Judge James C. Chalfant, Case 21STCP02564 2023-01-24 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 requests for production of documents: granted in part

Respondent Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“HA”) moves to compel Petitioner Neway Mengistu (“Mengistu”) to provide further discovery responses to 13 of HA’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”).

The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.

Petitioner Mengistu filed the 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 live-in aide (“LIA”) and another for his medical equipment.

On September 23, 2014, Mengistu submitted a reasonable accommodation request for an extra bedroom for his 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 LIA’s bedroom from his benefits.

Two days later, 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 added 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 a RE-46 Modified form to complete in 14 days. HA 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 to complete 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 to him.

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. 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 asserted that he had a household with three people. The August 2020 Notice included a denial of a reasonable accommodation request.

On April 22, 2021, HA granted Mengistu a 30-day extension for an 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 his 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 his 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 procedure 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. The court denied the motion for lack of a separate statement and untimeliness.

Mengistu filed a motion to compel responses to Mengistu’s Requests for Production (“RFPs”), Set One. The court granted the motion at the July 19, 2022 hearing.

After Mengistu filed additional motions to compel further responses, at an August 23, 2022 status conference the court ordered the parties to meet and confer face to face to discuss all issues for each discovery 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.

On September 20, 2022, the court denied Mengistu’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories at issue as moot because HA agreed to provide supplemental responses. The court granted in part Mengistu’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents.

On January 10, 2023, the court denied Mengistu’s motions to quash a subpoena for production of documents and to compel further responses to twelve special interrogatories.

The party to whom a demand for inspection is directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand; or (3) an objection to the particular demand. CCP §2031.210(a). If the party represents that it is unable to comply, it shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. CCP §2031.230. It shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed; has been destroyed, lost, misplaced, or stolen; or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. CCP §2031.230. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. CCP §2031.230.

If a party to whom a document inspection demand has been directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response. CCP §2031.300(b). To succeed on the motion, the time in which to respond (30-35 days, depending on whether the 5-day extension for service by mail of CCP §1013 applies), must have expired. CCP §2031.260. Furthermore, there is no “meet and confer” requirement where there has been no response to discovery requests. CCP §2031.300; Leach v. Superior Court (“Leach”), (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906; Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (“Demyer”) (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4^th 393, 395. There is no time limit on making the motion. Brigante v. Huang, (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4^th 1569, 1584.

The party to whom the demand is directed waives any objection to the demand. CCP §2031.300(a). The court on motion may relieve that party if it finds that (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with CCP section 2031, and (2) the failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. CCP §2031.300(a).

The prevailing party on a motion to compel responses is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions unless the court finds that the losing party acted with “substantial justification” or that the circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. CCP §2031.300(c).

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 also 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).

On June 10, 2022, HA served Mengistu with the RFPs. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. A. The RFPs in question ask him for all documents that (1) relate to the three causes of action in the Petition (“RFP Nos. 1-3”); (2) support Mengistu’s assertion that the LIA is not financially obligated to care for his children (“RFP No. 4”); (3) support Mengistu’s assertion that the LIA is not responsible for his children’s daily care (“RFP No. 5”); (4) evidence any communications from Mengistu to HA about his appeal of the disqualification of his LIA (“RFP No. 6”);[2] (5) Mengistu submitted to request government assistance for his children (“RFP No. 8”); (6) Mengistu submitted to HA’s 504 Coordinator John King II (“King”) (“RFP No. 9”); (7) correspond to Mengistu’s response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (“RFP No. 10”); (8) demonstrate Mengistu’s LIA is not responsible for the support of his children by court order (“RFP No. 11”); (9) demonstrate Mengistu’s LIA is not responsible for purchasing his children’s meals (“RFP No. 12”); (10) demonstrate Mengistu’s LIA is not responsible for meal preparation for his children (“RFP No. 13”); and (11) demonstrate Mengistu’s LIA’s hours billed to In Home Supportive Services (“IHSS”) from January 2019 thereafter (“RFP No. 14”). Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. A.

On July 11, 2022, Mengistu requested a 30-day extension to respond to the RFPs. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. C. On July 12, 2022, HA asked Mengistu to provide his reasons for the additional 30 days. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. B. Mengistu never provided the reasons and instead asserted that HA never provided its reasons when it asked for extensions. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. D. Although HA disagreed, it granted the 30-day extension on July 18, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. D.

