Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-14/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 At that time, it was not clear that defendant had received all of the motions

addressed in this order. Based on the discussion at the May 22, 2007 hearing, the court does

not expect that defendant will have any objections as to the rulings being made here. 

Nevertheless, as discussed, defendant may, if it wishes, file a letter with the court stating any

objections or concerns it may have.

NOT FOR CITATION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 RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS RE

DISCOVERY AND TRIAL

[Docket Nos. 183-185, 190, 191 and 193]

Plaintiff has filed a flurry of motions pertaining to discovery and trial in this action. 

Although he did not properly notice these motions for a hearing, the issues raised in each

motion were discussed during a May 22, 2007 hearing before this court.1

 Plaintiff is again

reminded that his motions must be filed in accordance with the court’s Civil Local Rules (see,

e.g., Civil Local Rule 7). Upon consideration of the papers filed, as well as the discussion held

with the parties, the court issues the following order.

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 205 Filed 06/07/07 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

A. Motion for Extension of Discovery (Docket No. 184)

Plaintiff requests a three-month extension of the July 6, 2007 fact discovery cut-off. 

However, he has had ample opportunity to conduct the discovery that he says that he needs, and

he has not demonstrated that he will be unable to complete all discovery within the

time remaining. Nevertheless, the court will extend the fact discovery cutoff to August 3, 2007. 

All other pretrial deadlines and trial dates set in the January 10, 2007 Case Management Order

remain the same.

B. Motion re Third Party Subpoenas (Docket No. 183)

Plaintiff requests that the court issue subpoenas for the following individuals:

• Adriana Duffy-Horling;

• Alan Freeman;

• Dan Johnson;

• Javier Gonzales;

• Art Heinrich;

• Jim Zavagno; and

• Ferdinand Zmrzli

In his papers, plaintiff did not say who these individuals are or why he wishes to contact them. 

However, at the May 22, 2007 hearing, he indicated that they are all witnesses and former

employees of San Jose State University. He apparently wishes to correspond with them about

the instant action.

Generally, a party does not need a court order to subpoena witnesses. If plaintiff wishes

to obtain documents or testimony from these individuals, he may obtain subpoena forms from

the Clerk of the Court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(3). (Plaintiff is responsible for filling in the

required information and serving the subpoenas.) However, it was suggested that Alan Freeman

may no longer be located in the United States. If so, plaintiff is advised that special rules and

procedures may apply as to Mr. Freeman (or any other third party who is located outside this

country). See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1781-1783. Additionally, if defense counsel is representing

one or more of these individuals (and there was some indication at the motion hearing that this

might be the case), plaintiff should send to defense counsel any requests for discovery he may

wish to take of these individuals.

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 205 Filed 06/07/07 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

C. Motion re “Discovery and Trial” (Docket No. 185)

On May 7, 2007, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Re Discovery and Trial,” in which

he appears to request orders:

(1) deeming the matters set out in five sets of interrogatories admitted; and

(2) giving him permission to file motions for judgment.

Plaintiff also says that he will not be able to participate in a trial that lasts more than one or two

days.

Plaintiff’s motion to deem his interrogatories “admitted” is denied. As discussed at the

May 22, 2007 hearing, it appears that plaintiff has been misusing interrogatories to seek

admissions from defendant. Interrogatories do not seek admissions. Additionally, plaintiff has

also been improperly directing his discovery to individual employees of defendant, rather than

to defendant. If plaintiff believes that defendant’s responses to his interrogatories are

inadequate, he may file with the court a motion to compel. However, plaintiff is again

reminded that before filing any motion with the court, he must engage in good faith meet-andconfer negotiations with defense counsel and attempt to reach an agreement on the issues. See

FED.R.CIV.P. 37(a)(2)(B); see also CIV. L. R. 37-1.

As for his request to file a motion for judgment, plaintiff does not need permission from

the court to file a motion for judgment. It seems that plaintiff is referring here to a motion for

summary judgment. Based on the discussion on May 22, 2007, however, it appears that he is

still trying to gather evidence he believes he needs to prove his claims. As such, the court

suggests that he may wish to wait until he has obtained all of the evidence he believes he needs

before filing any motions for judgment.

