The attorney for the landlords in a housing discrimination lawsuit involving a local veteran isn’t backing down after the city protested his request for a wide array of documents.

Though attorney Bruce Hanson agreed with the city that the documents — including health, employment and military records, as well as drug screenings and diary entries — be confidential, he contends the city should be responsible for providing them.

“Defendants are entitled to review evidence which supports the underlying facts claimed in the petition,” Hanson’s response states. “Defendants are entitled to obtain evidence which supports their affirmative defenses.”

The city claims Lawrence veteran Christopher Evans was discriminated against based on his mental disability and use of an “emotional support dog,” but attorneys for the landlords have denied both claims.

At issue is whether the landlords, Lyndon and Kathi Mullis, of Baldwin City, violated local ordinance and federal fair housing law when they allegedly rejected Evans’ rental application. According to the city’s claim, Evans’ application was rejected based on the pet policy at Ashbury Townhomes, 925 E. 14th St.

The protection request filed by the city last month states the scope of the document request was “overly burdensome, intended to harass plaintiffs, and would needlessly increase the costs of litigation.” Hanson’s recent response requests that the court order the city to comply with the entirety of the document request. The response specifies that the records related to Evans and the dog should be provided by the city prior to trial.

The city’s protection request indicated that Evans would sign appropriate document releases if prepared by attorneys for the landlords. Hanson’s response opposed that procedure, stating it would “significantly increase the costs of litigation.”

The original lawsuit was filed Nov. 8 in Douglas County District Court by the City of Lawrence Human Relations Commission, and is seeking damages of more than $75,000, as well as reimbursement of court costs and attorney fees.

The landlords’ response to the city’s protection request was filed Jan. 6, and no other response has since been filed. The city previously requested an extension for the claim, and a court hearing for the lawsuit has yet to be scheduled.