Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-36/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NOT FOR CITATION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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL RE

INTERROGATORIES

[Docket No. 270]

On August 16, 2007, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s

Forth [sic] Request for Interrogatories PRIVACY.” In it, he apparently seeks an order directing

Maria Rivera to (a) sign defendant’s interrogatory responses as an “answering party” and (b)

verify defendant’s interrogatory answers under oath.

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

*E-FILED 9.18.2007*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 291 Filed 09/18/07 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

1 In any event the interrogatory in question appears to concern issues relating to

his health/medical condition. However, plaintiff recently disclaimed any intent to inject such

issues into the instant consolidated lawsuit.

2

provides no basis for this court to depart from its prior rulings.1

 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

September 18, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 291 Filed 09/18/07 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 291 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 3