Judge James C. Chalfant, Case 21STCP02564 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Neway Mengistu v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, Douglas Guthrie, and Does 1-10, 21STCP02564

Tentative decision on motions to compel further responses to: (1) special interrogatories: denied as moot; and (2) requests for production of documents; granted in part

Petitioner Neway Mengistu (“Mengistu”) moves to compel Respondent Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“HA”) to provide further discovery responses to (1) 15 of Mengistu’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two (“Interrogatory”) and (2) Mengistu’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two (“RFPs”).

The court has read and considered the moving papers, oppositions,[1] and replies, as well as Mengistu’s separate statement of meet and confer efforts, and renders the following tentative decision.

Petitioner Mengistu filed this petition for writ of mandate on August 9, 2021 against Respondents HA and Douglas Guthrie (“Guthrie”) in his capacity as President and CEO of the HA. The Petition alleges claims for traditional and administrative mandamus. The pertinent allegations are follows.

Mengistu is a low-income, disabled, single father of two in a three-bedroom unit. The Section 8 Voucher Program provides rental assistance to low-income individuals and families. Eligible families receive vouchers indicating they may participate in the program, after which they must find private landlords from whom they rent housing. Mengistu has been part of the Section 8 voucher program since June 1, 2017. On that day, he moved into his current residence, with one bedroom assigned to his LIA and another for his medical equipment.

On September 23, 2014, Mengistu submitted a reasonable accommodation request for an extra bedroom for his former live-in aide (“LIA”) because he is wheelchair-bound. HA granted the request and completed a criminal history check and approved his chosen LIA in November 2016.

In August 2019, Mengistu and LIA had their second child, a boy, and reported this fact to HA after their son received a Social Security card. HA did not add Mengistu’s son to his family or conduct an interim review.

On April 27, 2020, following his 2020 in-person annual reexamination interview, Mengistu received a 2020 Notice of Change in Rent and HAP Subsidy (“April 2020 Notice”) which noted that his family consisted of only himself, increased his share of the monthly rent from $102 to $524 as of June 1, 2020, and removed the bedroom for his LIA from his benefits.

On April 29, 2020, HA issued a Notice of Review determination/downsizing bedroom, which explained that his LIA no longer qualified because she brought with her two children who require more than one bedroom. Mengistu was therefore responsible for the additional cost of her bedroom unless he reverified his need for an LIA with a medical healthcare or service provider or add her as a family member. HA denied Mengistu’s requests for an administrative appeal of this decision.

On June 9, 2020, Mengistu asked HA to add his children – not the LIA – to his household. On June 22, 2020, he received notice from HA that it had done so and that he was eligible for the Section 8 Voucher program again.

On June 29, 2020, HA emailed Mengistu an RE-46 Modified form to complete in 14 days. It explained that adding his children to his household would result in disqualification of the LIA unless he provided supporting documentation showing that she qualified as his LIA.

On July 1, 2020, HA sent an email asking Mengistu to disregard the RE-46 Modified form and instead complete several other attached forms. Mengistu submitted those forms on July 15, 2020. The forms stated in relevant part that the LIA would only live with Mengistu to provide the necessary supportive services.

On August 6, 2020, HA approved Mengistu’s children as members of his family but disqualified his LIA because she failed to disclaim financial responsibility for him. On August 10, 17, and 31, 2020, Mengistu requested the evidence used to disqualify his LIA. HA did not respond. However, HA treated Mengistu’s last request as his appeal of the August 6, 2020 decision and denied his appeal on September 1, 2020.

On August 19, 2020, Mengistu received a Notice of Change in Rent and HAP Subsidy (“August 2020 Notice”) which affirmed his eligibility and claimed that he had a household with three people. It included a denial of a reasonable accommodation request.

On April 22, 2021, HA granted Mengistu a 30-day extension for his administrative appeal and warned that failure to timely appeal would make the decision final. HA then issued a final administrative appeal decision on May 10, 2021, before 30 days had passed.

