request that the date be continued to November 18, 2019 or a date soon thereafter, as may please the Court. This is the second request for a continuance by the parties. 4. NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF OF EX PARTE APPEARANCE: Karine Bohbot of Bohbot & Riles represents the Plaintiffs in this matter, Police Sergeant Josey Russell and Police Officer Nadia Mohamed (“Plaintiffs”), Ms. Bohbot’s contact information is as follows: KARINE BOHBOT Bohbot & Riles, PC 4319 Piedmont Ave., 2nd Floor Oakland, CA 94611 Telephone: 510-250-7278 Facsimile: 510-273-8911 E-Mail: kbohbot@strikebacklaw.com On January 18, 2019, at approximately 11:30 a.m., I informed Ms. Bohbot by email of my plan and obtained her approval and agreement that I appear on January 23, 2019 at 11:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 206 of the San Francisco Superior Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California, to bring this stipulated ex parte application before the court and seek the requested relief. Plaintiffs support this application and do not intend to appear. 5. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE: As detailed below and in the supporting papers filed and served herewith, the parties seek this trial continuance to allow sufficient time to complete complex discovery and to address scheduling conflicts in this matter. a. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter on November 01, 2017 and served the City on November 15, 2017. The City filed and served its Answer on January 3, 2018. On March 16, 2018, the Court set this matter for trial on March 4, 2019. Trial was continued to the currently-assigned date, July 15, 2019, by order of the Court granting a stipulated ex parte motion filed by the parties. b. As with most employment litigation involving claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, this case is complex, involves numerous causes of action, relates to matters occurring over a period of years, and, thus, requires extensive and complex discovery 2 DEC YANK ISO EX PARTE APP TO CONT TRIAL; CGC-17-562245 n\labor\li2017\180552101331877.docxto an extent not required in many other types of litigation brought before this Court. c. Beginning in February 2018 and continuing to the present, the parties have exchanged numerous sets of written discovery and conducted several depositions. However, in spite the parties’ diligence in this regard, the discovery process has been hampered and greatly slowed due to the application of Penal Code section 832.7!. Pursuant to that provision, peace officer personnel records are confidential and only discoverable pursuant to the so-called “Pitchess” procedures codified in Evidence Code section 1043 et seq. d. Based on the above-described statutory scheme, the City was prohibited from producing peace officer personnel records requested in written discovery propounded by Plaintiffs under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 et seg. Thus, Plaintiffs filed a Pitchess motion on July 13, 2018. However, due to scheduling conflicts and a continuance ordered by Judge Harold Kahn, the matter was not heard until October 2, 2018, whereupon Judge Kahn ordered meticulous redaction and production of nearly 2000 pages of confidential peace officer personnel records. €. The paralegal in my office assigned to this matter has begun the process of redacting those materials, but has been hampered by health issues, by his own full caseload, and by paralegal understaffing in our office. He estimated that it will take an additional 200 hours of paralegal work to complete the redactions in the manner ordered by the Court. In light of his full caseload, he is able to devote only a portion of each day to this process. We ' Penal Code section 832.8 broadly defines peace officer “personnel records” as records relating to any of the following: (a) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information. (b) Medical history. (c) Election of employee benefits. (d) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline. (e) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which he or she participated, or which he or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his or her duties. (f) Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 3 DEC YANK ISO EX PARTE APP TO CONT TRIAL; CGC-17-562245 nMaborli2017\180552\01331877.docxhave obtained part-time assistance from another paralegal, but she has her own caseload as well. Thus, while I have begun a rolling production of documents as they are redacted, it is unlikely that production will be completed before mid-March. f. Due to the foregoing, neither party has been able to complete depositions of the parties and witnesses in this matter, and they will be prevented from doing so without the requested trial continuance. Plaintiff's counsel informs me that, once production is completed, she expects she will need to propound further written discovery and to schedule many additional depositions. g. Meanwhile, I have been assigned to represent the City in labor negotiations with the City’s largest labor union, Service Employees International Union, Local 1021, which represents approximately 14,000 City employees across all City’s departments. Preparation for those negotiations are underway, and bargaining will begin in late January of 2019, continuing through May 2019. As a result of my role in what will certainly be protracted and difficult labor negotiations, I will be unable to adequately prepare to try this matter on the assigned date, July 15, 2019. h. Furthermore, my colleague assigned to this matter, Deputy City Attorney Kate Kimberlin, is out on maternity leave and will not return for several months. 6. Plaintiffs and their counsel do not oppose and have stipulated to this requested continuance. (See the Stipulation filed herewith.) I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on January 22, 2019, at San Francisco, California. \ eo JONATHAN YANK \ 4 DEC YANK ISO EX PARTE APP TO CONT TRIAL; CGC-17-562245 Mabor\li2017\180552\01331877.docx