Gardias v. San Jose State University

Full title: PIOTR J. GARDIAS, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Jan 17, 2007

C04-04086 HRL, C04-04768 HRL, C05-01242 HRL, C05-01833 HRL, C06-04695 HRL (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2007)

Opinion

PIOTR J. GARDIAS, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant. Nos. C04-04086 HRL, C04-04768 HRL, C05-01242 HRL, C05-01833 HRL, C06-04695 HRL United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. January 17, 2007

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION TO COMPEL NO. II" [Docket No. 113]

          HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.

         This is a consolidated action for alleged employment discrimination filed by plaintiff Piotr Gardias, who is proceeding pro se. Presently before this court is plaintiff's "Motion to Compel No. II." In it, he seeks an order compelling responses to two letters that he apparently sent to defense counsel on August 30, 2006 and September 13, 2006. Indeed, at a status conference held on January 9, 2007, plaintiff indicated that he would like answers to his written correspondence. The time for filing any opposition or reply brief concerning the instant motion has passed, and none has been filed. Nevertheless, the court deems this matter suitable for determination without oral argument, and the January 30, 2007 hearing is VACATED. See CIV. L.R. 7-1(b).

         Here, the referenced letters appear to comprise plaintiff's meet-and-confer correspondence on various discovery issues. Motions to compel usually are brought to enforce a party's compliance with its discovery and disclosure obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (e.g., to produce documents, answer interrogatories, appear for deposition, etc.). Such motions generally are not brought to compel responses to meet-and-confer correspondence. The court suggests that, instead of moving to compel responses to letters, plaintiff's time will be better spent focusing on his actual discovery requests. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED.

         Nonetheless, as discussed at the January 9, 2007 status conference, if plaintiff believes that defendant has not complied with its disclosure obligations under the Federal Rules or that its responses to his discovery requests are deficient, he may bring the matter to the court's attention by filing and serving a motion in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Civil Local Rules 7 and 37. However, the court expects both parties to meet-and-confer with one another in good faith to resolve the issues before any such motion is filed. See FED.R.CIV.P. 37(a)(2); Civ. L.R. 37-1(a).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.