On August 17, 2022, Mengistu requested an additional 30-day extension and promised not to ask for another. Nelson Decl., ¶4, Ex. E. HA replied the next day that Mengistu’s request would move the due date to mid-September and HA would not have enough time for a motion to compel before the Trial Setting Conference on October 25. Nelson Decl., ¶4, Ex. F. HA granted a two-week extension with a new deadline of September 1, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶4, Ex. F.

When the court ruled on Mengistu’s discovery motions on September 20, 2022, it ordered that he may not file any discovery motion to compel further responses or compliance until he fully complied with his outstanding discovery obligations to HA. Nelson Decl., ¶5, Ex. G. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and reach an agreement regarding the issue of HA’s discovery requests, any undue burden as stated in the court’s ruling, and the LIA financials. Nelson Decl., ¶5, Ex. G. If parties did not reach agreement on undue burden, they could seek ex parte relief. Nelson Decl., ¶5, Ex. G.

On September 29, 2022, the parties held a meet and confer session. Nelson Decl., ¶6, Ex. H. Most of the agreements reached concerned Mengistu’s discovery requests. Nelson Decl., ¶6, Ex. H. None concerned the RFPs. Nelson Decl., ¶6, Ex. H.

On October 4, 2022, Mengistu asserted that he could not respond to HA’s discovery requests before he received and reviewed the supplemental responses HA had promised to furnish by the end of September. Nelson Decl., ¶6, Ex. H. Based on that promise, Mengistu had agreed to respond by October 5, five days later. Nelson Decl., ¶6, Ex. H. If HA served the supplemental responses by October 5, he could respond by October 10. Nelson Decl., ¶6, Ex. H. HA agreed to give Mengistu five days to respond after its response to his requests. Nelson Decl., ¶6.

HA served its responses on October 7, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶6. Mengistu served his responses to the RFPs on October 14, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. I. He asserted that HA had all the documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1-3. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. RFP Nos. 4-5, 8, and 11-14 were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. As to RFP No. 6, HA granted Mengistu a 30-day extension for his appeal and warned that failure to timely appeal would make the decision final. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. HA then issued a final administrative appeal on May 10, 2021, before the end of the 30-day extension. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. Mengistu did not respond to RFP Nos. 9-10. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I.

On October 19, 2022, HA wrote a meet and confer letter to Mengistu about his responses to various discovery requests, including the RFPs. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. J. The letter asserted that all requests were relevant, proper, and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. J. HA gave Mengistu until October 21, 2022 to respond to all the requests for which HA found his answers deficient. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. J.

HA’s October 19 letter cited CCP section 2031.210, which lists the appropriate ways to respond to an RFP as (1) a statement that the party will comply with the request, (2) a statement of inability to comply, or (3) an objection. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J. CCP section 2031.230 states that a statement of inability to comply must affirm (1) that the party conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry; and (2) that the inability to comply is because the responsive item has never existed, was destroyed, was lost, was misplaced, was stolen, or has never been or is no longer in the responding party’s possession or custody. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J. Mengistu’s responses to RFP Nos. 1-3 and 6 were not appropriate. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J.

As to RFP No. 6, the October 19 letter addressed Mengistu’s allegation and denied that HA ever granted an extension for a final administrative appeal. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J. HA’s April 22, 2021 letter to Mengistu listed May 10, 2021 as the deadline, which Mengistu missed. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J. HA then made the decision final, and it did not issue an additional decision. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J. HA’s October 19 letter gave Mengistu until October 21 to respond to all the requests for which HA found his answers deficient. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J.

In his reply on October 20, 2022, Mengistu asserted that HA’s October 19, 2022 letter blatantly ignored the court’s order that the parties engage in a point-by-point discussion instead of blanket positions. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. K. If Mengistu believes a request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence, HA must explain why it thinks it is. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. K. Mengistu would provide answers to requests once HA has done so. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. K. Mengistu’s reply ignores the fact that he did not meet the extension deadlines and his responses are therefore untimely. Nelson Decl., ¶7.

