Fair Housing Council of Central California, Inc. et al v. Nunez et al
Filing
27
ORDER REGARDING 17 18 19 22 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/24/2011. (Hernandez, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL
)
OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, INC., et al., )
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
HENRY D. NUNEZ, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
1:10cv02073 LJO DLB
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
(Documents 17, 18, 19 and 22)
16
17
Plaintiffs Fair Housing Council of Central California, Inc., Nelida Mendiola, Martha
18
Lemos and Maria Nava (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant motion to compel responses to document
19
requests served on Defendant Henry Nunez. The matter was heard on June 24, 2011, before the
20
Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Elizabeth Brancart appeared
21
telephonically on behalf of Plaintiffs. Daniel Harralson appeared on behalf of Defendant Henry
22
Nunez. Mr. Nunez appeared on behalf of Defendant Minnie Avila.
23
24
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Nelida Mendiola, Martha Lemos and Maria Nava are current or former tenants
25
of the Cypress Estates apartment complex (“Cypress Estates”). These tenants complained of
26
discrimination at Cypress Estates to Plaintiff Fair Housing Council of Central California, a
27
nonprofit corporation ensuring compliance with fair housing laws throughout the Central Valley.
28
Complaint, ¶¶ 4-7.
1
1
Defendant Henry Nunez controls the management of Cypress Estates and its onsite
2
manager, Defendant Minnie Avila. Complaint, ¶¶ 8-9. Cypress Estates claims to be a housing
3
complex for older persons under the Housing for Older Persons Act (“HOPA”), 42 U.S.C. §
4
3607(b)(2).
5
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants enforced unreasonable and discriminatory rules against
6
them and their children, served them with eviction notices because of their protected familial
7
status, and made derogatory statements about their national origin that interfered with the
8
enjoyment of their tenancy. Complaint, ¶¶ 12-22. Plaintiffs assert violations of the Fair Housing
9
Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government
10
Code §§ 12955,et seq.), the California Civil Code § 1714, Civil Code §§ 1927 and 1940.2, Civil
11
Code §§ 44 through 46, and California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1159 and 1160. Plaintiffs
12
seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, along with declaratory and injunctive relief.
13
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel on April 21, 2011, but continued the hearing
14
several times. Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant Nunez to provide responses to specific
15
document requests served on February 18, 2011. The parties filed a Joint Statement of Discovery
16
Dispute on June 10, 2011. Subsequently, on June 22 and 23, 2011, Defendants filed an
17
additional opposition and supporting declarations regarding the motion to compel.
18
DISCUSSION
19
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
20
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identify
and location of person who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in
the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
21
22
23
24
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
25
The document requests at issue concern three categories: (1) tenant records; (2)
26
compliance with Housing for Older Persons Act (“HOPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(2); and (3)
27
financial information.
28
2
1
2
A.
Tenant Records
3
1.
4
Request Number 1: A complete copy of all files regarding tenants or
residents, including the file covers, as kept in the ordinary course of business that
are or were maintained regarding each tenant or resident who has resided at the
Cypress Estates apartment complex at any time since January 1, 2006, including a
copy of all leases or rental agreements, applications, notices, rent receipts, security
deposit refunds, eviction documents, complaints, notes, and communications.
5
6
Plaintiffs’ Requests 1, 2, 4 and 19
7
8
9
10
Request Number 2: A complete copy of all files regarding past tenants or
residents, including the file covers, as kept in the ordinary course of business,
regarding every tenant who has vacated a dwelling unit at the Cypress Estates
apartment complex at any time since January 1, 2006, including documents that
reflect the last known address of past tenants such as security deposit refunds.
11
12
13
Request Number 4: A complete copy of all rental applications or applicant
files, including the file covers, as kept in the ordinary course of business,
including all rental applications and supporting documentation submitted by
persons seeking to rent a dwelling at the Cypress Estates apartment complex at
any time since January 1, 2006.
14
15
18
Request Number 19: All documents that constitute, describe, reflect,
record, mention, comment upon or otherwise refer to the family status or minor
children residing with any tenant, former tenant, or prospective tenant who rented
or sought to rent a dwelling unit from one or more defendants at any time since
January 1, 2006, including but not limited to, applications, leases, notes,
memoranda, correspondence, diaries, appointment books, calendars, or email
messages.
19
2.
20
Defendants submitted the following response to each request:
21
Response: OBJECTION. Responding party objects to this request on the
grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive and over broad. Responding
party further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks third party
information that responding party cannot provide without said third party's
knowledge and consent, as it would violate their right of inalienable privacy. Any
documents would be in the possession of Cypress Estates, Inc., (4478 W. Spaatz
Ave. Fresno, CA 93722), and will not be produced without a court order. The
plaintiff files will be produced.
16
17
22
23
24
Defendants’ Responses
25
3.
Analysis
26
These objections are overruled. At the hearing, Defendant Nunez objected to production,
27
arguing that he does not have care, custody or control of the requested documents, which are
28
3
1
“owned” by Cypress Estates, Inc. On questioning by the Court, Defendant Nunez reported that
2
he is both the sole owner and the sole officer of Cypress Estates, Inc. He further admitted that he
3
has produced the tenant lease agreements requested by Plaintiffs, which would be subject to the
4
same objection regarding custody and control. Given these representations, it is clear that the
5
requested tenant documents are within Defendant Nunez’ custody and control.
