Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-8/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NOT FOR CITATION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 SETTING BRIEFING

AND HEARING SCHEDULE RE

PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION TO COMPEL:

REQUEST FOR HIRING DOCUMENTS”

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

Documents” in which he seeks an order compelling defendant to produce certain documents –

“Cover Letters, Applications for Employment, Applications Summary Review – Employment

Services, Committee Interview Evaluations and Applications Summary” pertaining to certain

applicants (Scott Anderson and Chris Nordby) and positions (Chief Engineer, Associate

Director Energy Systems and Chief Engineer Coogeneration Turbine).

However, there was no indication in the moving papers that plaintiff made any effort to

meet-and-confer with defense counsel about the issues raised in his motion. See FED.R.CIV.P.

37(a)(2)(B); see also CIV. L. R. 37-1. As such, this court issued an interim order directing the

parties to (1) meet-and-confer on the issues and (2) file declarations by February 9, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 153 Filed 03/02/07 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 1 In issuing this order, the court expresses no opinion as to defendant’s pending

“Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement,” currently set for hearing on March 20, 2007.

2

advising as to the status of the dispute.

This court has received the parties’ February 9, 2007 declarations, plaintiff’s February

16, 2007 declaration and defense counsel’s February 26, 2007 supplemental declaration. It

appears that some documents have been produced (or perhaps do not exist), and the universe of

documents which remain in dispute is not entirely clear. Nevertheless, the parties’ declarations

indicate that there is still some dispute over the documents plaintiff says he requested –

including job applications or summaries pertaining to Anderson and Nordby (and those

pertaining to plaintiff himself) and the “notes of SJSU investigators” Brad Davis and Adriana

Duffy-Horling. Therefore, the court will set a briefing and hearing schedule on the motion as

follows:

1. Defendant shall file an opposition brief no later than March 27, 2007.

2. Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed no later than April 3, 2007.

3. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel: Request for Hiring Documents” will be heard on

April 17, 2007, 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2. If, upon review of the parties’ papers, the court

determines that the motion appropriately may be deemed submitted without oral argument, it

will so notify the parties in advance of the hearing.1

Additionally, the court notes that Plaintiff’s declarations seem to raise new issues

concerning interrogatories he either has served or intends to serve on defendant. However,

those are matters which are not currently before the court on the instant motion. To the extent

there is a dispute over plaintiffs’ interrogatories which he is unable to resolve through good

faith meet-and-confer negotiations, plaintiff may seek relief from the court through a motion

filed in accordance with the court’s Civil Local Rules. However, plaintiff is again reminded

that he must confer with defense counsel to attempt to resolve all issues before filing a motion

with the court. See FED.R.CIV.P. 37(a)(2)(B) (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

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 153 Filed 03/02/07 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

material without court action.”); 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

March 2, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 153 Filed 03/02/07 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

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

3/2/07 /s/

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 153 Filed 03/02/07 Page 4 of 4