Code of Federal Regulations Title 24 (“24 CFR”) section 5.403 defines an LIA as a person who resides with one or more elderly persons, near-elderly persons, or persons with disabilities, and who (1) is essential to the care and well-being of the persons; (2) is not obligated for the support of the persons; and (3) would not be living in the unit except to provide the necessary supportive services. Mengistu Decl., ¶10, Ex. 8.

HUD has issued notice that LIAs can have approved family members live with them in the assisted unit, although HUD will not pay for bedrooms for those family members. Mengistu Decl., ¶11, Ex. 9. Chapter 10.13.3 of HA’s Section 8 Administrative Plan confirms the same. Mengistu Decl., ¶12, Ex. 10.

HA’s August 6, 2020 letter attached to its notice of reasonable accommodation denial informed Mengistu that his LIA failed to demonstrate that she was not obligated for support of the household or Mengistu’s children. Mengistu Decl., ¶8, Ex. 6. HA reiterated this argument when it did not reinstate her in a September 15, 2021 letter. Mengistu Decl., ¶9, Ex. 7. Both letters stated that Mengistu’s accommodation for a qualified LIA was still in place. Mengistu Decl., ¶¶ 8-9, Exs. 6-7.

On July 12, 2022, HA responded to Mengistu’s June 16, 2022 meet and confer regarding HA’s response to Mengistu’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Mengistu Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4. This letter stated that her status as an LIA complied with Section 8 policy and the CFR. Mengistu Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4.

On September 23, 2022, HA asserted that it needed to know Mengistu’s LIA’s income because it needed to determine whether she met the definition of an LIA under 24 CFR 5.403. Mengistu Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3. HA claimed that this question was the crux of this action. Mengistu Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3.

When HA provided supplemental responses to Mengistu’s discovery on October 7, 2022, its email gave him until October 14, 2022 to respond to its discovery requests. Mengistu Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7, Ex. 1.

On October 20, 2022, HA responded to Mengistu’s letter dated the same date, arguing that it did not need to comply with the court’s order against taking a blanket position on discovery requests because Mengistu’s responses were untimely. Mengistu Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2. HA asserted that Mengistu asked for five days after HA provided supplemental responses and his responses were due on October 19. Mengistu Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2. He did not respond by that date and had forfeited his right to object. HA advised Mengistu to provide adequate responses by October 21. Mengistu Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2.

HA moves to compel Mengistu to provide further responses to RFP Nos. 1-6 and 8-14. In reply, HA seeks further responses to RFP Nos. 4-6 and 8-14, leaving out RFP Nos. 1-3. Reply at 2.

On October 4, 2022, Mengistu requested an extension of five days to respond to the RFAs after HA provided supplemental responses to his discovery requests. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. H. HA served its responses on October 7, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶7. Mengistu served his responses to the RFAs seven days later, on October 14, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. When Mengistu objected to HA’s request for more information, HA replied that he waived any objection for failure to timely respond. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. K; Mengistu Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2. HA reiterates that argument in its motion. Mot. at 5.

HA is incorrect. While Mengistu only asked for five days after HA’s supplemental responses (Nelson Decl., Ex. H), HA gave him more. When HA provided supplemental responses to Mengistu’s discovery on October 7, 2022, its email Mengistu until October 14, 2022 to respond to HA’s discovery requests. Mengistu Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7, Ex. 1. Mengistu served his responses to the RFPs on October 14, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. I. His responses are timely, and he has not waived any objection to the RFPs.

If a party to whom a document inspection demand has been directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response. CCP §2031.300(b). To succeed on the motion, the time in which to respond (30-35 days, depending on whether the 5-day extension for service by mail of CCP §1013 applies), must have expired. CCP §2031.260. There is no “meet and confer” requirement where there has been no response to discovery requests. CCP §2031.300; Leach, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at 905-906; Demyer, supra, 36 Cal. App. 4th at 395. The party to whom the demand is directed waives any objection to the demand. CCP §2031.300(a). The court on motion may relieve that party if it finds that (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with CCP section 2031, and (2) the failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. CCP §2031.300(a).

Mengistu’s October 14, 2022 responses to the RFPs did not include any response to RFP Nos. 9-10. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. Mengistu has provided no other response to the RFPs. The motion is granted as to RFPs 9-10.

