Andrew Hunt v. Sunrise Operations LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-06441
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDREW HUNT, Case No. 23-cv-06441-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 111, 112 10 SUNRISE OPERATIONS LLC, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Andrew Hunt and defendants The Pasha Group and Sunrise Operations, LLC have 14 filed two discovery dispute statements. Dkt. Nos. 111, 112. These are the second and third 15 discovery dispute letters in this case. See also Dkt. No. 106. 16 17 Dispute with The Pasha Group (Dkt. No. 111) 18 Plaintiff argues that The Pasha Group (TPG) has unilaterally withheld certain discovery 19 responses and has not produced a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent for certain topics on the grounds that TPG 20 was not a joint employer of plaintiff and therefore the discovery is outside the scope of this case. 21 TPG responds that it “has already participated in Plaintiff’s discovery directed to the threshold 22 question under both Title VII and FEHA—whether TPG jointly employed Plaintiff[.]” Dkt. No. 23 111 at 3. TPG contests “broader questioning about TPG’s policies and decisions, absent proof that 24 they were ever applied to Plaintiff.” Id. at 4. TPG also “proposes that, to the extent any discovery 25 remains, it should proceed in a brief Phase 1 limited to the threshold joint-employer issue . . . .” Id. 26 at 5. 27 The Court finds that TPG has unreasonably been withholding discovery responses. TPG has 1 fact (i.e., whether TPG was a joint employer) that should be resolved on summary judgment or even 2 at trial. These are not appropriate bases to withhold relevant discovery at this stage of the case. 3 Although TPG’s proposal to engage in tiered discovery on the joint-employer question is not on its 4 face unreasonable, TPG sat on its heels for too long. On May 3, 2024, in a case management 5 conference statement, TPG stated, “TPG anticipates filing a dispositive motion on the limited issues 6 of the employment relationship between Plaintiff and TPG, as well as a [sic] non-employer TPG’s 7 lack of involvement in the decision to refrain from granting Plaintiff an exemption from the 8 requirement to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to sail.” Dkt. No. 29 at 4. To date, TPG has 9 brought no such motion nor has it requested a tiered discovery process until the current discovery 10 dispute. The time to ask for tiered discovery would have been a year ago, when TPG was already 11 making this threshold argument, not now, with fact discovery set to close shortly. 12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS TPG to respond to the requested discovery. TPG shall 13 also produce a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, including on the topics in dispute. To the extent that the 14 discovery responses would disclose “sensitive third-party medical and religious information[,]” Dkt. 15 No. 111 at 4, TPG may redact identifying information of third parties but shall retain enough 16 information for plaintiff to discern the grounds for the accommodation request and the response. 17 18 Dispute With Sunrise Operations, LLC (Dkt. No. 112) 19 Plaintiff and defendant Sunrise Operations LLC have listed numerous discovery disputes in 20 their letter. Dkt. No. 112. The Court has reviewed the parties’ letter, including the attached 21 discovery requests and responses. The Court now rules as follows. 22 First, Sunrise is ordered to provide the requested discovery without limiting its responses to 23 only those employees who were members of MEBA (plaintiff’s union). Even if the mariners on the 24 vessel came from three different unions, how Sunrise responded to all requests for accommodation 25 regarding the Covid-19 vaccine requirement is relevant to Sunrise’s undue hardship defense. 26 However, with regard to RFP No. 24, which requests the Covid-19 vaccination rate of Sunrise’s 27 employees, Sunrise shall respond to this to the best of its ability but shall not be required to produce 1 If any responses would disclose sensitive third-party information, Sunrise may redact identifying 2 information of third parties. 3 Second, the Court orders Sunrise to respond to RFP No. 26, which seeks documents showing 4 the number of employees who were unable to serve a tour of duty on board ship due to Covid-19 5 infection. See Dkt. No. 112-3 at 15. The Court disagrees with Sunrise that this information is 6 “immaterial[.]” See Dkt. No. 112 at 4. Rather, it is relevant to plaintiff’s theory, which is that 7 Sunrise unreasonably refused to accommodate his request for a religious exemption from the Covid- 8 19 vaccine requirement. Sunrise has identified no burden that will befall it from responding to this 9 question. Sunrise is ordered to respond. 10 In response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 13, the Court agrees with Sunrise that no 11 further action is needed. If Sunrise locates versions of its Covid-19 policy prior to the May 2021 12 version, it shall produce them to plaintiff immediately. But because earlier versions of the policy 13 would not have been in effect at the time of plaintiff’s December 2021 termination, the Court will 14 not order further action at this time. The Court also agrees with Sunrise that Special Interrogatory 15 No. 13 is duplicative of No. 4. 16 Sunrise shall state whether it is withholding any privileged documents on the basis of 17 objections and, if it is, shall provide a privilege log. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C) (“An objection 18 must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An 19 objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.”). With respect 20 to RFP No. 34 in particular, which is in dispute, Sunrise’s response implies that it is withholding 21 such documents. 22 Finally, the Court orders Sunrise to revise its privilege log. The one-page privilege log that 23 Sunrise provided is inadequate to “describe the nature of the . . . communications . . . in a manner 24 that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess 25 the claim.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Other district courts within the Ninth Circuit have 26 required that privilege logs contain “[1] a description of responsive material withheld, [2] the 27 identity and position of its author, [3] the date it was written, [4] the identity and position of all 1 withheld, including the privilege invoked and grounds thereof.” Friends of Hope Valley v. Frederick 2 Co., 268 F.R.D. 643, 650-51 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citation omitted). What Sunrise provided here is a 3 || bare-bones chart that lists the date range as “various” and lists “parties to the communications” as 4 between (1) Amy Sherburne-Manning, Executive Counsel for TPG, and (2) either a law firm whose 5 identity/client is unknown or Edward Washburn, Sunrise VP. See Dkt. No. 112-4. This level of 6 || detail is insufficient to allow plaintiff or the Court to assess the privilege claim. Moreover, it is 7 unclear why Sunrise would have a claim of privilege in its communications with Sherburne- 8 Manning, who works for TPG, when both TPG and Sunrise have gone to such lengths to emphasize 9 that they are separate legal entities. The Court orders Sunrise to revise its privilege log to include, 10 at minimum, the information enumerated above. 11 12 CONCLUSION 5 13 TPG’s responses as outlined above are due within two weeks of the date of this Order. 14 Sunrise’s responses and revised privilege log as outlined above are due within two weeks of the date 3 15 of this Order. The Court declines to order sanctions at this time. 16 The case management conference before the undersigned Judge remains on calendar for 3 17 December 19, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. The parties may have until December 17, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. to 18 file their joint case management conference statement. If the parties have settled, they may ask the 19 Court to vacate the case management conference. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: October 31, 2025 Site WU tee 23 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 25 26 27 28