Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02090/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02090-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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NOT FOR CITATION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.

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant. /

No. C09-02090 HRL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

[Re: Docket Nos. 33, 36]

Pro se plaintiff Piotr Gardias moves to compel discovery. Defendant opposes the

motions. The matter is deemed appropriate for determination without oral argument, and the

January 19, 2010 hearing is vacated. See CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving

and responding papers, the court rules as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery as to defendant’s statements re claims that

defendant contends have been adjudicated is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of his personnel files and University

EEO files is denied as moot. The record presented indicates that plaintiff may already have

these documents in his possession, custody, or control. Additionally, defendant has never

refused to produce these documents and remains willing to make them available for plaintiff’s

*E-FILED 01-13-2010*

Case 5:09-cv-02090-HRL Document 50 Filed 01/13/10 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

1 The court assumes the documents are available in San Jose and that, if

plaintiff desires copies, defendant will cooperate in providing for copying at modest per page

cost to plaintiff.

2

inspection and copying.1

 To the extent Gardias seeks defense counsel’s input as to the

relevance of documents to the instant action, such information is protected attorney work

product, and plaintiff’s motion is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel interrogatory responses disclosing the national

origins of Adam Bayer and Daryn Adams is denied. The requested information is neither

relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of Bayer’s and Adams’ school

transcripts and employment records is denied. The requested information is neither relevant nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

5. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against defense counsel is denied. Having

reviewed the record presented, the court finds that no sanctions are warranted.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 13, 2010

Case 5:09-cv-02090-HRL Document 50 Filed 01/13/10 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

5:09-cv-02090-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Mary Susan Cain-Simon: Mary.CainSimon@doj.ca.gov, ECFCoordinator@doj.ca.gov,

Leticia.MartinezCarter@doj.ca.gov

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

5:09-cv-02090-HRL Notice mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias

72 Floyd St.

San Jose, CA 95110

Case 5:09-cv-02090-HRL Document 50 Filed 01/13/10 Page 3 of 3