On February 21, 2021, HA asked Mengistu to mail the documents needed for the 2021 annual reexamination application. He sent them back the next day, including a request for an extra bedroom for his LIA as a reasonable accommodation. On July 21, 2021, 149 days later, HA rejected the application because it listed the LIA, an unauthorized person, as a household member. The rejection essentially refused to process the application for reasonable accommodation and denied a right to appeal that decision.

Mengistu contends that HA violated 24 CFR section 982 by denying an extra bedroom to Mengistu’s LIA. HA has refused to provide the evidence used to disqualify the LIA and deny the accommodation, and it reached the final decision through a process that denied Mengistu access to the grievance process mandated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). HA also violated 42 U.S.C. section 1437f(o)(2) by requiring him to pay more than 30% of his income in rent. Mengistu seeks a declaration that HA erred in increasing his rent to over 30% of his income, a writ of mandate enjoining HA from denying him due process in his request for reasonable accommodations and benefits, and attorney’s fees and costs.

On August 25, 2021, Mengistu served Respondents HA and Guthrie with the Petition.

On March 11, 2022, Mengistu filed a motion to compel further responses to Mengistu’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. On April 12, 2022, the court denied the motion for lack of a separate statement and untimeliness.

On June 1, 2022, Mengistu filed a motion to compel responses to Mengistu’s RFP, Set One. On July 19, 2022, the court granted the motion.

At a status conference on August 23, 2022, after Mengistu filed the motions at issue, the court ordered that the parties meet and confer face to face to discuss all production issues for each request, including parameters and undue burden. The court warned Mengistu that his discovery requests must be simple and not a significant burden or they would be denied.

Motions to compel discovery must comply with discovery “cut-off” dates. Any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to have a discovery motion heard on or before the 15th day before the date initially set for trial of the action. CCP §2024.020(a); Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court, (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1293-96.

If the party demanding inspection, on receipt of a response to an inspection demand, deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand. CCP §2031.310.

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to a production demand bears the initial burden of demonstrating “good cause” for discovery of the requested information. CCP §2031.310(b)(1). This burden is met by a demonstration (a) that the responsive documents contain information which is relevant to the subject matter of the action, and (b) of specific facts indicating the information is necessary. See Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court, (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4^th 1113, 1117. Good cause is normally established by submission of a declaration made on “information and belief.” Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, (2000) 8:1495. 8H-26; See Grannis v. Board of Medical Examiners, (1971) 19 Cal. App. 3d 551, 564. Good cause may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.3d 583, 588. So, where there is no privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, the burden to show good cause is met by a fact-specific showing of relevance. Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the opposing party to justify any objections or failure to fully respond. Coy v. Superior Court, (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.

Unless notice of the motion is given within 45 days of the service of the response, or any supplemental response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel further response to requests for production. CCP §§2030.310(c).

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under CCP section 2016.040. CCP §2030.310(b)(2). The motion shall be accompanied by a separate document which sets forth each demand to which a further response is requested, the response given, and the factual and legal reasons for compelling it. CRC 3.1345(a)(2). The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. CRC 3.1345(c). Material must not be incorporated by reference. CRC 3.1345(c).

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under section 2023.010 against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to an inspection demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. CCP §2030.310(e).

If the propounding party, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) the responding party’s exercise of the option to produce documents under paragraph (2) of CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response. CCP §2030.300.

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under CCP section 2016.040. CCP §2030.300(b). The motion shall be accompanied by a separate document which sets forth each demand to which a further response is requested, the response given, and the factual and legal reasons for compelling it. CRC §3.1345(a)(2). The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. CRC §3.1345(c). Material must not be incorporated by reference. CRC §3.1345(c).

In deciding a motion under CCP section 2030.300, the trial court must, of necessity, consider not only the stated objections to the discovery requests, but also the requests themselves, as well as the pleadings, and the contentions of the interrogating party as to the purpose and validity of the interrogatories. Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 18. If interrogatories are reasonably subject to objection as calling for the disclosure of matters so remote from the subject matter of the action as to make their disclosure of little or no practical benefit to the party seeking the disclosure, or if to answer them would place a burden and expense upon the parties to whom the interrogatories are propounded which should be equitably borne by the propounding party, or if the interrogatories are so framed as to require the disclosure of relevant as well as irrelevant matter, the trial court in the exercise of its discretion may refuse to order such interrogatories answered. Id. at 19.

