Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-32/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 1 In any event, the court notes that most of the interrogatories in question

appear to pertain to issues/events concerning his health/medical condition. However,

plaintiff recently disclaimed any intent to inject health-related issues into the instant

consolidated lawsuit. As such, those interrogatories would appear to be irrelevant.

NOT FOR CITATION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

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RE

INTERROGATORIES

[Re: Docket Nos. 246, 269]

On July 31, 2007, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Compel 4 Sets of Interrogatories, Part I

and 5 Sets of Interrogatories, Part II.” In that motion, he sought an order compelling defendant

to serve “full answers” to various interrogatories and compelling Maria Rivera to provide a

clear declaration verifying defendant’s answers. Two weeks later, on August 15, 2007, plaintiff

filed an “Amendment to Motion to Compel 4 Sets of Interrogatories, Part I and 5 Sets of

Interrogatories, Part II.” In this amended motion, plaintiff expressly drops his earlier request

for an order compelling defendant to serve “full answers” to various interrogatories.1

 Instead,

plaintiff says that he seeks the following:

*E-FILED: 9.6.2007*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 283 Filed 09/06/07 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 Defendant advises that it was erroneously sued as “San Jose State

University.”

2

• an order “that Ms. Rivera signs each her answer which is required by FRCP Rule

33”; and

• an order compelling defense counsel to “tell[] name of individual who developed

‘General Objections’” used in defendant’s discovery responses.

Plaintiff apparently also still wants Maria Rivera to provide a “clear declaration” verifying

defendant’s interrogatory answers. Although these motions were set for hearing on September

11, 2007, the court finds it appropriate to deem them submitted without oral argument. See CIV.

L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the papers submitted, the court issues the following order.

To the extent plaintiff now seems to be asking that Rivera sign each interrogatory as an

answering party, he misapprehends the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 33. It is true that interrogatory

“answers are to be signed by the person making them . . ..” FED.R.CIV.P. 33(b)(2). Here,

however, California State University2

 is the only defendant and answering party. Rivera

evidently is the agent that defendant designated to verify its interrogatory answers on its behalf. 

As for Rivera’s verification, the court has already ruled on the question of its sufficiency. (See

Docket #260, August 9, 2007 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel).

With respect to the referenced “General Objections,” these appear to be a standard litany

of objections that parties often (rightly or wrongly) include in the preamble to their discovery

answers. The request for information as to who developed them has no bearing on plaintiff’s

claims.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel and amended motion to compel

are DENIED.

Dated:

________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

September 6, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 283 Filed 09/06/07 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 mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias 

72 Floyd Street

San Jose, CA 95110 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Notice 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 283 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 3