Hunt v. Sunrise Operations LLC

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 AS MOOT NINTH
DISCOVERY DISPUTE STATEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 165
On June 5, 2026, the parties filed their ninth discovery dispute statement regarding
defendants’ responses to discovery requests plaintiff served following depositions of the Rule
30(b)(6) witnesses of defendants Sunrise and Pasha. Dkt. No. 165. Plaintiff filed the discovery
dispute “[i]n order to preserve Plaintiff’s right to file a motion to compel, . . . should Defendant not
comply with the parties’ agreement regarding the outstanding discovery disputes.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff
further stated: “Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to hold off on ruling, as Plaintiff believes
that a lot, if not all of these issues will be resolved when Defendant provides the responses and
documents it says are forthcoming. Plaintiff will follow up with the Court if any items remain
outstanding after June 11, 2026.” Id. at 3. On June 12, 2026, plaintiff’s counsel filed a statement
that “Defendant’s counsel has resolved some of the outstanding issues” and “has requested more
time to produce the remaining responsive documents.” Dkt. No. 169 ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiff’s counsel
further stated, “Plaintiff’s counsel is hopeful that these documents will be produced quickly and, if
so, will withdraw the letter brief.” Id. ¶ 6. Neither side has filed any follow-up on the ninth
discovery dispute since June 12.
In all, the Court has resolved nine discovery dispute statements and one motion to quash in
this case. The fact discovery cut-off was May 29, 2026. Dkt. No. 139 at 4. In its July 14, 2026
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 213 Filed 07/29/26 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
Order granting in part plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoenas, the Court observed:
Like many of the discovery disputes in this case, this one should have
been resolved without judicial involvement. Such behavior wastes
both the Court’s time and the clients’ resources. Because the Court
has now been required to rule on nine discovery disputes and a motion
to quash that defendants say was not properly raised through the meet-
and confer-process, the Court hereby ORDERS that the parties may
not file further discovery disputes, motions to compel, or motions to
quash unless they have met and conferred in good faith, in person
prior to filing any such dispute with the Court. This includes any
further disputes regarding the Ninth Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No.
165), which plaintiff has indicated is not yet ripe (Dkt. No. 168). . . .
Dkt. No. 198 at 4.
In light of the July 14, 2026 Order and the fact that plaintiff has filed no follow-up to the
Ninth Discovery Dispute since June 12, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Ninth Discovery
Dispute at Dkt No. 165 be DENIED AS MOOT. Should any dispute remain, the parties shall re-
file a new statement that complies in all respects with this Court’s Standing Order on discovery
disputes and with the July 14, 2026 Order requiring a good faith, in person meet and confer effort
prior to filing any further discovery disputes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2026
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 213 Filed 07/29/26 Page 2 of 2