Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-29/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 California State University asserts that it is the properly named defendant in

this action and that it was erroneously sued as “San Jose State University.”

NOT FOR CITATION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

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

[Re: Docket No. 243]

I. BACKGROUND

This is a consolidated action for alleged employment discrimination filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5. Plaintiff claims that his current employer, San Jose State University (“SJSU”

or “University”), wrongfully failed to promote him.1

 Defendant served eight subpoenas on

various non-parties, seeking plaintiff’s prior employment records, as well as his medical and

academic records. Plaintiff moved to quash those subpoenas on the grounds that the requested

information is irrelevant or private (or both). Defendant opposed the motion. Upon

consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments presented at the

*E-FILED: 8.22.2007*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 277 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 6
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

August 21, 2007 motion hearing, the court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in

part.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to

the claim or defense of any party . . .. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any

matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The party objecting to the discovery bears

the burden of showing that it should not be allowed. See FED.R.CIV.P. 26(c).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, any party may serve a subpoena commanding

a non-party to give testimony or produce documents. See FED.R.CIV.P. 45(a)(1)(C). The

subpoena nonetheless is subject to the relevance provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(b)(1). A party that is not the recipient of the subpoena has standing to challenge the

subpoena “only where its challenge asserts that the information is privileged or protected to

itself.” Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Rebel Oil Co., Inc., 157 F.R.D. 691, 695 (D. Nev. 1994). 

Upon a timely motion, a court shall quash or modify a subpoena if it finds that the subpoena

“requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies.” 

See FED.R.CIV.P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Employment/Medical Records

Defendant served a subpoena on Stanford University (“Stanford”), seeking production

of all employment records from 1970 to the present pertaining to plaintiff, including:

• any and all pre-employment records;

• background check information;

• personnel records (including employment application/resume,

performance evaluations, records of disciplinary actions, disability

claims, workers compensation claims, and medical records pertaining

to the individual’s employment); and

• payroll records (including salary, wages, commissions or other remuneration

paid or held by the employer, W-2 forms, time sheets

and records of time off the job and reasons therefore, including sick

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 277 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 6
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

leave and vacation).

These documents apparently pertain to prior work plaintiff performed at a cogeneration plant. 

Plaintiff objects to the subpoena on the grounds that his prior employment records are irrelevant

and that any medical records are irrelevant and private. The court is informed that Stanford

responded by stating only that (a) plaintiff was never employed by Stanford; and (b) the

cogeneration plant in question is actually owned by General Electric. In view of Stanford’s

response, this particular subpoena would appear to be moot. Nevertheless, insofar as defendant

advises that a similar subpoena has now been served on General Electric, it appears that there is

still a live dispute over the relevance of the requested documents.

Defendant contends that these records are relevant because plaintiff has put his claimed

prior work experience at issue. It asserts that, in deposition, plaintiff testified that his prior

work experience establishes his qualifications for several of the positions for which he

(unsuccessfully) applied at SJSU. However, defendant argues that plaintiff’s testimony was

sketchy (even contradictory) as to his past experience. Plaintiff maintains that his prior

employment records are irrelevant because SJSU did not require such records from him (or any

other applicant) in its hiring process for the various positions in question.

To the extent that plaintiff apparently relies upon his past work experience at the plant

as evidence of his qualification for several of the positions at issue, the court agrees that

defendant should be given some leeway to explore his prior employment records. Nevertheless,

defendant has not, in the first instance, demonstrated the relevance of pre-employment records,

background checks, disciplinary actions, disability claims, workers compensation claims,

medical records pertaining to the employment, or payroll records. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion to quash as to this subpoena is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as

follows: Defendant will be permitted to seek employment records which are sufficient to show

plaintiff’s duties, responsibilities and job performance in his work there. However, defendant’s

subpoena is otherwise quashed as to all other records.

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 277 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 6
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

B. Plaintiff’s Medical Records

Defendant has subpoenaed plaintiff’s medical records from a number of different

doctors and health care providers. The subpoenas, which all appear to be essentially the same,

seek all medical records pertaining to plaintiff, including:

• any and all intake forms, correspondence, handwritten and typed doctors’/nurses

notes, examination and consultation notes, tape recordings, and reports prepared,

regarding treatment, diagnosis and prognosis;

• any and all prescribed medications, therapy, patient’s initial and interval

histories, pathology lab/radiology reports, prescriptions, and file folder notes;

• any and all physical therapy records; and

• any and all records, from any sources, reviewed in connection with treatment and

diagnosis of plaintiff.

The parties dispute whether plaintiff has put his health/medical condition at issue such that

defendant’s need for the requested information outweighs his privacy interests.

The court notes that if plaintiff has put his health or medical condition at issue in his

lawsuits, then it would be inclined to permit defendant to conduct discovery of his relevant

medical records. Here, the complaint filed in plaintiff’s most recent lawsuit, Case No. C06-

04695 HRL, alleges that defendant failed to promote plaintiff (and reassigned him to a trade

position) based on his “age and disability.” (See Case No. C06-04695HRL, Complaint at p. 2). 

Additionally, according to defendant, plaintiff (a) seems to allege various health problems as a

result of the discrimination and harassment he allegedly suffered at SJSU; and (b) contends that

defendant improperly referred him for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. The court agrees

that if plaintiff is not offering the purported allegations as a basis for any legal claim against

defendant, then the requested medical records are not relevant to this litigation. In his

opposition papers, plaintiff seemed to renounce any intent to pursue any health or disabilityrelated claims asserted in the complaint in Case No. C06-04695, although the explanation he

provided was not clear.

Nonetheless, at the motion hearing, plaintiff flatly denied that he is disabled and stated

that he has no intention of asserting any claims that defendant discriminated against him on the

basis of any disability. When probed by the court, plaintiff indicated that he does not intend to

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 277 Filed 08/22/07 Page 4 of 6
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

seek damages for purported injuries to his health allegedly caused by defendant’s conduct. 

When asked by the court for the basis of his claims against defendant, plaintiff confirmed that

his lawsuits only allege discrimination on the basis of his age and national origin and that he

“never was thinking” that defendant failed to promote him for health-related reasons.

In light of plaintiff’s representations in open court, this court concludes that he has not

put his health at issue in this litigation. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoenas

for his medical records is GRANTED.

C. Plaintiff’s Academic Records

Defendant has served a subpoena on the University seeking all academic records

pertaining to plaintiff. Although plaintiff listed this subpoena in his motion to quash, he

confirmed at the motion hearing that he does not object to the request for his academic records. 

Accordingly, his motion as to this subpoena is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 22, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 277 Filed 08/22/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

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 277 Filed 08/22/07 Page 6 of 6