Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-5/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NOT FOR CITATION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 TO COMPEL NO. I”

[Docket No. 112]

In this consolidated action for alleged employment discrimination, plaintiff Piotr

Gardias (proceeding pro se) claims that defendant failed to promote him because of his age,

national origin and an alleged disability.

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel No. I” in which he seeks

leave to take discovery of defense counsel, Mary Cain-Simon. He asserts that she participated

in a “set up” and violated his privacy by disclosing his medical information to persons at San

Jose State University where he is employed. The time for filing any opposition or reply has

passed, and none has been filed. Nevertheless, this court deems the matter suitable for

determination without oral argument, and the January 30, 2007 motion hearing is VACATED. 

See CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 142 Filed 01/17/07 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

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly prohibit the taking of

discovery from opposing counsel, such discovery is generally permitted only under limited

circumstances where the requesting party shows that (1) no other means exist to obtain the

information; (2) the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged; and (3) the information is

crucial to the preparation of the case. See Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cerf, 177

F.R.D. 472, 478-79 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323,

1327 (8th Cir. 1986)).

Here, plaintiff essentially claims that he should be permitted to take discovery of

opposing counsel because she allegedly violated his privacy rights. However, plaintiff has not

demonstrated that any of the three factors weigh in favor of permitting the discovery he seeks. 

In view of plaintiff’s allegations in this litigation, the court is unpersuaded that the requested

discovery is crucial to the preparation of his case, which concerns whether defendant

wrongfully failed to promote him. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion for

leave to take discovery of defense counsel is DENIED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 17, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 142 Filed 01/17/07 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 St. 

San Jose, CA 95110

Pro Se Plaintiff

Mary Susan Cain-Simon 

CA State Attorney General's Office 

1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor 

P. O. Box 70550

Oakland, CA 94612-0550

Counsel for Defendant

Dated: ______________________________

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

1/17/07 /s/

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 142 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 3