Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-23/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NOT FOR CITATION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 (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

INTERROGATORIES AND

DOCUMENTS; AND (2) DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

[Re: Docket No. 217]

Defendant moves for an order compelling plaintiff to answer interrogatories and to

produce documents. It also requests that plaintiff pay $474.00 in attorney’s fees incurred in

bringing the motion. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the

arguments presented at the August 7, 2007 hearing, the court issues the following order.

The interrogatories and related document requests at issue seek information about

plaintiff’s contentions in this litigation and the bases for them. All appear to be legitimate

discovery requests. However, plaintiff has responded to them with boilerplate “General

Objections.” His only ostensible “answer” to defendant’s requests was a brief retort

*E-FILED: 8.8.2007*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 258 Filed 08/08/07 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

stating that all of his federal lawsuits have been consolidated into one action.

It is true that plaintiff’s five federal lawsuits have been consolidated into one action.

Nevertheless, defendant is entitled to ascertain plaintiff’s contentions in each of his five actions,

as well as all facts which plaintiff says support them. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, plaintiff is

obliged to answer each interrogatory “separately and fully in writing under oath . . .” and to

“furnish such information as is available to [him].” See FED.R.CIV.P. 33(a), (b)(1). Plaintiff

has not demonstrated why he should be excused from answering defendant’s interrogatories. 

Nor has he provided any reason why he should not be made to produce any documents that are

responsive to defendant’s related document requests under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. No later than August 17,

2007, plaintiff shall (a) answer defendant’s interrogatories and (b) produce any documents in

his possession, custody or control that are responsive to defendant’s document requests. 

(Plaintiff is advised that he should not file his interrogatory answers or any document

production with the court. He should simply serve them on defense counsel.)

Defendant’s motion for fees was not filed in compliance with Civil Local Rule 37-3. In

any event, the court does not find that a fees award is warranted here. Defendant’s motion for

fees is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 8, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 258 Filed 08/08/07 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

5:04-cv-4086 A copy of this document will be mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias 

72 Floyd Street

San Jose, CA 95110 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Notice will be 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

Counsel for Defendant

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 258 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 3