Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05281/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05281-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FANG-YUH HSIEH,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5281 PJH (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REQUEST

ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES 

Before me is plaintiff's motion for leave to request 25 

additional interrogatories, which contain many sub-parts. 

Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

Dr. Hsieh has shown good cause to request interrogatories

26, 35, to the extent of providing Mr. Doherty’s race, GS

level and position title at the time in question, 38, 39, 40,

41, 43 and 48. Interrogatory 26 which seeks information

regarding hiring and promotion, is relevant to Dr. Hsieh’s

theory of systematic discrimination against persons of Asian

origin working at the VA’s Cooperative Studies Program

Coordinating Center (“CSPCC”). Interrogatories 38 - 41 and 48

Case 4:06-cv-05281-PJH Document 101 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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

are relevant to Dr. Hsieh’s theory that he was fired in

retaliation of his complaints of employment discrimination and

against Maryann Boeger. However, 38-40 are limited to 2001

and 2002 and 41, 42 and 48 are limited to 2000 and 2001. 

Interrogatory No. 43 is relevant, inasmuch as the memo cannot

be located, and defendant’s burden argument is not persuasive. 

See Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil Procedure before Trial, 

§ 11:1747 et. seq.

Many of plaintiff’s other requests seek discovery of an

alleged conspiracy to keep him from being hired. For example,

he alleges that budgets were manipulated as a pretext to

terminate his position and later preclude him from job

application. Defendant, however, has provided CSPCC budget

sheets for each year from 2001 through 2007. Apparently

finding no support for his claim, plaintiffs response is to

propose additional interrogatories. This is not an effective

use of additional interrogatories. I find that the burden of

producing the information plaintiff seeks outweigh its likely

benefit. Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Should plaintiff ever

develop evidence of a conspiracy, he may then seek additional

discovery. 

Other proposed interrogatories are over-broad,

duplicative, and irrelevant. For example, plaintiff fails to

explain the relevance of information about people who were not

hired for any of the positions he sought. 

Except as expressly granted, plaintiff’s request to 

///

///

Case 4:06-cv-05281-PJH Document 101 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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

propound interrogatories is DENIED. The hearing scheduled for

September 5, 2007 is VACATED. 

Dated: August 27, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\HSIEH\additional.interrogatories.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-05281-PJH Document 101 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 3