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under CCP section 2023.010 against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. CCP §2030.300(d).

On September 23, 2014, Mengistu submitted a reasonable accommodation request for an extra bedroom for an LIA, Eyerus Adamu Zeleke (“Zeleke”), with a medical verification of his need for reasonable accommodation from Dr. Pawel Kaszubowski. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶¶ 14-15, Ex. 12-13. HA granted the request on September 30, 2014. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶16, Ex. 14.

On April 27, 2020, HA notified Mengistu that he was the only person authorized to reside in the subsidized unit Mengistu’s rent would increase from $102 to $524 per month, effective June 1, 2020. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶16, Ex. 14.

On April 29, 2020, HA issued a Notice of Review determination/downsizing bedroom, disqualifying Zeleke as an LIA and removing a bedroom assigned to her because she brought two children with her, making three persons reside in the bedroom assigned to the LIA, which violated HUD’s occupancy standards for a subsidized unit. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶17, Ex. 15. The notice explained that Mengistu would be responsible for the additional cost of the bedroom unless he reverifies his need for an LIA. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶18, Ex. 15. Mengistu contends that the notice contradicts the HA’s policies and procedures which require reverification only upon a change in circumstance. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶¶ 21-22, Ex. 18-19. HA denied Mengistu’s request for an informal appeal of this decision. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶17.

On August 6, 2020, HA denied Mengistu’s reasonable accommodation request for an extra bedroom for his LIA, asserting that it was “a fundamental alteration of the program.” Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶19, Ex. 16. In a separate letter on the same day, HA asserted that Zeleke did not meet the definition of a LIA under 24 C.F.R. section 5.403 because her certification did not disclaim financial responsibility for the household and there was no evidence that she disclaimed financial responsibility for his children. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶20, Ex. 17. Mengistu appealed the denial on August 31, 2020. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶25, Ex. 22.

Mengistu’s Complaint seeks to prevent HA from denying Section 8 participants’ reasonable accommodation requests to approve LIAs so that they may reside in the subsidized units independently. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶2.

On March 21, 2022, Mengistu served the HA with his Interrogatories, Set One. Mengistu Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1. The Interrogatories seek (1) all reasons HA accepted Zeleke’s March 2018 “Section 8 Existing Housing LIA Certification” as referenced in HA’s May 29, 2018 “Notice of Change in Rent and HAP Subsidy;” (2) all reasons HA accepted Zeleke’s April 2019 “Section 8 Existing Housing LIA Certification” as referenced in HA’s April 15, 2019 “Notice of Change in Rent and HAP Subsidy”; (3) all reasons HA found on August 6, 2020 that allowing Zeleke to continue to serve as Mengistu’s LIA would constitute a fundamental alternation of the Section 8 program; (4) all reasons that HA failed to issue HUD-mandated annual Section 8 continued eligibility determination based on Mengistu’s HUD-mandated February 12, 2021 annual reexamination application; (5) all reasons HA denied Mengistu’s February 12, 2021 reasonable accommodation request for an additional bedroom for Zeleke as an LIA; (6) all reasons that HA failed to issue HUD-mandated annual Section 8 continued eligibility determination based on Mengistu’s HUD-mandated September 20, 2021 second reexamination application; (7) all reasons that HA denied Mengistu’s September 20, 2021 reasonable accommodation request for an additional bedroom to house Zeleke; (8) HA’s explanation why a bedroom subsidy for Zeleke has not been disturbed in light of its August 19, 2020 Notice of Lease Rider asserting that Mengistu and his children may occupy the dwelling; (9) all reasons for HA’s assertion that Zeleke was obligated to support Mengistu; (10) all reasons for HA’s assertion that Zeleke failed to demonstrate that she was residing in the Section 8 unit solely for Mengistu’s care; (11) all reasons for HA’s assertion that Zeleke’s certifications fail to disclaim financial responsibility for the household; (12) all reasons for HA’s rejection of Zeleke’s July 15, 2020 Certified Statement of a LIA; (13) all reasons for HA’s rejection of Zeleke’s July 15, 2020 Certification by LIA; (14) all reasons for HA’s July 1, 2020 reversal of its April 29, 2020 determination to downsize Mengistu’s Section 8 unit size; (15) the party, court, case reference number, and description of remedy sought for every court action or written claim or demand against HA since June 1, 2017 in connection to any request for LIAs; and (16) the same information for every court action or written claim or demand against HA in the last ten years. Megistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1. The parties stipulated that this set is Interrogatory Set Two, renumbered from Interrogatory No. 10 et seq. Megistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2.