Mengistu responded to seven of the RFAs on the basis that they were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. HA’s October 19 letter asserted that all requests were relevant, proper, and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J. Mengistu’s October 20 letter asserted that HA’s blanket position ignored the court’s order that the parties engage in a point-by-point discussion. Opp. at 3-4; Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. K. If Mengistu believes an RFP is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, HA must explain why it thinks the RFP is. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. K.

Mengistu relies on his position to contend that HA failed to meet and confer as required by the court’s order. Opp. at 3-4. In reply, HA asserts that point-by-point arguments are unnecessary when Mengistu provides untimely objections to the RFPs. Reply at 3.

As discussed ante, Mengistu’s responses were not untimely because HA gave Mengistu until October 14, 2022 to respond. Mengistu Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7, Exs. 1. HA was required to engage in a point-by-point meet and confer without taking blanket positions.

HA contends that its October 19 letter is a point-by-point meet and confer. Reply Nelson Decl., Ex. A. HA’s letter explains that RFP Nos. 1-3 ask for all documents relevant to each cause of action in the Petition. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. A. Mengistu responded that these documents are in HA’s position. HA’s October 19 letter explained that this response is non-compliant with CCP sections 2031.210 and 2031.230. Ex. A. Mengistu can only comply by affirming that he cannot do so. Otherwise, he was required to state that he would comply.

The October 19 letter stated that RFP No. 6 asked for documents that evidence any communications from Mengistu to HA about his appeal of HA’s disqualification of his LIA. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. A. Mengistu responded with an argumentative statement. This did not comply with CCP section 2031.210. Moreover, HA did not grant Mengistu a 30-day extension of his appeal. His deadline was May 10, 2021 and HA’s earlier decision became final. Ex. A.

HA has satisfied the meet and confer requirement for RFP Nos. 1-3 and 6, but not for RFP Nos. 4-5 and 8-14. The court will address whether there is good cause for RFP Nos. 1-3 and 6 only.

start. 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.

The Discovery Act permits discovery of non-privileged matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010. Courts must apply this standard in accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, such that doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery unless the answers sought by a given line of questioning cannot as a reasonable possibility lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or be helpful in preparation for trial. Reply at 3; Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (“Colonial”) (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.

Neither party briefs directly on the first three RFPs, which ask for documents that relate to the three causes of action in the Petition. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. A. The relevance thereof is self-evident. As a respondent, HA must be ready at trial to refute the arguments Mengistu raises based on these documents. Mengistu’s response that HA has these documents leaves HA unaware of what those documents are. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. There is good cause to require Mengistu to be more specific.

RFP No. 6 asked for documents that evidence any communications from Mengistu to HA about his appeal of HA’s disqualification of his LIA. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. A. Mengistu responded that on April 22, 2021, HA granted Mengistu a 30-day extension for his appeal and warned that failure to timely appeal would make the decision final. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. HA then issued a final administrative appeal on May 10, 2021, before the end of the 30-day extension. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. HA’s October 19 Meet and Confer Letter asserted that this answer was both false and not appropriate under CCP sections 2031.210 and 2031.230. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J.

At best, Mengistu’s argument is an objection to the RFP. CCP §2031.210(a)(3). Assuming arguendo that it is a truthful and proper response, it does not justify the failure to produce any responsive documents. If HA granted a continuance on an appeal, it could have issued written notice. Mengistu also may have submitted documents to support his request for a continuance. That HA never heard an appeal does not excuse Mengistu’s failure to search for any papers related to his efforts to secure one.

Those documents would also be relevant. Mengistu’s Petition challenges HA’s final decision to deny his choice of LIA. Any documents connected to administrative proceedings about this decision may reflect arguments that Mengistu or HA made before and can raise again.

There is good cause to require a further response to RFP No. 6, even if the response is that Mengistu cannot comply with the RFP after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2), 2031.230.

There is good cause to compel further responses to the eleven RFPs that Mengistu answered without providing documents.

HA’s motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 1-6, 8, and 11-14 is granted. The motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 9-10 is granted as a motion to compel any response. Mengistu has 15 days after this decision to comply. His responses are due February 8, 2023.

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

[2] There is no RFP No. 7 at issue.

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

Tentative decision on motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories: granted

Respondent Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“HA”) moves to compel Petitioner Neway Mengistu (“Mengistu”) to provide further responses to HA’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (“Interrogatories”).

