Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-6/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NOT FOR CITATION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. II”

[Docket No. 113]

This is a consolidated action for alleged employment discrimination filed by plaintiff

Piotr Gardias, who is proceeding pro se. Presently before this court is plaintiff’s “Motion to

Compel No. II.” In it, he seeks an order compelling responses to two letters that he apparently

sent to defense counsel on August 30, 2006 and September 13, 2006. Indeed, at a status

conference held on January 9, 2007, plaintiff indicated that he would like answers to his written

correspondence. The time for filing any opposition or reply brief concerning the instant motion

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

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

CIV. L.R. 7-1(b).

Here, the referenced letters appear to comprise plaintiff’s meet-and-confer

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 143 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

correspondence on various discovery issues. Motions to compel usually are brought to enforce

a party’s compliance with its discovery and disclosure obligations under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure (e.g., to produce documents, answer interrogatories, appear for deposition,

etc.). Such motions generally are not brought to compel responses to meet-and-confer

correspondence. The court suggests that, instead of moving to compel responses to letters,

plaintiff’s time will be better spent focusing on his actual discovery requests. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.

Nonetheless, as discussed at the January 9, 2007 status conference, if plaintiff believes

that defendant has not complied with its disclosure obligations under the Federal Rules or that

its responses to his discovery requests are deficient, he may bring the matter to the court’s

attention by filing and serving a motion in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37

and Civil Local Rules 7 and 37. However, the court expects both parties to meet-and-confer

with one another in good faith to resolve the issues before any such motion is filed. See

FED.R.CIV.P. 37(a)(2); Civ. L.R. 37-1(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 17, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 143 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 143 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 3