Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-37/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NOT FOR CITATION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

[Docket No. 271]

On August 17, 2007, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Compel re:

Rambling.” In it, he apparently seeks an order compelling certain individuals to respond to

what apparently were intended to be requests for admission pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 –

albeit he refers to the requests as “interrogatories.” He also requests an order directing Maria

Rivera to sign defendant’s responses as an “answering party” and verify defendant’s

interrogatory answers under oath pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.

With respect to plaintiff’s requests for admission, he appears to seek admissions as to

whether members of an interview committee made certain statements about his communication

skills. Plaintiff prefaced his requests with a long preamble. Defendant responded to plaintiff’s

preamble as an “Unnumbered Interrogatory,” objected to it as unintelligible, and stated that it

*E-FILED: 10/3/2007*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 304 Filed 10/03/07 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

would make the referenced individuals available for deposition if plaintiff wished. It then

responded to plaintiff’s numbered requests by referring to its answer to the “Unnumbered

Interrogatory.” Plaintiff now seeks to compel answers to the numbered requests – i.e., request

numbers 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 3.1.

Insofar as plaintiff seeks testimony from various non-party individuals through his

requests for admission, his motion is denied. However, plaintiff’s motion will be granted as

follows: The court construes plaintiff’s numbered requests as requests for admission and

defendant shall respond them as such. Defendant’s responses shall be served on plaintiff no

later than October 12, 2007.

As for plaintiff’s request concerning Maria Rivera’s verification, this court has already

ruled on the propriety of Rivera’s verification made on defendant’s behalf. (See Docket #260

(August 9, 2007 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel); see also Docket #283

(September 6, 2007 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel re Interrogatories”)). The

instant motion merely repeats the same request for relief and provides no basis for this court to

depart from its prior rulings. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion as to Maria Rivera is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

October 3, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 304 Filed 10/03/07 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 Street

San Jose, CA 95110 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Notice has been 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 304 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3