Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-30/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NOT FOR CITATION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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

[Re: Docket No. 266]

On August 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Extent [sic] Time To Answer

Defendant’s Interrogatories and Produce Any Documents in Plaintiff’s Possession.” Although

it is not clear, plaintiff apparently is referring to this court’s August 8, 2007 order granting

defendant’s motion to compel. In that order, Gardias was directed to serve his responses to

defendant’s interrogatories and related document requests by August 17, 2007. He now

requests (a) a two-week extension to serve his discovery requests; and (b) an order shifting the

associated discovery costs to defendant.

Defendant having confirmed that it has no objection, plaintiff’s request for an extension

of time is granted. Plaintiff now has until August 31, 2007 to serve his interrogatory answers

and documents.

*E-FILED: 8.22.2007*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 278 Filed 08/22/07 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

However, plaintiff’s request to have defendant bear his costs in responding to this

discovery is denied. This court has already found that the discovery requests in question are

legitimate. Plaintiff has made no showing that they are unreasonably excessive or that any

burden imposed is undue. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C); see also OpenTV v. Liberate Techs.,

219 F.R.D. 474 (N.D. Cal. 2003).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 22, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 278 Filed 08/22/07 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 mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias 

72 Floyd Street

San Jose, CA 95110 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Notice 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 278 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 3