Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-13/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NOT FOR CITATION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

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

[Docket Nos. 172, 173]

On May 22, 2007, this court heard plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel re Verification Signed

on 12/21/2006” and “Motion to Compel re Discovery Disagreement.” Defendant opposed the

motions. Upon consideration of the papers filed by the parties, as well as the arguments

presented at the motion hearings, this court grants the motions in part and denies the motions in

part.

A. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel re Verification Signed on 12/21/2006”

1. Defendant’s Verification re Interrogatories

Adriana Duffy-Horling, defendant’s (now former) employee, executed an omnibus

verification for its responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for admission. Plaintiff

complains that the verification is defective as to his First, Second and Fourth sets of

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 197 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 5
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

interrogatories because it was not made “under oath” as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 33. Indeed,

Duffy-Horling’s verification is an unsworn statement of what she says she believes. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion on this issue is granted. No later than June 5, 2007, defendant

shall serve a verification made under oath – either through a declaration made under penalty of

perjury or through a statement sworn before a notary – for its interrogatory responses.

2. Investigation Notes

There was some discussion at the motion hearing about defendant’s production of

investigation notes from Duffy-Horling. Defendant stated that it has produced all such

documents that it has located. Plaintiff acknowledges that he has received documents; however,

he expresses concern that there is nothing in them about his “last case.” Defendant indicates

that after diligent inquiry and reasonable search, there are no such documents. As discussed at

oral argument, no later than June 5, 2007, defendant shall provide a declaration under penalty

of perjury from Duffy-Horling so attesting.

3. Deemed Admissions

Plaintiff seeks a ruling from the court that the matters which are the subject of his “First

Request for Admissions Federal Rule of Civil Procedure” be deemed admitted. Defendant

argues that these requests for admission were never served on defense counsel at her office. 

However, plaintiff has submitted what appears to be a proof of service showing that the requests

at issue were served on defense counsel on or about September 6, 2006. Further, his papers

indicate that defendant’s responses were not served until sometime in November 2006. Thus, it

seems that the matters were automatically deemed admitted under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. See FED.R.CIV.P. 36(a) (“The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days

after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow or as

the parties may agree to in writing . . . the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the

party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by

the party or by the party’s attorney.”). “Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 197 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 5
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

established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” 

FED.R.CIV.P. 36(b).

Insofar as plaintiff indicates that he is unwilling to accept any belated responses,

defendant has indicated that it will file a motion seeking relief from the court.

B. “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel re Discovery Disagreement”

1. Request re Interrogatories

In his motion, plaintiff requested an order permitting him to serve up to 125

interrogatories in the instant action. However, it is not apparent that there is a dispute to be

resolved here. It is unclear how many interrogatories plaintiff has already served; and,

defendant asserts that, to date, he may already have propounded over 125 interrogatories

(plaintiff did not realize that discrete subparts count as separate interrogatories). Nonetheless,

defendant says that it has endeavored to answer every interrogatory served by plaintiff. 

Although plaintiff made a request at the motion hearing for permission to serve up to 500

additional interrogatories, he also stated that he believes that interrogatories are “completely

useless.” His motion as to this issue is denied.

2. Discovery re Identity of Certain Individuals

Plaintiff says that he has requested the identities of the following individuals:

(a) the CSU employee who reported to Scott Anderson that Gardias was away from

his desk;

(b) the individuals who participated in the decision to “retain [Gardias] in the

inspector position, place him in a classification more appropriate to his duties,

and free up his former Maintenance Mechanic position for recruiting with a

temporary appointment”; and

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 197 Filed 05/23/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

(c) the individuals who prepared or signed the June 2, 2004 “Committee Interview

Evaluation” re plaintiff and the “Director, Energy and Utility Systems” position.

Plaintiff apparently did not serve formal discovery requests seeking this information. 

Nevertheless, defendant agrees to treat them as interrogatories and to serve its answers within

 two weeks. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion as to this issue is granted. Defendant shall provide

the requested identities to plaintiff no later than June 5, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 23, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 197 Filed 05/23/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

A copy of this document will be mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias 

72 Floyd Street

San Jose, CA 95110 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Mary Susan Cain-Simon

California State Attorney General's Office

1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor

P. O. Box 70550

Oakland, CA 94612-0550

Counsel for Defendant

Dated: _____________________________

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

5/23/07 /s/

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 197 Filed 05/23/07 Page 5 of 5