Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-47/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 1 Defendant previously filed a motion for summary judgment in September

2007. That motion was terminated, and a new briefing and hearing schedule was set when

defendant indicated that it intended to re-notice and supplement its original motion to include

evidence from plaintiff’s 2008 deposition testimony. (See Docket No. 322).

NOT FOR CITATION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

INTERIM ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On March 10, 2008, defendant filed a revised motion for summary judgment.1

 Plaintiff

belatedly filed (by one day) his opposition brief, along with a number of exhibits and other

supporting papers. Defendant has filed a reply.

Ordinarily, briefing on the motion would now be closed. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). 

However, it has come to the court’s attention that defendant may not have received a copy of all

of the exhibits and other supporting documents plaintiff filed with his opposition brief. 

Additionally, defendant has submitted with its reply brief a number of declarations that it

apparently neglected to file on March 10, 2008 with its revised motion. It represents that these

*E-FILED 5/14/2008*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 343 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 4
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

declarations are identical to the ones that were filed and served last fall, except that defense

counsel’s declaration attaches approximately 11 pages of testimony from plaintiff’s 2008

deposition. Plaintiff claims that he did not receive the cited portions of his 2008 deposition

testimony before his opposition was due.

Based on the foregoing, this court issues the following interim order:

1. The court will allow the record to be augmented to include all of the declarations

defendant belatedly submitted with its reply brief on May 6, 2008. The court finds no serious

prejudice here because these declarations appear to be the same as those which were filed and

served on plaintiff in September 2007, and plaintiff has responded to these declarations in his

opposition papers.

Nevertheless, the record indicates that plaintiff did not receive a copy of the 11

pages of cited testimony from his 2008 deposition until after defendant filed its reply. It is not

apparent that plaintiff has been seriously prejudiced by the omission, but he will be given

permission to file a supplemental response (if he wishes) as to the cited portions of his 2008

deposition testimony. However, plaintiff is advised that he is being given permission to file

a supplemental response only as to the 11 additional pages of testimony which he

apparently did not receive before his opposition was due. The court finds that he has

otherwise had more than ample opportunity to file his written opposition to defendant’s motion. 

Plaintiff is not being given permission to file a supplemental response as to anything else. 

Plaintiff shall not repeat arguments or re-submit papers that he filed on April 23, 2008. 

Plaintiff’s deadline for filing and serving a supplemental response is May 30, 2008.

2. Defendant’s request to strike plaintiff’s belated opposition papers is denied. 

However, plaintiff is advised that defendant is entitled a complete copy of all papers he filed

with the court in connection with his opposition, even though those papers may include

documents that defendant has in its possession. Indeed, he should have served defendant with

these papers when he filed his opposition papers with the court on April 23, 2008. Although

there is indication that some documents were subsequently sent to defense counsel, it is not

clear what documents may (or may not) have been sent. Accordingly, no later than May 30,

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 343 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 4
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

2008, plaintiff shall (a) serve on defense counsel a copy of all of the exhibits and other

supporting documentation that he filed with the court on April 23, 2008 in support of his

opposition; and (b) file a proof of service with the court. Plaintiff shall not re-file his exhibits

and supporting papers with the court.

3. To the extent defendant wishes to file a response to plaintiff’s exhibits and other

supporting documentation, its supplemental reply shall be filed no later than June 17, 2008.

4. Following the submission of defendant’s supplemental reply, briefing on this

matter will be closed. Unless the court otherwise orders, no further papers will be accepted.

5. The motion hearing set for May 20, 2008 is continued to July 1, 2008, 10:00

a.m. in Courtroom 2.

6. The final pretrial conference (July 22, 2008) and trial (set to begin on July 28,

2008) are VACATED and will be re-set, as may be appropriate, after defendant’s summary

judgment motion has been resolved.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 14, 2008

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 343 Filed 05/14/08 Page 3 of 4
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

5:04-cv-4086 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Mary Susan Cain-Simon Mary.CainSimon@doj.ca.gov, David.Moss@doj.ca.gov 

Fiel Dizon Tigno fiel.tigno@doj.ca.gov 

5:04-cv-4086 Notice will be mailed to: 

Piotr J. Gardias

72 Floyd St.

San Jose, CA 95110

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 343 Filed 05/14/08 Page 4 of 4