On May 11, 2022, HA responded that every Interrogatory was overbroad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, harassing, unintelligible, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶7, Ex. 5. Notwithstanding its objections, HA provided answers to all but the last two interrogatories asking for information on past cases. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶7, Ex. 5.

On March 23, 2022, Mengistu served the HA with RFP, Set Two. Mengistu Decl., ¶3. The RFPs requested (1) all documents reflecting HA’s analysis whether to waive the program policy against permitting Section 8 participants to allow LIAs’ dependents or family members to reside in Section 8 units (“RFP No. 5”); (2) HA’s complete file on Mengistu since he began participation in the Section 8 program (“RFP No. 10”); (3) HA’s complete file on Mengistu since it issued his Housing Choice Voucher (“RFP No. 11”); (4) all documents reflecting HA’s analysis of Mengistu’s request to have Zeleke serve as his LIA as a reasonable accommodation (“RFP No. 12”); (5) all documents referring to HA’s denial of Mengistu’s reasonable accommodation request for Zeleke to serve as his LIA (“RFP No. 14”); (6) all documents reflecting HA’s reasons for the denial (“RFP No. 15”); (7) all documents from June 1, 2017 thereafter in which HA offered Section 8 participants to add their existing LIAs to their family compositions as alternative accommodations (“RFP No. 16”); (8) all documents wherein HA disqualified proposed LIAs because they have more than one dependent or family member occupying their subsidized bedrooms, even though the addition of the live-in aides’ dependents and/or family members would not have violated occupancy standards for the Section 8 units (“RFP No. 17”); (9) all documents wherein the HA disqualified existing LIAs for the same reason (“RFP No. 18”); (10) all documents wherein the HA disqualified proposed LIAs because they were obligated for support of dependents and/or family members of the disabled Section 8 participant (“RFP No. 19”); (11) all documents wherein the HA disqualified existing LIAs because they were obligated for support of dependents and/or family members of the disabled Section 8 participant (“RFP No. 20”); (12) all documents wherein the HA disqualified existing LIAs because of their perceived relationships with dependents and/or family members of the disabled Section 8 participant (“RFP No. 21”); (13) all documents reflecting the continued Section 8 eligibility or change in subsidy amount for all Section 8 participants, from June 1, 2017 to present, who accepted HA’s offer of alternative accommodations to add their LIAs to their family composition (“RFP No. 22”); (14) all requests from June 1, 2017 thereafter for reasonable accommodation requests for LIAs (“RFP No. 42”); (15) Interim Review and Annual Reexamination documents from June 1, 2017 thereafter for all Section 8 participants who requested to add their child/children to their family compositions, (“RFP No. 49”); (16) all such Interim Review documents where the request for adding their child/children triggered redetermination of Section 8 participants’ need for existing LIAs (“RFP No. 50”); (17) all documents HA relied upon to reject Zeleke’s February 12, 2021 LIA Certifications (“RFP No. 53”); (18) all documents HA relied upon to reject Zeleke’s September 20, 2021 LIA Certifications (“RFP No. 54”); (19) Mengistu’s August 26, 2019, letter to Section 8 Advisor Isabel Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”), with attachments (“RFP No. 60”); and (20) all documents relating to Mengistu’s August 26, 2019, request for HA to conduct an Interim Review based on changes in his family composition (“RFP No. 61”). Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1.

On May 11 and 12, 2022, HA provided a 34-page response objecting to most of the RFPs as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, harassing, argumentative, and overbroad as to scope. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2. HA produced documents responsive to 11 RFPs, including a 251-page administrative record. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6, Exs. 2, 4. The administrative record begins with a letter dated June 9, 2020, which is the date HA claims is the relevant period for this litigation. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶23, Ex. 4. The record provided by HA includes only 10 of the 110 items Mengistu identified on December 13, 2021 that should be included in the record. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶24, Ex. 20.

