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 RE: “TENTH” DISCOVERY
DISPUTE
Re: Dkt. No. 167
Now pending before the Court is what the parties have labeled as their tenth discovery
dispute. Dkt. No. 167. The Court has resolved eight prior discovery disputes.1 See Dkt. Nos. 103,
111, 112, 122, 134, 135, 158, 160. Fact discovery closed May 29, 2026. Dkt. No. 140. The parties
have filed dispositive motions that are in the process of being briefed. Trial is set for October 5,
2026. Dkt. No. 130.
In this case, plaintiff Andrew Hunt, an Orthodox Christian, alleges that defendants refused
to consider accommodating his religious beliefs against receiving the Covid-19 vaccine and that he
was terminated as a result. He brings this action for religious discrimination under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
With the present dispute, defendants ask the Court “to compel Plaintiff to provide code
compliant responses to one Request for Admission, one Interrogatory, and two Request[s] for
Production.”2 Id. at 2. The discovery requests pertain to plaintiff’s vaccine history, prescription
1 The “ninth” discovery dispute is not yet ripe. See Dkt. Nos. 165, 166, 169.
2 It appears from the discovery dispute statement that there are three RFPs at issue.
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 175 Filed 06/16/26 Page 1 of 4

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
medications, and medical treatment.3 Plaintiff argues that he has already provided code compliant
responses and that that is enough. Id. at 4.
At a high level, the Court agrees with defendants that plaintiff “has put his use of vaccines
and similarly developed medications directly at issue in this case.” Id. at 2. Defendants have
excerpted the statement plaintiff submitted in support of his vaccine exemption request, which states
his objection that “[t]he COVID-19 shots from Moderna and Pfizer contain synthetic mRNA and a
myriad of other foreign materials . . . .” Id. Defendants are entitled to discovery to test the sincerity
of plaintiff’s beliefs. Additionally, defendants have indicated, and plaintiff does not dispute, that in
order to be eligible to sail, mariners such as plaintiff must report all of their medications on a form
submitted to the United States Coast Guard and that the use of certain medications is disqualifying.
Id. at 2 & n.1 (see Form CG-719K, at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/forms/
CG_719K.pdf).
The Court now rules as follows.
Request for Admission, Set 2, No. 17: Defendants asked plaintiff to authenticate what they
understand to be plaintiff’s International Certificate of Vaccination, provided by a third party. In
response, plaintiff stated his objections and then summarily “denie[d] the Request.” Dkt. No. 167-
1, Ex. A at 3. The Court finds plaintiff’s barebones denial does not meet the standard set forth in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4), which states,
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or
state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny
it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and
when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only
a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and
qualify or deny the rest. . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4); see also Marchand v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 22 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 1994)
(“. . . to aid the quest for relevant information parties should not seek to evade disclosure by
quibbling and objection. They should admit to the fullest extent possible, and explain in detail why
3 Separately, plaintiff has moved to quash subpoenas to two pharmacies for his medical
records. Dkt. No. 168. That motion is not yet fully briefed and is set for a hearing next month.
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 175 Filed 06/16/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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
other portions of a request may not be admitted.”).
The Court ORDERS plaintiff to supplement his answer to RFA, Set 2, No. 17, no later than
June 19, 2026.
Interrogatories, Set 3, No. 20: Defendants asked plaintiff to identify the pharmacies from
which he obtained prescription medicines or vaccines between 2018 and 2023. Dkt. No. 167-2, Ex.
B. Plaintiff’s supplemental response states that he “does not recall obtaining any prescription
medicines or vaccines from any pharmacy between 2018 and 2023. Nor does Plaintiff believe that
he obtained any prescription medicines or vaccines from a pharmacy during that time period.” Id.
at 4. Defendant asks that plaintiff “be required to provide a response either identifying his
medications and vaccines or stating in a verified response that he took none for the identified time
period.” Dkt. No. 167 at 3. Defendant notes that plaintiff “disclosed (or should have disclosed)
medications he takes in the process of applying to the Coast Guard for a new medical certificate last
year.” Id.
The Court finds that the information sought in this interrogatory is relevant and not unduly
burdensome or harassing. The Court further finds plaintiff’s response to be sufficiently evasive and
equivocal to warrant further supplementation. Answers in discovery “must be responsive, full,
complete and unevasive.” Pilling v. Gen. Motors Corp., 45 F.R.D. 366, 369 (D. Utah 1968). “In
responding to an interrogatory a party cannot unreasonably limit his answer to matters within his
own knowledge and ignore information immediately available to him or under his control.” Id.
The Court ORDERS plaintiff to conduct a diligent search to respond to this interrogatory.
No later than June 19, 2026, plaintiff shall supplement his response by either identifying the
pharmacies from which he obtained prescription medicines or vaccines between 2018 and 2023, or
else he shall state in a verified response that he took none during the identified time period. By that
same date, plaintiff shall also produce a copy of any Form CG-719K or equivalent that he submitted
to the United States Coast Guard from 2018 to present.
Defendant Sunrise’s Requests for Production, Set Five, Nos. 125-127: As to the medical
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 175 Filed 06/16/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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
records sought in these RFPs, plaintiff states that his counsel and prior defense counsel reached an
agreement regarding these document requests last year and objects that he should not have to
respond again. At the same time, plaintiff states that “he was unable to locate responsive
documents.” Dkt. No. 167 at 5. Defendants say that after numerous meet and confers, this discovery
dispute statement is the first time current counsel has heard of such an agreement and that nothing
has been produced.
The Court first notes that this dispute should have been resolvable through further meet and
confer. In the interests of moving this case along, the Court ORDERS that plaintiff re-produce his
responses, produce any responsive documents, and produce any agreements/communications
reached with prior counsel regarding these RFPs no later than June 19, 2026. If plaintiff did
already respond to these requests, it should not be particularly burdensome for him to re-produce
his responses. The Court OVERRULES plaintiff’s objections based on timeliness. The Court
further OVERRULES plaintiff’s objection that the request for his medical information is not
relevant or proportional, given that plaintiff has put his medical and vaccination history at issue in
this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 16, 2026
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 175 Filed 06/16/26 Page 4 of 4