Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-22/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NOT FOR CITATION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 DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR ORDER EXTENDING

LENGTH OF DEPOSITION

[Re: Docket No. 216]

On August 7, 2007, this court heard defendant’s “Motion for Order Extending Length of

Deposition.” Plaintiff opposed the motion. Having considered the moving and responding

papers, as well as the arguments presented at the motion hearing, this court GRANTS the

motion.

Defendant deposed plaintiff for a full day on May 16, 2007. It now requests an

additional two days (i.e., fourteen hours) to depose him. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2), a

deposition normally is limited to one day of seven hours. However, “[t]he court must allow

additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed for a fair examination of the deponent or

if the deponent or another person, or other circumstance, impedes or delays the

*E-FILED: 8.8.2007*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 257 Filed 08/08/07 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

examination.” FED.R.CIV.P. 30(d)(2).

Here, plaintiff has filed several lawsuits involving a number of claims of discrimination

and retaliation. Defendant says that it needs to examine him about a number of topics,

including his background, education, work experience, claimed damages, and other issues

raised in his several complaints. Further, it asserts that additional time is needed because of

communication difficulties experienced during the May 16 examination. Plaintiff complains

that defense counsel spent time questioning him about information which, he says, is already

contained in documents. However, defendant is entitled to ask questions about documents and

the information contained in them. It is also allowed to examine plaintiff about his memory and

recollection of events and documents (albeit here, defendant has agreed, as a courtesy, to

provide plaintiff with advance copies of documents about which it will ask).

Based on the record presented, this court agrees that more time is warranted for a fair

examination of plaintiff. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall have an additional fourteen

hours to depose plaintiff. The deposition shall take place in San Jose.

2. Defendant shall send plaintiff advance copies of documents which are

anticipated to be the subject of examination. The documents shall be delivered to plaintiff at

least three days prior to his deposition.

3. Plaintiff is advised that he is entitled to take breaks during the deposition, should

he feel it is necessary. However, breaks taken during the deposition shall not count against the

time limit for the examination. Further, no breaks shall be taken while a question is pending.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 8, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 257 Filed 08/08/07 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

5:04-cv-4086 A copy of this document will be mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias 

72 Floyd Street

San Jose, CA 95110 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Notice will be 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

Counsel for Defendant

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 257 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 3