On May 12, 2022, the HA produced eight more documents responsive to the RFPs. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3.

On June 16, 2022, Mengistu sent a meet and confer letter to HA demanding further answers to the RFPs and Interrogatories by June 21, 2022. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶8, Ex. 6; Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶8, Ex. 6. On June 21, 2022, Mengistu sent a follow-up email requesting a response to the June 16 letter. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶9, Ex. 7. On June 22, 2022, he sent another letter where he agreed to extend the deadline for a meet and confer if HA agreed to extend the deadline for motions to compel. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶10, Ex. 8.

HA responded by a July 12, 2022 letter to Mengistu’s request for additional answers to his Interrogatories. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶11, Ex. 9. HA rejected Mengistu’s position that documents from as early as 2017 were relevant just because of a five-year statute of limitations. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶11, Ex. 9. To the extent that he cited the continuing violation doctrine, a violation occurred in 2019 and not 2017. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶11, Ex. 9. Other interrogatories presupposed that HA’s long-standing written policy did not require Mengistu to recertify the need for an LIA because the policy only requires recertification when there’s a change in circumstances. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶11, Ex. 9. The birth of two children was such a change. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶11, Ex. 9. The HA also asserted that Mengistu’s objections to HA’s answers either stem from the lack of specificity in the Interrogatory or Mengistu’s dislike of the response. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶11, Ex. 9. As part of the July 12, 2022 letter, HA sent Mengistu a table of every document produced thus far and the RFP to which it was responsive. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶11, Ex. 9.

On July 18, 2022, HA emailed a request for clarification of Mengistu’s allegation that it failed to comply with CCP section 2031.280(a) and Mengistu responded on July 20, 2022. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶12, Ex. 10. Mengistu asked HA to identify which pages or items within the produced administrative record were responsive to Request No. 13. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶12, Ex. 10.

On July 25, 2022, Mengistu requested and received from HA an extension to file his motion to compel further responses to the Interrogatories to August 3. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶12, Ex. 10.

On August 1, 2022, Mengistu sent an email in anticipation of his motion to compel further responses to the RFPs. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶12, Ex. 10. He noted that during the motion to compel further responses to the first set, the court determined that the five-year period was not overbroad or cause undue burden and that Mengistu had demonstrated good cause. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶12, Ex. 10. Mengistu therefore asked for clarification on HA’s position for RFPs No. 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 42, 49, and 50 by August 2, 2022. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶12, Ex. 10.

On August 9, 2022, Mengistu requested an extension to file his motion to compel further responses to the RFP to August 11, which HA granted. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶13, Ex. 11.

On August 23, 2022, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer face-to-face to resolve their differences on what HA produced. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3. The court warned Mengistu that if a request resulted in undue burden, a motion to compel further responses to that request would be denied. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3. He therefore should try and fold those requests into existing searches so that HA does not have to do “two searches four and a half months long.” Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3. The court agreed with HA that a 4.5 month period to respond to the last discovery order was reasonable. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3.

At the same hearing, counsel for HA agreed to consider whether it would temporarily recertify Zeleke’s status as Mengistu’s LIA and pay for her bedroom in Mengistu’s home. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3. To date, HA has not done so. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶7.

On August 24, 2022, Mengistu asked via email if HA could meet with him all day on August 31 or September 1 at either HA’s or Sandra Roberts’s conference room. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1. HA replied on August 26, 2022 that it could meet from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on September 1, 2022 at HA’s office. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1. Mengistu suggested that two hours was not enough time to discuss everything and that HA should respond to the requests via email so the parties could reach an agreement on some items before the meeting. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1.

On September 1, 2022, the parties met at HA headquarters from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Nelson RFP Decl., ¶3. For each Interrogatory, the parties discussed the request itself, what Mengistu sought, whether the request communicated what was sought, and whether HA could supplement its responses based on this new understanding. Nelson Interrogatory Decl., ¶3. The parties were able to pare Mengistu’s Interrogatories and compromise on supplemental responses. Nelson Interrogatory Decl., ¶3. The parties did not discuss the RFPs. Nelson RFP Decl., ¶3. Due to time constraints, HA has notyet served the supplemental responses. Nelson Interrogatory Decl., ¶4.

