Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fang-Yuh Hsieh v. Stanford University

July 11, 2011

FANG-YUH HSIEH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge

** E-filed July 11, 2011 **

NOT FOR CITATION

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

[Re: Docket No. 39]

BACKGROUND

Pro se plaintiff Fang-Yuh Hsieh ("Hsieh"), who is now 61 years old, was employed by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs's ("VA") Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center in Palo Alto, California ("Palo Alto VA-CSPCC"), as a mathematical statistician from 1994 20 to 2002. Docket No. 1 ("Complaint") ¶ 3.

Hsieh previously claimed he was harassed and terminated in 2002 after he complained to his 22 supervisor, Dr. Philip Lavori ("Lavori"), about discriminatory treatment. Hsieh sued the VA and 23 Lavori in 2006 based on this alleged conduct, and that case resulted in summary judgment for the 24 VA and Lavori, a judgment upheld on appeal. SeeHsieh v. Peake, et al., No. C06-05281 PJH 25 ("Hsieh I").

Following that action, Hsieh sued the VA, Lavori, and Stanford University ("Stanford") for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

("Title VII") and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 ("ADEA"), based on those defendants' failure to hire him for numerous positions for which he applied in 2008 2 and 2009. See Hsieh v. Stanford University, et al., No. C09-05455 HRL ("Hsieh II"). In that action, 3 this Court dismissed with prejudice Hsieh's claims against Lavori because Hsieh did not exhaust his 4 administrative remedies prior to filing suit and because Lavori is not a proper defendant under Title VII and the ADEA. Hsieh II, Docket No. 45. Later, it granted both Stanford's and the VA's motions 6 for summary judgment in their entirety and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Id., Docket

Now, Hsieh has filed the instant action against Stanford and Lavori (collectively, "Defendants") for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA ("Hsieh III"). He alleges that on

Position") but that, despite his qualifications, he did not get the job. Complaint ¶ 7. According to

Hsieh, the hiring manager for the position contacted Lavori, who did not give Hsieh a good 13 reference. Id. Hsieh further alleges that, rather than hiring him, Stanford made an offer to a "younger 14 and less qualified individual," who thereafter declined the offer. Id. Stanford also allegedly kept the 15 position open and has continued to seek other applicants for the job. Id. Hsieh thus claims that

Stanford and Lavori discriminated against him because of his age and have "blacklisted and 17 blackballed" him because of his previous complaints against Lavori. Id. ¶¶ 1, 7.

because Hsieh again failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and because he is not subject to 20 the ADEA. Docket No. 26. Only Stanford remains as a defendant. 21

Stanford to provide further responses to his Interrogatory Nos. 5-8. Docket No. 39 ("MTC"). 23

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds these matters suitable for determination

without oral argument, and the July 12, 2011 hearing is vacated.*fn1

Nos. 179, 180.

August 25, 2010 he applied for a biostatistician position at Stanford University ("Biostatistician Just as it did in Hsieh II, this Court granted Lavori's motion to dismiss the claim against him Since then, discovery disputes have arisen. Hsieh now moves for an order compelling Stanford opposes the motion. Docket No. 42 ("Opp'n").

Procedure 26, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to 5 any party's claim or defense . . . ." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). "Relevant information need not be 6 admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 7 admissible evidence." Id. However, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency 8 or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (i) the 9 discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.