6
To distinguish the lease agreements from the remaining tenant files, Defendant Nunez
7
claims that the tenant files contain third-party personal financial information. Defendant Nunez
8
believes that production of such private information will expose him to potential liability from
9
third-party tenants for privacy rights violations.
10
In response, Plaintiffs explain that they are not interested in the personal financial
11
information of third-party tenants. Instead, they primarily seek information regarding tenant
12
ages, the number and ages of any tenant’s children, and any complaints in the tenant files.
13
The Court finds that any concerns regarding third-party personal financial information
14
can be resolved by redaction of third-party personal financial information from the relevant
15
records. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to Requests for Production 1, 2, 4 and 19 is
16
GRANTED. As discussed at the hearing, Defendant Nunez shall redact Social Security numbers
17
and third-party personal financial information from the responsive tenant records. Thereafter,
18
Defendant Nunez shall produce the redacted records to Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of the
19
date of this order.
20
B.
HOPA Compliance
21
1.
Background Information
22
According to the joint statement, Cypress Estates is a senior living complex in which a
23
maximum of 20% of tenants under age 55 are allowed. The individual plaintiffs claim that they
24
were never asked for age verification and no member of their families is age 55 or older.
25
Defendant asserts that the individual plaintiffs were sent to Cypress Estates by the City of
26
Reedley because their apartment building was condemned. Defendants reportedly accepted
27
Plaintiffs at the request of the City.
28
4
1
2.
2
3
Request Number 25: All occupancy surveys, affidavits or other documents
prepared or obtained by defendants with the purpose of verifying the ages of
residents at the Cypress Estates apartment complex.
4
3.
5
Response: OBJECTION. The documents include the application; the lease
agreement; and verification of the information, by the manager. Responding party objects
to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive and over broad.
Responding party further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks third party
information that responding party cannot provide without said third party's knowledge
and consent, as it would violate their right of inalienable privacy. Any documents would
be in the possession of Cypress Estates, Inc., (4478 W. Spaatz Ave. Fresno, CA 93722),
and will not be produced without a court order. The plaintiff files will be produced.
6
7
8
Plaintiffs’ Request 25
Defendants’ Response
9
4.
Analysis
10
As with the previous requests for production, Defendant Nunez’ objections are overruled.
11
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a response to Request for Production 25 is GRANTED. Defendant
12
Nunez shall redact Social Security numbers and third-party personal financial information from
13
the requested records. Thereafter, Defendant Nunez shall produce the redacted records to
14
Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of the date of this order
15
C.
Defendants’ Financial Records
16
1.
Plaintiffs’ Requests 14-18
17
18
Request Number 14: A copy of any net worth statement prepared by or on behalf
of each defendant at any time since January 1, 2006, including but not limited to any loan
or credit applications.
19
20
Request Number 15: A copy of any appraisal conducted at any time since January
1, 2006 of any business or personal or real property owned by each defendant.
21
22
23
Request Number 16: A copy of all 2009 or 2010 year-end statements reflecting
the account number and balance of any accounts controlled by or accessible to each
defendant, including savings, checking, annuities, or mutual, stock or bond funds.
24
25
Request Number 17: A copy of all 2009 or 2010 year-end statements reflecting
the account number and balance of any loans or indebtedness of each defendant,
including but not limited to mortgages, vehicle or boat loans, or tax liens.
26
27
28
Request Number 18: A copy of schedule C to each individual defendants’ most
recent IRS income tax return, as filed by the defendant, and a copy of the most recent IRS
income tax return for Cypress Estates, Inc.
5
1
2.
Defendants’ Responses
2
With the exception of Request 15, Defendants submitted the same response to each
3
request as follows:
4
7
Response: OBJECTION. In addition to the general objections set forth above,
responding party objects to this request to the extent that it violates responding party's
inalienable right to privacy guaranteed by the California Constitution, Article I, § 1, and
also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (Griswold v. State of Connecticut (1965) 381
U.S. 479, 484, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 1681; Palay v. Sup. Ct. (County of Los Angeles) (1993) 18
CA4th 919, 931, 22 CR2d 839, 847.).
8
In response to Request 15, Defendants included an additional objection, stating:
9
“Responding party also objects on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant and not
5
6
10
likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
11
3.
12
As discussed at the hearing, the parties have agreed to allow Defendants to file a motion
Analysis
13
for protective order regarding the requested financial information and Defendants intend to file a
14
motion to strike the punitive damage allegation in the complaint. Therefore, the Court defers
15
ruling on this portion of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel pending resolution of the impending motion
16
for protective order.
17
CONCLUSION
18
Based on the above, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to Requests for Production 1,
19
2, 4, 19 and 25 is GRANTED. Defendant Nunez shall redact Social Security numbers and third-
20
party personal financial information and produce the requested documents within thirty (30) days
21
of the date of this order.
22
Further, the Court defers ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to Requests for
23
Production 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, pending resolution of Defendants’ anticipated motions for
24
protective order and to strike the punitive damages allegation.
25
26
27
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 24, 2011
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
6
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