HA twice attempted to set times to meet and confer on the RFPs on September 2 and 6, 2022. Nelson RFP Decl., ¶4; Mengistu Status Settlement Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2. However, no one with decision-making authority could attend those meetings. Nelson RFP Decl., ¶4.

On September 7, 2022, HA therefore informed Mengistu that it would provide supplemental responses to all Interrogatories and RFP Nos. 5, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-22, 53, 54, and 60, but not 42, 49, or 50 due to undue burden. Nelson RFP Decl., ¶5; Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4. HA also asserted that the documents it would have to produce in response to RFP Nos. 42, 49, or 50 would be duplicative of those it would produce in response to RFP Set No. 1. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4. Consequently, HA requested that Mengistu take both motions to compel off-calendar. Nelson RFP Decl., ¶5; Nelson Interrogatory Decl., ¶5; Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4.

Mengistu responded that he would withdraw RFP 42 but he would not take the motions off-calendar until he received and was satisfied with the supplemental responses. Nelson RFP Decl., ¶5; Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4. If satisfactory supplemental responses were received by September 12, 2022 – the day before his reply briefs were due – Mengistu would withdraw his motions. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4.

HA is working on supplemental responses to both the RFPs and Interrogatories and expects to complete them – without RFPs pertaining to disparate treatment claims -- by the end of September 2022. Nelson RFP Decl., ¶6; Nelson Interrogatory Decl., ¶6.

Petitioner Mengistu moves to compel HA to provide further responses to 15 Interrogatories and various RFPs. His motion to compel further responses does not identify the RFPs that are at issue. While his separate statement provides reasons to compel further responses to all of them, his reply identifies 40 RFPs for which he seeks further response.

Any motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for admission shall be accompanied by a separate document which sets forth the text of each interrogatory or demand to which a further response is requested, the response given, and the factual and legal reasons for compelling it. CRC 3.1345(a)(2). The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. CRC 3.1345(c). Material must not be incorporated by reference. CRC 3.1345(c).

Mengistu’s separate statement for his motion to compel further responses to the Interrogatories separately lists each Interrogatory except No. 23, and the reason to compel a further response. The separate statement for the motion to compel further responses to the RFPs only separately lists RFPs 5, 10-12, 14-22, 42, 49, 50, 53, 54, 60, and 61. The separate statement then summarizes the reasons for further responses to the RFPs in two groups: (1) RFP Nos. 12-15, 23-26, 31-35, 37-41, 43-47, and 52-59; and (2) RFP Nos. 1-4, 7, 23, 24, 26-35, 51, 57, 58, and 59. To the extent that a request was not separately listed, the summaries are improper for a separate statement.

The motions to compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 23 and all RFPs except RFP Nos. 5, 10-12, 14-22, 42, 49, 50, 53, 54, 60, and 61 are therefore denied.

If events have made effectual relief impracticable, the controversy has become overripe and is therefore moot. Malaga County Water District v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (2020) 57 Cal. App. 5th 911. Mootness describes a situation whether there is no justiciable controversy. Davis v. Fresno Unified School District (2020) 57 Cal. App 5th 911. Courts will decide only justiciable controversies. Parkford Owners for a Better Community v. County of Placer (2020) 54 Cal. App. 5th 714. As a general rule, it is not within the function of the court to act upon or decide a moot question. In re S.P. (2000) 53 Cal. App. 5th 13.

HA has agreed to provide supplemental responses to all Interrogatories and RFPs 5, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-22, 53, 54, and 60 by the end of the month. Settlement Status Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4; Nelson RFP Decl., ¶6; Nelson Interrogatory Decl., ¶6. HA therefore asserts that the motions are moot as to these requests. Int. Opp. at 4-5; RFP Opp. at 4-5.