The court has read and considered the moving papers and separate statement (no opposition was filed) and renders the following tentative decision.

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. The court denied the motion for lack of a separate statement and untimeliness.

Mengistu filed a motion to compel responses to Mengistu’s Requests for Production (“RFPs”), Set One. The court granted the motion at the July 19, 2022 hearing.

On January 10, 2023, the court denied Mengistu’s motions to quash a subpoena for production of documents and to compel further responses to twelve special interrogatories.

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 June 10, 2022, HA served Mengistu with the Interrogatories. Nelson Decl., ¶2, Ex. A. The Interrogatories at issue ask: (1) what facts support Mengistu’s assertion that his LIA is not obligated for his children’s support (“Interrogatory No. 7”); (2) what daily care Mengistu provides to his children (“Interrogatory No. 13”); (3) what government aid Mengistu applied for on his children’s behalf (“Interrogatory No. 14”); and (13) who takes Mengistu’s children to doctor’s visits (“Interrogatory No. 15”). Nelson Decl., ¶2, Ex. A.

On July 11, 2022, Mengistu requested a 30-day extension to respond to the Interrogatories. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. C. On July 12, 2022, HA asked Mengistu to provide his reasons for the additional 30 days. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. B. Mengistu never provided the reasons and instead asserted that HA never provided its reasons when it asked for extensions. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. D. Although HA disagreed, it granted the 30-day extension on July 18, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. D.

HA served its responses on October 7, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶6. Mengistu served his responses to the Interrogatories on October 14, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. I.

Mengistu did not answer the other Interrogatories. He alleged that Interrogatory Nos. 7, and 13-15 were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. I.

On October 19, 2022, HA wrote a letter to meet and confer with Mengistu about his responses to various discovery requests, including the Interrogatories. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. J. The letter asserted that all requests were relevant, proper, and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. J. HA gave Mengistu until October 21, 2022 to respond to all the requests for which HA found his answers deficient. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. J.

HA moves to compel Mengistu to provide further responses to its Interrogatories. Although it does not specify which Interrogatories, the moving papers and Separate Statement only address Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 13-15. Mot. at 5-7.

Interrogatories must seek information relevant to the subject matter of the case and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010, 2030.010(a); Kalaba v. Gray, (2002) 95 Cal.App.4^th 1416, 1417. As pertinent, a motion to compel further responses is proper when an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. CCP §2030.300.

Mengistu objected to the four Interrogatories on the ground that none are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. I. HA asserts that they are relevant because Mengistu asserts that HA wrongfully disqualified his LIA. Mot. at 5. To prevail, Mengistu must demonstrate that the LIA meets the definition under Code of Federal Regulations Title 24 (“24 CFR”) section 5.403. Mot. at 5.

An LIA is a person who resides with one or more elderly persons, near-elderly persons, or persons with disabilities, and who (1) is essential to the care and well-being of the persons; (2) is not obligated for the support of the persons; and (3) would not be living in the unit except to provide the necessary supportive services. 24 CFR §5.403.

HA contends that, if Mengistu’s LIA lives in the unit to care for Mengistu’s children, she is disqualified under the third element of 24 CFR. Mot. at 6. The four Interrogatories are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence in support of this argument.

Interrogatory No. 7 asks for facts supporting Mengistu’s contention that his LIA is not obligated to support the children. Nelson Decl., ¶2, Ex. A. If she is obligated, HA argues that it will support a conclusion that she would live with Mengistu anyway to support the children. Mot. at 6. The court will not decide now whether HA’s interpretation of 24 CFR section 5.403 is correct. It is sufficient that the interrogatory is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The other three interrogatories are not as directly related to HA’s contention, but they still are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Interrogatory No. 13 asks what daily care Mengistu provides to his children. HA is entitled to know whether Mengistu provides sole daily care for the children, which he has previously denied. To the extent that he does not, that would suggest his LIA provides such care and would give factual support for HA’s interpretation of 24 CFR section 5.403. Mot. at 6.

Interrogatory No. 15 asks about a specific kind of childcare: taking the children to the doctor. Nelson Decl., ¶2, Ex. A. Interrogatory No. 14 asks about government aid Mengistu has applied for on behalf of his children. Nelson Decl., ¶2, Ex. A. Government assistance may account for any care that Mengistu does not provide the children without involving the LIA. Nelson Decl., ¶2, Ex. A.

