Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-10/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NOT FOR CITATION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 GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL HIRING

DOCUMENTS

[Re: Docket No. 144]

This is a consolidated action for alleged employment discrimination filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5. Pro se plaintiff, Piotr Gardias, is employed by San Jose State University

(“SJSU” or “University”). He claims that defendant (a) failed to promote him on the basis of

his age and national origin; (b) retaliated against him for filing employment complaints; and

(c) discriminated against him on the basis of an alleged disability. In the course of discovery,

plaintiff requested the production of “Cover Letters, Applications for Employment, Application

Summary Review – Employment Services, Committee Interview Evaluations and Applications

Summar[ies]” for other SJSU employees and certain employment positions. (See Mot. to

Compel., Docket No. 144).

Presently before this court is plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel re Hiring Documents.”

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 177 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 7
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 Defendant advises that it was erroneously sued as “San Jose State

University.”

2

Plaintiff contends that defendant has produced some, but not all, of the documents he has

requested as to SJSU employees Scott Anderson and Chris Nordby. He apparently also seeks

an order compelling the production of his own employment application materials. Defendant

California State University1

 opposes the motion.

Because it appeared that the parties had not engaged in any meet-and-confer

negotiations as to the disputed documents, this court issued an Interim Order directing the

parties to

(a) promptly meet-and-confer and (b) file declarations identifying the specific issues that were

resolved and those that remained in dispute. Plaintiff’s papers are not the model of clarity. 

However, it seems that there are some lingering disputes as to defendant’s document

production.

Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments

presented at the April 17, 2007 motion hearing, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to compel

IN PART and DENIES the motion IN PART as follows:

A. Scott Anderson

Plaintiff seeks the production of Anderson’s (1) job application for a Chief Engineer

position (Requisition No. 011353); and (2) documents (e.g., cover letters, employment

applications, and the like) for an “Associate Director, Energy Systems” position.

1. Chief Engineer Position

With respect to Anderson’s job application for Chief Engineer, defendant says that it has

produced Anderson’s job application and cover letter, with Anderson’s private information (i.e.,

the names and telephone numbers of Anderson’s references and Anderson’s starting and current

salary information) redacted. Plaintiff objects to the redactions that have been made.

Federal courts generally consider objections to discovery based on an asserted right of

privacy and balance the need for the information against the claimed privacy right. See Ragge

v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604-05 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Here, plaintiff has not

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 177 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 7
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

shown that the information that has been redacted from Anderson’s employment documents are

relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to his

claims against SJSU. Accordingly, insofar as he seeks an order compelling SJSU to disclose

this information, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff further complains that defendant has not produced the requested “Application

Summary,” but has only produced Anderson’s “Application Summary Review – Employment

Services” – a document which plaintiff says he already has. Defendant says that it did not find

an “Application Summary” in Anderson’s records for this position. At the motion hearing,

plaintiff clarified that the document he seeks may be located in his department, rather than in

the University’s human resources department. He will send an exemplar of the “Application

Summary” to defense counsel for review. Defendant agrees to review the exemplar and to

conduct a reasonable search for any such document for Anderson and the “Chief Engineer”

position. Assuming such a document exists, defendant shall produce it to plaintiff no later

than April 27, 2007. If no such document exists, defendant shall so confirm to plaintiff in

writing.

2. “Associate Director, Energy Systems”

As for the requested documents pertaining to an “Associate Director, Energy Systems”

position, defendant says that Anderson remains in his Chief Engineer position. It says that there

may be some confusion here because of temporary assignments performed by Anderson to

assist Adam Bayer, who is the University’s Director of Energy and Utility Systems. (See CainSimon Decl., ¶ 3). However, plaintiff points out that in its position statement to the EEOC,

SJSU stated that “[t]he Associate Director, Energy Systems position was offered to Scott

Anderson, who is currently Chief Engineer.” (See attachment to Plaintiff’s April 2, 2007 brief,

San Jose State University Statement of Position, Charge No.556-2006-00182). Plaintiff also

claims to have seen document(s) which identify Anderson as an “Associate Director.”

At oral argument, defense counsel represented to the court that the EEOC position

statement in question was written by Adriana Duffy-Horling, who was then SJSU’s EEOC

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 177 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 7
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 Defense counsel advises that Duffy-Horling has recently left her employment

at SJSU.

