Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05291/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05291-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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NOT FOR CITATION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.

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C09-05291 HRL

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL

[Re: Docket No. 20]

On May 24, 2010, plaintiff Piotr Gardias filed a motion to compel defendant to produce

certain documents. Some of the documents in question appear to be ones that are referenced or

mentioned in defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 initial disclosures. Defendant objects to the motion

on the ground that Gardias failed to provide adequate notice. Nonetheless, defendant says that

it will serve supplemental initial disclosures, providing additional information as to the

identities of witnesses and documents that support defendant’s defenses. This would appear to

moot at least part of plaintiff’s motion to compel.

As to the remainder of plaintiff’s motion:

1. The motion is denied on the ground that plaintiff has not clearly explained the

basis for his contention that he is entitled to the requested discovery. Nor has plaintiff shown

how the proportionality and other requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) are satisfied. 

See Civ. L.R. 37-2.

*E-FILED 05-28-2010*

Case 5:09-cv-05291-HRL Document 23 Filed 05/28/10 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

2. The motion is denied on the additional ground that it was not filed in compliance

with Civil Local Rules 6 and 7, which require motions to be filed at least 35 days before the

noticed hearing date, unless the court orders otherwise. Indeed, Gardias filed his motion on

four days notice and purported to notice it for a hearing on May 28, 2010, a date that does not

coincide with this court’s civil law and motion calendar. The instant action is one of at least

twelve lawsuits that plaintiff has filed in this court. He is — or certainly should be — well

familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s Civil Local Rules. Plaintiff is

admonished to follow them. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding

that pro per litigants must follow the same procedural rules as represented parties). This is not

the first time plaintiff has been so admonished. Should Gardias persist in flouting these rules

without justification, the court may consider the imposition of sanctions against him.

3. The denial is without prejudice to plaintiff to renew his motion, assuming that he

can remedy the procedural defects identified above.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 28, 2010

Case 5:09-cv-05291-HRL Document 23 Filed 05/28/10 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

5:09-cv-05291-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

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

Leticia.MartinezCarter@doj.ca.gov 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

5:09-cv-05291-HRL Notice mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias

72 Floyd St.

San Jose, CA 95110

Case 5:09-cv-05291-HRL Document 23 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 3