HA’s motion to compel further responses for Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 13-15 is granted. Mengistu has 15 days to answer only these interrogatories, which means his answers are due on February 8, 2023.

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

Tentative decision on motions to compel further responses to requests for admission: granted

Respondent Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“HA”) moves to compel Petitioner Neway Mengistu (“Mengistu”) to provide further discovery responses to 15 of HA’s Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”).

The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, as well as separate statements[1] for the moving papers and opposition, and renders the following tentative decision.

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. The court denied the motion for lack of a separate statement and untimeliness.

Mengistu filed a motion to compel responses to Mengistu’s Requests for Production (“RFPs”), Set One. The court granted the motion at the July 19, 2022 hearing.

On January 10, 2023, the court denied Mengistu’s motions to quash a subpoena for production of documents and to compel further responses to twelve special interrogatories.

If the propounding party, on receipt of a response to requests for admissions, deems that (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete, or (2) an objection to a request is without merit or too general, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response. CCP §2033.290(a).

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under CCP section 2016.040. CCP §2033.290(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).

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 requests for admission, 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 §2033.290(d).

On June 10, 2022, HACLA served Mengistu with the RFAs. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. A. The RFAs in question ask him to admit that (1) Mengistu did not submit to the HA any documentation to support his contention that his LIA is not obligated for the support of the household (“RFA No. 1”); (2) Mengistu did not submit to the HA any documentation to support his contention that his LIA would not live in his unit except to provide necessary supportive services (“RFA No. 2”); (3) the LIA is the primary caretaker of Mengistu’s children (“RFA No. 3”); (4) the HA allowed Mengistu to find another LIA when his request was denied (“RFA No. 5”); (5) Mengistu has not submitted a request after August 6, 2020 for a different LIA to consideration (“RFA No. 7”); (6) the LIA takes Mengistu’s children to doctor’s visits (“RFA No. 20”); (7) the LIA provides childcare for Mengistu’s children (“RFA No. 21”); (8) the LIA prepares all meals for Mengistu’s children (“RFA No. 22”); (9) Mengistu has not received a court order ruling that his LIA does not have a responsibility to support his children (“RFA No. 23”); (10) Mengistu has not filed for child support for his children from his LIA (“RFA No. 24”); (11) the LIA helps Mengistu’s children with hygiene (“RFA No. 25”); (12) Mengistu’s children go to school (“RFA Ex. 26”); (13) the LIA enrolled Mengistu’s children in school (“RFA No. 27”); (14) Mengistu did not submit to the HA any documentation to support his contention that his LIA qualifies as his LIA after June 29, 2020 (“RFA No. 28”); and (15) the LIA has provided Mengistu with 24-hour care since January 2019 (“RFA No. 29”). Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. A.

On July 11, 2022, Mengistu requested a 30-day extension to respond to the RFAs. Nelson Decl., ¶4, Ex. B. On July 12, 2022, the HA requested that he provide reasoning for the additional 30-days requested due to its disproportionate relation to the requests. Nelson Decl., ¶4, Ex. C. Mengistu never provided that reasoning and instead asserted that the HA never provided reasoning when it asked for extensions. Nelson Decl., ¶4, Ex. D. Despite this, on July 18, 2022, the HA granted the 30-day extension. Nelson Decl., ¶4, Ex. D.

On August 17, 2022, Mengistu requested an additional 30-day extension and promised not to ask for another if approved. Nelson Decl., ¶5, Ex. E. The HA replied the next day that because this would move the due date to mid-September, the HA would not have enough time to file and have heard any potential motion to compel discovery before the Trial Setting Conference on October 25. Nelson Decl., ¶5, Ex. F. The HA granted a two-week extension to respond, with a new deadline of September 1, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶5, Ex. F.

When the court ruled on Mengistu’s discovery motions on September 20, 2022, it added that he may not file any discovery motion to compel further responses or compliance until he fully complies with the outstanding discovery obligations to the HA. Nelson Decl., ¶6, Ex. G. The parties were to meet and confer and reach an agreement regarding the issue of the HA’s discovery requests, the undue burden as stated in the court’s ruling on the prior motions, and the LIA financials. Nelson Decl., ¶6, Ex. G. If parties did not reach agreement on undue burden, they could seek ex parte relief. Nelson Decl., ¶6, Ex. G.

