Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-7/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NOT FOR CITATION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

INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

“MOTION TO COMPEL: REQUEST

FOR HIRING DOCUMENTS”

On January 22, 2007, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Compel: Request for Hiring

Documents.” However, it is not apparent that plaintiff made an effort to meet-and-confer with

defense counsel before he filed his motion. A motion to compel discovery responses “must

include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with

the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or

material without court action.” FED.R.CIV.P. 37(a)(2)(B); see also CIV. L. R. 37-1 (the court

will not entertain a motion to resolve a discovery dispute unless the parties have previously

conferred in an attempt to resolve all disputed issues). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff and defense counsel shall promptly meet-and-confer on the issues raised

by plaintiff’s motion.

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 145 Filed 01/29/07 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

2. No later than February 9, 2007, each party shall file and serve a declaration (a)

detailing their meet-and-confer efforts on the issues; and (b) identifying the specific issues, if

any, that have been resolved, as well as those that remain in dispute.

3. Upon consideration of the parties’ declarations, the court will determine what

action (if any) will be taken with respect to plaintiff’s motion.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 29, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 145 Filed 01/29/07 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 St. 

San Jose, CA 95110

Pro Se Plaintiff

Mary Susan Cain-Simon 

CA 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

1/29/07 /s/

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 145 Filed 01/29/07 Page 3 of 3