Assuming the instant action proceeds beyond summary judgment, any concerns as to the

length of trial can be addressed at the final pretrial conference (currently set for February 5,

2008).

D. “Motion to Compel re Attorney-Client Privilege” (Docket No. 190)

In this motion, plaintiff asserts that the parties have a disagreement “regarding the

Attorney-Client Privilege.” This court rules on his various requests as follows:

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 205 Filed 06/07/07 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

2 Defendant indicated that it may seek leave to depose plaintiff for another one

or two days. Based on the discussion held on May 22, 2007, the court would be inclined to

look favorably upon such a request. Nonetheless, the parties are encouraged to meet-andconfer with one another to reach agreement on this issue.

4

Plaintiff requests an order dictating “that defendant will not be entitled to know the

content of plaintiff’s conversation with witnesses.” To the extent plaintiff is suggesting that the

attorney-client privilege be applied to his conversations with witnesses, he has misapprehended

the scope and purpose of that privilege. Further, he has not identified any privilege or

protection (and the court is aware of none) which would preclude defense counsel from

discovering the content of his conversations with witnesses. Plaintiff’s request is denied.

Next, plaintiff seeks an order “that defendant be not entitled to speak regarding

plaintiff’s case with management level employees without plaintiff’s being present.” Defendant

is not obliged to have plaintiff present during its discussions with its management-level

employees (or any other employee) about the instant action. Plaintiff’s request is denied.

Further, plaintiff requests an order precluding defendant from speaking with Dan Cox

about the instant action. Plaintiff identifies Mr. Cox as his former supervisor who currently

holds a management-level position at the University. This court declines to issue an order

which would prevent defendant from speaking to its own employees about plaintiff’s lawsuits. 

Plaintiff’s request is denied.

Finally, plaintiff asserts that he has kept notes of events that are pertinent to his claims

and requests permission to give or show his notes to witnesses. At the May 22, 2007 hearing,

he expressed a concern that witnesses may not remember events, some of which occurred

several years ago. As discussed at that hearing, plaintiff can take depositions of witnesses. In

those depositions, he may (1) ask them questions about events and documents; and (2) use

documents to refresh their recollection if there is an issue as to their ability to recall events.

E. Motion re Plaintiff’s Deposition (Docket Nos. 191, 193)

Plaintiff reportedly was deposed for a full day on May 16, 2007.2 He says that he began

to hyperventilate during the examination. He further asserts that he may not have properly

understood the questions being asked. He requests an order “invalidating” his deposition

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 205 Filed 06/07/07 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

testimony. At the motion hearing, he alternatively requested an opportunity to review and

change his deposition testimony. Defense counsel asserted that, during the deposition, plaintiff

was offered more breaks than he took and turned down an offer to take a break when he

appeared to be short of breath.

Plaintiff’s motion to invalidate his May 16, 2007 deposition testimony is denied. 

Nevertheless, he is advised that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e), a deponent may review and make

changes to deposition testimony within thirty days after being notified that the deposition

transcript is available. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(e). A deponent who makes such changes must

provide a signed statement identifying the changes being made and stating the reasons for

making them. Id. The rule further requires deponents to make a request at the deposition to

review the transcript. Id. Here, plaintiff apparently made no such request at his deposition. 

However, insofar as he evidently was unaware of the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e), the

court will, in this instance, excuse that requirement as to the May 16, 2007 transcript in

question.

This court declines, at the outset, to issue a prospective ruling as to the propriety of any

changes that plaintiff might make. However, plaintiff is advised that “Rule 30(e) is to be used

for corrective, and not contradictory, changes.” Hambleton Brothers Lumber Co. v. Balkin

Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, “[w]hile the language of FRCP

30(e) permits corrections ‘in form or substance,’ this permission does not properly include

changes offered solely to create a material factual dispute in a tactical attempt to evade an

unfavorable summary judgment.” Id. at 1225.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

June 6, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 205 Filed 06/07/07 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)

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

6/7/07 /s/

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 205 Filed 06/07/07 Page 6 of 6