On September 29, 2022, the parties held a meet and confer session. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. H. Most of the agreements concerned Mengistu’s Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) on the HA. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. H.

On October 4, 2022, Mengistu asserted that he could not respond to the HA’s discovery requests before he received and reviewed supplemental responses the HA had promised to furnish by the end of September. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. H. Based on that promise, Mengistu had agreed to respond by October 5, five days later. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. H. If the HA served the supplemental responses by October 5, he could respond by October 10. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. H. The HA agreed to give Mengistu five days after its response to serve his response to its requests. Nelson Decl., ¶7.

The HA served its responses on October 7, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶7. Mengistu served his responses to the RFAs on October 14, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. Mengistu’s response to each of the RFAs in question was that they were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I.

On October 19, 2022, the HA wrote a letter to meet and confer with Mengistu about his responses to various discovery requests, including the RFAs (“October 19 Meet and Confer Letter”). Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J. It asserted that all requests were relevant, proper, and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J. It gave Mengistu until October 21 to respond to all the requests for which the HA found his answers deficient. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J.

In his reply on October 20, 2022 (“October 20 Mengistu Letter”), Mengistu asserted that the October 19, 2022 Meet and Confer Letter blatantly ignored the court’s order that the parties engage in a point-by-point discussion instead of blanket positions. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. K. If the HA believes an RFA is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence, the HA must explain why it thinks it is. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. K. Mengistu would provide answers to requests once the HA has done this. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. K. This response ignores the fact that Mengistu did not meet the extension deadlines and his responses are therefore untimely. Nelson Decl., ¶8.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) has issued notice that LIAs can have approved family members live with them in the assisted unit, although HUD will not pay for bedrooms for those family members. Mengistu Decl., ¶11, Ex. 9. Chapter 10.13.3 of HA’s Section 8 Administrative Plan confirms the same. Mengistu Decl., ¶12, Ex. 10.

In the HA’s August 6, 2020 letter attached to its notice of reasonable accommodation denial of the same date, the HA informed Mengistu that his LIA failed to demonstrate that she was not obligated for support of the household. Mengistu Decl., ¶8, Ex. 6. The HA reiterated this argument when it did not reinstate her on September 15, 2021. Mengistu Decl., ¶9, Ex. 7.

On July 12, 2022, the HA responded to Mengistu’s June 16, 2022 meet and confer regarding the HA’s response to Mengistu’s Special Interrogatories (“SINT”), Set Two. Mengistu Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4. This letter copied its response to SINT No. 10, which asked why the HA accepted his LIA’s March 2018 certification on May 29, 2018. Mengistu Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4. The HA responded that her status as an LIA complied with Section 8 policy and the CFR at the time. Mengistu Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4.

On September 23, 2022, the HA asserted that it needed Mengistu’s LIA’s financial income because it needed to determine whether she met the definition of an LIA under 24 CFR 5.403. Mengistu Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3. The HA claimed that this question was the crux of this action. Mengistu Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3.

When the HA provided supplemental responses to discovery on October 7, 2022, it gave Mengistu until October 14, 2022 to respond to its discovery requests. Mengistu Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7, Exs. 1, 5.

On October 20, 2022, the HA responded to the October 20 Mengistu Letter (“October 20 HA Letter”). Mengistu Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2. It asserted that because Mengistu asked for five days after the HA provided supplemental responses, Mengistu’s responses were due October 19. Mengistu Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2. Because he did not respond by then, he forfeited his right to object and still needed to provide supplemental responses by October 21. Mengistu Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2.

On October 4, 2022, Mengistu requested an extension to respond to RFAs for five days after the HA provided supplemental responses to his discovery requests. Nelson Decl., ¶7, Ex. H. The HA served its responses on October 7, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶7. Mengistu served his responses to the RFAs seven days later, on October 14, 2022. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. When Mengistu objected to HA’s request for more information, the HA replied that he waived any objection for failure to timely respond. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. K; Mengistu Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2. The HA reiterates that argument. Mot. at 5.

Mengistu has demonstrated that although he only asked for five days, the HA gave him more. When the HA provided supplemental responses to discovery on October 7, 2022, it gave Mengistu until October 14, 2022 to respond to its discovery requests. Mengistu Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7, Exs. 1, 5. His responses are timely, and he has not waived any arguments.