In reply, Mengistu concedes that he agreed to withdraw RFP No. 42, which is therefore moot. RFP Reply at 2; Settlement Status Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4. He asserts that HA’s promise to provide further responses is insufficient to moot his motions to compel and the court never said that a promise to provide supplemental responses would suffice. RFP Reply at 7-8; Interrogatory Reply at 7-8.

Mengistu has lost sight of what his motions seek, which is further responses. Where a party agrees to provide further responses, there is no need to consider the motion and the court did not need to inform the parties that a promise for supplemental responses would suffice.

For RFPs, a response to a demand for inspection may include a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand by the date set pursuant to CCP section 2031.030(c)(2). CCP §2031.210(a)(1). See CCP §2031.030(c)(2) (date for production shall be a reasonable time at least 30 days after service). Where the responding party states that it will comply and fails to do so, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance as agreed. CCP §2031.320. HA’s statement that that it will produce the requested documents by the end of September for RFPs 5, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-22, 53, 54, and 60 is a further response rendering those requests moot. If Mengistu is dissatisfied with the production, his remedy is a motion to compel compliance as agreed under CCP section 2031.320. The motion to compel further responses to RFPs 5, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-22, 53, 54, and 60 is moot.

For the Interrogatories, a responding party may answer, object, or produce writings in lieu of an answer. CCP §2030.210. The propounding party may move to compel further responses if an answer is evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. CCP §2030.300(a). HA has agreed to provide supplemental resaponses to all Interrogatories by the end of September. If the court to grant Mengistu’s motion, it would accomplish nothing. This meets the definition of moot. If Mengistu finds those answers evasive or incomplete, he would have to file a new motion to compel further responses. The motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories is moot.

This leaves the RFPs that were properly listed in Mengistu’s separate statement and for which HA did not commit to produce documents. There are four: (1) RFP 16 (all documents from June 1, 2017 thereafter in which HA offered Section 8 participants to add their existing LIAs to their family compositions as alternative accommodations); (2) RFP 49 (Interim Review and Annual Reexamination documents for all Section 8 participants who requested to add their child/children to their family compositions, from June 1, 2017 thereafter); (3) RFP 50 (all such Interim Review documents where the request for adding their child/children triggered redetermination of Section 8 participants’ need for existing LIAs); and (4) RFP 61 (all documents relating to Mengistu’s August 26, 2019, request for HA to conduct Interim Review based on changes in his family composition). Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1.

HA asserts that RFPs 49 and 50 seeks documents for all Section 8 participants who added their child to family compositions and all participants whose addition of such children triggered a redetermination of the Section 8’s participant’s need for an existing LIA. Opp. at 4. Any responsive documents are likely to be produced as part of the production for RFPs previously ordered by the court. RFP Opp. at 4-5.

HA does not identify the relevant RFPs for which the court previously ordered production or demonstrate their overlap with RFP Nos. 49 and 50.

The motion to compel further responses is not moot as to RFPs 16, 49, 50, and 61.

The court must address the merits of Mengistu’s motion to compel further responses to Requests 16, 49, 50, and 61.

Mengistu asserts that because HA’s opposition does not include a separate statement, the court should grant the motion without reaching the merits. RFP Reply at 5.

Mengistu misstates the law. While CRC 3.1345 requires that a motion to compel further responses to requests for production or interrogatories must include a separate statement, it does not require that an opposition do so.

The good cause burden is met by a demonstration (a) that the responsive documents contain information which is relevant to the subject matter of the action, and (b) of specific facts indicating the information is necessary. See Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal. App. 4^th at 1117.

Mengistu contends that there is good cause for further responses to the remaining RFPs because the requested information is relevant to the Complaint’s contention that HA engaged in policies and practices that result in widespread denial of reasonable accommodation requests for additional bedrooms for LIAs. RFP Mot. at 4-5.

