Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03400/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03400-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUZANNE GAYRARD, TZVIA 

ABRAMSON, SABINE RECH, MICHAEL 

SNEARY, JOHN BOOTHBY, 

KATHERINE WILKINSON, JOHN DOE 1 

through 8, JANE DOE 1 through 8; BOARD 

OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA 

STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-03400 LHK (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

JOINT REPORT NO. 1

[Re: Dkt. 70]

Plaintiff and the Board of Trustees of the California State University (CSU) have 

submitted Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 1 in which they dispute the propriety of

plaintiff’s document requests 5-18.

1

 The matter is deemed suitable for disposition without oral 

argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ respective arguments, the court rules 

 1 Although the DDJR identifies the disputed requests as Requests 6-19, it is apparent from the 

content of the DDJR that Request 5 is also at issue, even though that request is not specifically 

identified. By contrast, it is not apparent that Request 19 is at issue here because neither side 

discusses it, and the documents it seeks do not fit within the categories of documents addressed in 

the instant DDJR. Accordingly, this court will not address Request 19 here, without prejudice to 

have Request 19 raised in a future DDJR if it truly is in dispute and the parties are unable to 

resolve their disagreement through good faith meet-and-confer negotiations.

Case 5:13-cv-03400-LHK Document 98 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

as follows:

Requests 5-6

Request 5 seeks “[a]ny and all agreements, contracts and/or financial transaction 

documents between the SJSU [San Jose State University] Clinical Laboratory Scientist (“CLS”) 

program and the clinical laboratories that presently participate or previously participated in the 

program.” Request 6 asks for “[a]ny and all agreements, contracts and/or financial transaction 

documents between the SJSU Stem Cell Internships in Laboratory Based Learning (“SCILL”)

program and the educational institutions, laboratories and private companies that presently 

participate or previously participated in the program.” Plaintiff says he needs this discovery to 

ascertain whether entities offering internships through the CLS and SCILL programs impose any 

express or implied age requirements with respect to interns. This discovery is denied because the 

requests are exceeding broad; and, plaintiff has not convincingly demonstrated that whatever 

relevance the information might have outweighs the burden and expense of discovery, considering 

the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 

issues at stake, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C)(iii).

Requests 7-10

Requests 7-10 essentially seek all agreements, contracts, and financial transaction 

documents between SJSU and CSU on the one hand, and the federal government (and federal 

government subcontractors and agents) on the other. These requests are overbroad. Plaintiff says 

that he needs this discovery to “establish restrictions imposed by Federal law on the beneficiaries 

of such contracts and transactions.” (Dkt. 70 at 10). CSU says, and plaintiff does not deny, that 

during meet-and-confer negotiations, the only explanation offered by plaintiff was that this 

discovery is necessary to show that CSU receives federal funding and that it therefore has waived 

Eleventh Amendment sovereignty with respect to plaintiff’s ADA claim. CSU, however, says that 

it concedes both of those points. Accordingly, this discovery is denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C)(iii).

Case 5:13-cv-03400-LHK Document 98 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Requests 11-18

Requests 11-18 ask for all applications to the CLS and SCILL programs, since 2010, 

including those for applicants who were invited to admission interviews, those who were admitted, 

and those who were chosen as alternates or placed on a waiting list. Although the requested 

records implicate privacy concerns, CSU is willing to produce certain records in redacted form---

and, indeed this court will require all personal identifying information to be redacted prior to any 

production. Plaintiff says that he is claiming a pattern and practice of discrimination; even so, the 

requests are overbroad. For the most part, CSU’s proposal is a reasonable compromise, including 

production of certain applications, from 2009-2013, for applicants over 40-years old. The court 

agrees that CSU is not required to produce all applications from younger applicants who were 

rejected. That has no bearing on plaintiff’s claim that older applicants are rejected in favor of 

younger applicants who are admitted. However, CSU has not convincingly demonstrated that 

recommendation letters should be withheld entirely, particularly when personal identifying 

information will be redacted. Additionally, to make the over-40 group production meaningful, the 

court finds that CSU should also produce documents for the applicants who were interviewed, 

admitted, and wait-listed from 2009-2013. Accordingly, the court grants in part and denies in part 

plaintiff’s request for this discovery as follows:

CSU shall produce:

1. All responsive applications from applicants over 40 years old who applied, were 

interviewed/not interviewed, admitted and rejected from 2009-2013;

2. To the extent not already covered by category 1,2 all responsive applications from 

applicants who were interviewed from 2009-2013;

3. To the extent not already covered by category 1, all responsive applications from 

applicants who were accepted from 2009-2013;

4. To the extent not already covered by category 1, all responsive applications from 

 2 CSU need not produce duplicate copies of the same application if an application falls within 

more than one category described in this order.

Case 5:13-cv-03400-LHK Document 98 Filed 01/28/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

applicants who were put on a waiting list from 2009-2013; and

5. All responsive documents for applicants who applied for the same program and 

admission date as plaintiff.

All personal identifying information shall be redacted from the documents prior to 

production. While exact birthdates should not be disclosed, the birth year should not be concealed

so as to enable persons reviewing the documents to ascertain the age of the applicants. 

Additionally, the documents may only be used for the purpose of prosecuting, defending, or 

attempting to settle this litigation.

The court will give CSU some extra time to complete its production---albeit, not the 45 

days it asks for. CSU shall produce the documents within 21 days from the date of this order.

Except as set out above, plaintiff’s request for discovery responsive to Requests 11-18 is 

denied.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2015

______________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:13-cv-03400-LHK Document 98 Filed 01/28/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:13-cv-03400-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Gregory Nicholas Steshenko gsteshen@yahoo.com, gsteshen@rocketmail.com

Jeffrey Richard Vincent Jeffrey.Vincent@doj.ca.gov, bernie.hardy@doj.ca.gov, 

shontane.adams@doj.ca.gov

Rohit Kodical rohit.kodical@doj.ca.gov, bernie.hardy@doj.ca.gov, craig.modlin@doj.ca.gov, 

denise.geare@doj.ca.gov, ecfcoordinator@doj.ca.gov, rhonda.owens@doj.ca.gov

Case 5:13-cv-03400-LHK Document 98 Filed 01/28/15 Page 5 of 5