4

compliance officer/investigator.2

 According to defense counsel, Duffy-Horling erroneously

accepted plaintiff’s representation that Anderson had been offered the “Associate Director,

Energy Systems” position. As such, defendant says that its EEOC Position Statement is

incorrect. Defense counsel further states that the “Associate Director, Energy Systems”

position (Requisition No. 012042) was, in fact, withdrawn during the application period and

later re-opened under the title “Campus Engineer” (Requisition No. 012087) (see Cain-Simon

Decl., ¶ 6) – a position which is now held by Simon Lee. SJSU reiterates that no one was hired

for the “Associate Director, Energy Systems” position.

Plaintiff disputes that the “Associate Director, Energy Systems” position was

withdrawn. He further asserts that Adam Bayer and an individual named Tony Valenzuela

provided false information to SJSU about his qualifications and wrongfully denied him an

interview for the “Associate Director, Energy Systems” position in 2005. Even if plaintiff’s

assertions are true, it is not clear what other documents pertaining to Anderson are to be

compelled.

Insofar as there appear to be no pertinent documents from Anderson pertaining to the

“Associate Director, Energy Systems” position, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

B. Chris Nordby – Chief Engineer Cogeneration Turbine Plant Operations

Plaintiff seeks employment documents pertaining to Chris Nordby, who is SJSU’s Chief

Engineer for Cogeneration Turbine Plant Operations. Defendant maintains that the information

is irrelevant because it says that none of plaintiff’s complaints in this consolidated lawsuit

pertain to that position. It also objects to the request insofar as it seeks Nordby’s private

information contained in his personnel file. Nevertheless, defendant says that, in the spirit of

cooperation, it has produced Nordby’s job application, with redactions for Nordby’s personal

and confidential information. (See Cain-Simon Decl., ¶ 5). It explains that Nordby was

recruited for this position and that the position was exempted from the “usual hiring process.” 

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 177 Filed 04/17/07 Page 4 of 7
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 Defendant advises that Brad Davis previously was SJSU’s EEOC compliance

officer/investigator, but presently is employed by the University in a different position.

5

(Opp. at 3:25). Defendant represents that no “application summary” for this position exists. 

(See id.). Additionally, it states that there are no interview summaries.

Plaintiff now says that he wants the “job announcement” for the position of Chief

Engineer Cogeneration Turbine Plant Operation. In view of the representations that this

position was exempt from the “usual hiring process,” it appears that there may be no “job

announcement.” Nevertheless, insofar as defendant has endeavored to produce other documents

pertaining to Nordby and this position, it shall conduct a reasonable search for any responsive

“job announcement” as to this position. If any such document exists, it shall be produced to

plaintiff no later than April 27, 2007. If no such document exists, defendant shall so confirm

to plaintiff in writing.

C. Plaintiff’s Job Application Materials

Plaintiff seeks his own application materials for the “Associate Director, Energy

Systems” position. As discussed above, defendant claims that SJSU informed plaintiff (and

other applicants) that this particular position was withdrawn and later re-opened under the title

“Campus Engineer” (Requisition No. 012087). Defendant further claims that plaintiff’s

application for the withdrawn position was used for the revised position. It says that although

plaintiff already has his application materials, it has produced another copy to him.

Plaintiff disputes that the “Associate Director, Energy Systems” position was

withdrawn; but it appears that defendant has produced plaintiff’s application materials which

were submitted for that position. As such, there appear to be no further documents to compel,

and plaintiff’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

D. Davis and Duffy-Horling Documents

In his motion papers, plaintiff indicates that he seeks the notes of SJSU investigators,

Brad Davis3

 and Adriana Duffy-Horling. At the motion hearing, defendant represented that it

has produced Davis and Duffy-Horling documents which are relevant to the instant litigation. It

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 177 Filed 04/17/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

appears that there are no further documents to compel. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to

compel is DENIED AS MOOT.

E. Request for Sanctions

In his April 2, 2007 brief, plaintiff made a passing request for monetary sanctions. The

request does not comply with Civil Local Rule 37-3. In any event, based on the record

presented, the court does not find that any sanctions are warranted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

April 17, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 177 Filed 04/17/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

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 

California 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

4/17/07 /s/

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 177 Filed 04/17/07 Page 7 of 7