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
FURTHER ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTES
On April 2, 2026, the Court issued an order resolving certain discovery disputes and ordering
that defendants provide for in camera review certain documents over which defendants claimed
attorney-client privilege. Dkt. No. 143. On April 3, 2026, defendants provided the materials to the
Court as ordered. In dispute are defendant The Pasha Group’s privilege log entry #3 and defendant
Sunrise Operations LLC’s revised privilege log entries #3, 5, 6-2, and 8.1
Regarding The Pasha Group’s privilege log entry #3, the Court finds that this chart of
individuals who requested exemptions from the vaccine requirement is not covered by the attorney-
client privilege and should be produced. The chart indicates who requested medical and/or religious
exemptions and what happened with their employment, i.e., whether the person was ultimately
terminated or not. This information is highly relevant to plaintiff’s theory that defendants
discriminated against him by refusing to accommodate his religious exemption request and that
others were permitted to remain or come aboard while unvaccinated.
Regarding Sunrise’s revised privilege log entries, the Court agrees these are covered by the
1 Initially, Sunrise’s revised privilege log entries #3-8 were in dispute. Defendants’ recent
communication with the Court indicates that Sunrise has supplemented its production and has
produced the communications at issue in #4, a portion of #6, and #7.
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 144 Filed 04/07/26 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
attorney-client privilege and will not order the production of the communications that are still at
issue, in entries #3, 5, 6-2, and 8. Regarding entry #8, the Court makes this ruling with the
understanding that defendants have already produced the email thread between Claudia Cimini and
Edward Washburn and only seek to redact the email between Ed Washburn and Amy Sherburne-
Manning dated November 23, 2021, at 6:05 AM. The Court will not order the production of the
email between Ed Washburn and Amy Sherburne-Manning in entry #8.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2026
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 144 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 2