3:23-cv-06441•Hunt v. Sunrise Operations LLC
Full text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANDREW HUNT, Plaintiff, v. SUNRISE OPERATIONS LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 23-cv-06441-SI ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY REQUEST AND REQUIRING FURTHER MEET AND CONFER Re: Dkt. Nos. 122, 123 Plaintiff Andrew Hunt has filed a separate discovery dispute statement that does not comply with the undersigned’s Standing Order on discovery disputes. See Dkt. No. 122. This is the fourth discovery dispute in this case. See Dkt. Nos. 103, 111, 112. Plaintiff’s most recent filing exceeds two pages in length, whereas the Standing Order provides that a separate discovery dispute statement (as opposed to a statement filed jointly) is limited to two pages or less. See Dkt. No. 122; Judge Illston’s Standing Order ¶ 3. Moreover, the Court finds the meet and confer efforts inadequate. Plaintiff’s statement indicates the parties met for “over half an hour” on December 12, 2025. Defendant has filed an administrative motion requesting until next week to submit a substantive response. Dkt. No. 123. Defendant’s motion indicates that plaintiff filed his separate statement after reaching out to defendant on December 29 and demanding a response by December 31, during a week when defense counsel was out of the office for the holidays. The Court finds the meet and confer efforts were insufficient before plaintiff submitted this dispute to the Court. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s request for a discovery order, without prejudice. The Court DENIES AS MOOT defendant’s request for an extension of time to respond. The Court ORDERS the parties to engage in good faith meet and confer efforts regarding the present disputes. Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 125 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 2
2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California The parties shall meet for at least one hour—in person, by telephone, or over videoconference. Only after a good faith effort to meet and confer may the parties re-file another dispute statement, which shall comply in all respects with the undersigned’s Standing Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 8, 2026 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 125 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 2
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.