Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PIOTR J. GARDIAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C04-04086 HRL

Consolidated With: C04-04768 HRL

C05-01242 HRL

C05-01833 HRL

C06-04695 HRL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

[Docket Nos. 194, 196, 198]

On May 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Judgment: Facts to Be Deemed

Admitted.” He subsequently filed two amendments to that motion. Defendant has not filed any

responsive papers, and the time for briefing on the motion is closed. Although the motion was

noticed for a July 3, 2007 hearing, the court concludes that the matter appropriately may be

determined without oral argument. See CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the papers

presented, the court issues the following order.

In his original motion, plaintiff requested that this court enter judgment in his favor

because defendant reportedly failed to respond to his interrogatories. The “interrogatories” in

question apparently consisted of several somewhat cryptic questions embedded within a long

list of plaintiff’s assertions as to certain alleged events. Plaintiff later filed two amended

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 220 Filed 06/28/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

motions for judgment in which he now says that his discovery requests were mislabeled as

“interrogatories” when they should have been titled “requests for admission.” He requests that

the court (a) disregard the questions identified in his motion, as well as all language in his

discovery requests indicating that they were intended to be interrogatories; and (b) enter

judgment in his favor because defendant failed to say whether or not his assertions as to alleged

events are true.

Generally, when a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, the matters

requested are automatically deemed admitted. See FED.R.CIV.P. 36(a). However, plaintiff

apparently did not, at the time he served the discovery in question, make it clear whether

defendant should have answered his questions as interrogatories or whether it should have

responded to his statements as requests for admissions. The court will not enter judgment here

based on plaintiff’s unilateral and after-the-fact clarification that he actually intended the

discovery to be requests for admission.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for judgment is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

June 28, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 220 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

A copy of this document will be mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias 

72 Floyd Street

San Jose, CA 95110 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

5:04-cv-4086 Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Mary Susan Cain-Simon Mary.CainSimon@doj.ca.gov, David.Moss@doj.ca.gov 

Fiel D. Tigno fiel.tigno@doj.ca.gov 

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 220 Filed 06/28/07 Page 3 of 3