As stated, HA asserts that RFPs 49 and 50 seeks documents for all Section 8 participants who added their child to family compositions and all participants whose addition of such children triggered a redetermination of the Section 8’s participant’s need for an existing LIA. Opp. at 4. HA claims that good cause does not exist for production of these documents as any responsive documents would not provide information that could further Mengistu’s claims. While the nature of this argument is unclear, it assumes that any documents produced must relate to Mengistu’s personal claim. However, Mengistu has always represented that this case is about HA’s pattern and practice of wrongly denying LIA requests. RFP Mot. at 5-6. His Petition alleges that he seeks to compel the HA to perform its duty to provide bedrooms for LIAs “as reasonable accommodation to petitioner and other similarly disabled Section 8 participants.” Pet., ¶¶ 1, 50, 63-64. To the extent that Mengistu needs to show a pattern and does not know anything about other Section 8 participants himself, discovery as to other applicants is necessary. RFPs 49 and 50 fulfill that purpose. So does RFP 16, which HA does not discuss and which seeks all documents from June 1, 2017 thereafter in which HA offered Section 8 participants to add their existing LIAs to their family compositions as alternative accommodations.

The opposition does not discuss RFP 61, which does not seek pattern and practice evidence. It seeks any documents pertaining to Mengistu’s August 26, 2019, request for HA to conduct Interim Review based on changes in his family composition. Mengistu RFP Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1. HA asserts that the birth of two children was a change in circumstance that, per HA policy, required Mengistu to recertify the need for an LIA. Mengistu Interrogatory Decl., ¶11, Ex. 9. Any investigation of that change is relevant to Mengistu’s assertion that the HA wrongfully denied his reasonable accommodation request for an additional bedroom for his preferred LIA.

Burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417. There is always a burden in a search and production. See Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court, (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 55. To support an undue burden objection, there must be some showing that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought. Id. at 417. In deciding the issue, the court has a discretionary power to grant in part and deny in part, balance the equities, including costs, and to balance the purpose and need for the information against the burden which production entails. Id. See Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court, (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 313, 318, 320-21 (denying motion to compel when defendants had demonstrated that a response would have required manual evaluation of over 13,000 open files and cost the company thousands to hire and train personnel).

As to RFPs 49 and 50, the HA contends that the quantity of work required to respond renders these requests unduly burdensome because it would require HA to pull the file of all Section 8 participants with added children, redact private information, and produce the documents, resulting in a mountain of documents irrelevant to the case. The expense of doing so is “incommensurate with the result sought.” See Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court, (1986) 1888 Cal.App.3d 313. RFP Opp. at 5.

HA provides no evidence supporting undue burden. The court previously has discussed with the parties that the undue burden requires solid evidence of the nature of the search and the man hours necessary to perform the task. HA should have presented evidence of where the files are located, how they are organized, how they must be searched, how many files must be searched, whether the information sought is likely to be in the file and how it can be culled, and the manhours and other costs necessary to do so.

However, the court warned Mengistu that it is subjecting HA to a 4.5-month search for responsive documents for his previous motion to compel and that it was not going to significantly burden HA further in a new production order. Mengistu Settlement Status Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3. Mengistu fails to explain why RFPs 16, 49, and 50 will not add to the existing HA burden. The fact that the HA must incur significant time and expense for one search makes the additional cost of a second search prohibitive unless it can be folded into the first. Neither party presents any evidence or pertinent argument on this issue.

As a result, the motion to compel will be granted for RFP 61 and only conditionally granted for RFPs 16, 49, and 50 subject to a face to face meet and confer on the burden of doing so. The court expects the parties to reach an agreement that will not add a significant burden to HA’s effort while still providing Mengistu at least some portion of the documents he seeks on each of the three RFPs.

Petitioner’s motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories is denied. The motion to compel further responses to RFPs is granted for RFP 61 and conditionally granted for RFPs 16, 49, and 50 if it will not significantly add to the existing burden. The documents may be redacted to protect privacy. The court will discuss with the parties when the meet and confer and production will occur.

[1] HA failed to lodge courtesy copies of its opposition to either motion in violation of the Presiding Judge’s First Amended General Order Re: Mandatory Electronic Filing. HA’s counsel is admonished to provide courtesy copies in all future filings in this case or they may not be considered.

[2] Mengistu has presented numerous exhibits, and he is admonished to use exhibit tabs for any future filing.

[3] Mengistu attaches evidence regarding the events underlying his Petition. Because the oppositions do not dispute relevance except in a conclusory manner (RFP Opp. at 5), the court need not discuss whether the discovery requests seek admissible evidence or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010.