Mengistu’s response to each of the RFAs in question was that they were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. I. The HA’s October 19 Meet and Confer Letter asserted that all requests were relevant, proper, and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. J. The October 20 Mengistu Letter asserted that this blanket position ignored the court’s order that the parties engage in a point-by-point discussion. Opp. at 3-4; Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. K. If the HA believes an RFA is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence, the HA must explain why it thinks it is. Nelson Decl., ¶8, Ex. K.

In reply, HA asserts that point-by-point arguments are improbable when Mengistu provides untimely objections to the RFAs. Reply at 3. As discussed above, the responses were not untimely because HA gave Mengistu until October 14, 2022 to respond. Mengistu Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7, Exs. 1, 5.

Nevertheless, the court’s order was not so specific. Per its minute order, the parties were to meet and confer and reach an agreement regarding the issue of the HA’s discovery requests, the undue burden as stated in the court’s ruling on the prior motions, and the LIA financials. Nelson Decl., ¶6, Ex. G. This language does not suggest that it need be point-by-point when a general statement suffices. Here, there is ample evidence that it does. For example, RFA Nos. 20-27 ask about the LIA’s care of the children. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. A. The apparent purpose for each of these is to let the HA challenge Mengistu’s possible answer to RFA No. 3 – whether the LIA is the primary caretaker of Mengistu’s children. Nelson Decl., ¶3, Ex. A. To require justification of each RFA one by one would be redundant.

The HA asserts that these requests are relevant because they address whether the LIA qualifies as an LIA under 24 CFR section 5.403. Mot. at 6. An LIA must (1) be essential to the care and well-being of the persons; (2) not be obligated for the support of the persons; and (3) not have cause to live in the unit except to provide the necessary supportive services. Mengistu Decl., ¶10, Ex. 8. The HA has called this question the crux of this action. Mengistu Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3.

Mengistu asserts that the HA misinterprets the definition of an LIA because it replaces “person” with “household” when it asks about how she cares for Mengistu’s children. Opp. at 4. The third element does not rely on this. If the LIA is there for the children as well as Mengistu himself, it supports an inference that she would live in the unit even if Mengistu did not need necessary supportive services. Request Nos. 3 and 20-27 are relevant.

Mengistu’s opposition does not identify why RFA Nos. 1-2, 5, 7, and 28-29 are irrelevant. The relevance of Request Nos. 1-2 and 28-29 is self-evident. Any admission that concerns whether an LIA meets part of the definition thereof or whether Mengistu tried to prove that in the past is relevant to the HA’s argument that the LIA does not qualify. Mengistu Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3. Mengistu’s separate statement invokes the HA’s responses to interrogatories, which asserted that Mengistu’s LIA satisfied the definition of an LIA after her 2018 and 2019 recertification. Opp. Sep. Statement at 23; Mengistu Decl., ¶13, Ex. 11. While this admission may be more persuasive at trial, it does not render other inquiries about her LIA status irrelevant.

The HA asserts that RFA No. 5 is relevant because Mengistu cannot claim he lost his reasonable accommodation if the HA provided him an opportunity to utilize a different LIA that met the statutory standards. Sep. Statement at 6. Although this is outside of the crux that the HA identified – whether the current LIA qualifies (Mengistu Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3) – this is still relevant because it concerns another element of Mengistu’s claim.

The relevance of RFA No. 7 is less clear. The HA asserts that whether Mengistu ever requested a different LIA is relevant to whether Mengistu’s LIA qualified. Sep. Statement at 8. Although indirect, confirmation that the HA never rejected a request for another LIA would support HA’s claim that the problem is that the one Mengistu has does not qualify.

HA’s motion to compel further responses to RFAs is granted in full. As requested, Mengistu has 15 days after this decision to comply; his responses are due February 8, 2023. Mot. at 7.

[1] The HA’s separate statement renumbers the RFAs to 1-15. Counsel is advised to preserve the original discovery request’s numbering in future statements.

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

Although HA files a declaration with its reply, it only repeats exhibits from the moving papers. Nelson Reply Decl., ¶3, Exs. A-B; Nelson Decl., ¶8, Exs. J-K.