CHRIS SCHROEDER VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24620335 - December 19, 2025 Hearing date: December 19, 2025 Case number: CGC24620335 Case title: CHRIS SCHROEDER VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24620335 | Case Title: | | CHRIS SCHROEDER VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-19 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Seal Documents Lodged In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for December 19, 2025, line 11. DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S Motion To Seal Documents Lodged In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication.

The motion to seal is denied in part and granted in part. Defendant City and County of San Francisco makes a conclusory showing in its moving papers of any need for confidentiality that meets the demanding test set out in Rule of Court 2.550, subdivision (d). For some of the documents lodged under seal, there is no apparent basis for confidentiality and information required to be redacted by the rules of court has already been redacted. The public has an interest in the conduct of public employment. That a witness has not yet been deposed is not a basis that overcomes the public's right of access to documents submitted to the court as a basis for adjudication.

For the following exhibits to the Frenzen Declaration in support of the City's summary judgment motion, the motion to seal is denied: Exs. A, C, D, K. The motion to seal is denied as to all exhibits in the Nieve Declaration.

For the following exhibits to the Frenzen Declaration, the court finds that despite the City's conclusory motion to seal, the private nature of the documents is apparent on their face: Exs. B, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P. These documents discuss medical information and accommodation requests. As to these documents, the court finds that (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

The clerk is directed to unseal the Nieve Declaration in its entirety. The City is ordered to file a new public version of the Frenzen Declaration that includes Exs. A, C, D, K by January 20, 2026.

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.