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 GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENAS
Re: Dkt. No. 168
Plaintiff Andrew Hunt moves to quash defendants’ subpoenas to Lakeside Pharmacy and
Oroville Pharmacy or for a protective order. Dkt. No. 168 (“Mot.”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the
hearing set for July 17, 2026.
On April 2, 2026, defendant Sunrise served written discovery on plaintiff. Dkt. No. 180-1
(“McCullough Decl.”) ¶ 2 & Ex. A. Among other things, defendant sought the name and address
of all pharmacies where plaintiff obtained prescription medicines or vaccines between 2018 and
2023 and sought production of all pharmacy records, prescription histories, and medication
dispending records for plaintiff from 2018 to present. Id. at Exs. A, B. Plaintiff’s responses were
due May 4, 2026. On May 4, 2026, plaintiff contacted defense counsel asking for a one-week
extension of time to respond, and defendants agreed. McCullough Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. On May 11, 2026,
plaintiff served his discovery responses, objecting to nearly all of the requests and producing no
documents. Id. ¶ 7 & Ex. C.
On May 20, 2026, defendants served subpoenas on Oroville Pharmacy and Lakeside
Pharmacy, requesting production of:
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 198 Filed 07/14/26 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
Any and all medical records and related documents of any kind or nature
which relate to any treatment, evaluation, diagnosis, surgery, appointment
or visit of any kind of Andrew H. Hunt, DOB: [redacted], by or with any
physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, chiropractor, acupuncturist, physical
therapist, pharmacist or other health care provider, including, but not
limited to, all charts, notes, audio or video recordings, X-rays, MRIs,
insurance records, laboratory results, test results, medication records,
pharmacy records, billing information, correspondence or other documents
in any way relating to medical treatment, evaluation or diagnosis of any
kind, whether paper or electronic, from January 1, 2018 to the present.
Dkt. Nos. 168-2, 168-3. The subpoenas sought production by June 9, 2026. Fact discovery cut-off
was May 29, 2026. Dkt. No. 139 at 4. On June 16, 2026, after plaintiff filed his motion to quash,
the Court ruled on the parties’ “tenth” discovery dispute, overruling plaintiff’s objection that certain
discovery requests for his medical information were not relevant or proportional and ordering that
plaintiff provide substantive responses on some of the same information now sought in the
subpoenas. See Dkt. No. 175.
In his motion to quash, plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are untimely and also that they
are overbroad and disproportionate and invade his medical privacy. In the alternative, plaintiff seeks
a protective order limiting production to “narrowly tailored, non-privileged, non-private information
subject to appropriate safeguards.” Mot. at 1. Plaintiff states that in email communications with
defense counsel, defendants offered to narrow the scope of what is sought in the subpoenas, but
plaintiff avers that this is not the proper procedure and that defendants must withdraw the subpoenas
and issue new ones.
Defendants respond that any problems with timing are because plaintiff “ran out the clock
for Defendants to subpoena and obtain his pharmacy records before the discovery cut-off” by asking
for a one-week extension to respond to discovery requests and then by responding only with
objections. Dkt. No. 180 (“Opp’n”) at 3. In opposing the motion, defendants request “that discovery
be reopened for the limited purposes of allowing Defendants to subpoena records from any
pharmacy or health care provider identified by Plaintiff in response to the Court order compelling
such information.” Id.1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a party may serve a subpoena upon a non-
1 Both parties agree that Oroville Pharmacy is no longer in business, so the only subpoena
still in dispute is the one to Lakeside Pharmacy. See Mot. at 3; Opp’n at 2 n.1, 7.
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 198 Filed 07/14/26 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
party, commanding the non-party to “produce designated documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things in that person’s possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(a)(1)(A)(iii). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 also provides that a court must quash a
subpoena that, among other things, “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if
no exception or waiver applies,” or “subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(c)(3)(A)(iii), (iv). “Generally speaking, a party to an action does not have standing to move to
quash a subpoena served upon a nonparty unless the party claims a personal right or privilege with
respect to the documents requested in the subpoena.” Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Inc.,
No. 17-cv-04165-MMC (RMI), 2019 WL 2499710, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2019). The party
moving to quash a subpoena bears the burden of persuasion. In re Apple Inc., No. MISC 12-80013
JW, 2012 WL 1570043, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2012); Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633,
637 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
The Court agrees with plaintiff that the subpoena request was overbroad but also overrules
any timeliness objections. The Court finds the timeliness objections invalid in light of plaintiff’s
request for an extension of time to respond to the discovery requests and his subsequent responses
consisting mainly of objections. Although it is true that defendants could have issued the subpoenas
to the pharmacy on its own, it is also the case that the Court subsequently found plaintiff’s objections
to the discovery requests defendants issued to him were not valid. See Dkt. No. 175. Following the
Court’s discovery order, plaintiff finally served supplemental responses on June 22, 2026,
identifying Lakeside Pharmacy as responsive to defendants’ request. See Opp’n at 7; McCullough
Decl. ¶ 17. If plaintiff had provided this simple response by the original deadline of May 4, 2026,
defendants could have subpoenaed Lakeside Pharmacy several weeks earlier.
As to the breadth of the subpoena, the attached communications indicate that defendants
offered to “write to the pharmacies clarifying that only vaccine and prescription medication records
are responsive to the subpoenas, and nothing other than vaccine and prescription medication records
should be produced.” Dkt. No. 168-4 at 2. The attached e-mails do not indicate that plaintiff
provided any response to this offer other than to object that defendants “would need to revoke the
prior subpoena and reissue the new one” but that this could not be done because of the discovery
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 198 Filed 07/14/26 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
cut-off. Id. at 1. The Court finds defendants’ e-mail offer to narrow the scope of the subpoenas to
be reasonable.
Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS IN PART plaintiff’s motion
to quash the subpoenas issued to Oroville Pharmacy and Lakeside Pharmacy on May 20, 2026. The
original subpoenas shall be quashed, but the Court will permit defendants to re-issue a more
narrowly tailored subpoena to Lakeside Pharmacy. The Court ORDERS that discovery is hereby
re-opened for the limited purpose of allowing defendants to subpoena records from Lakeside
Pharmacy, subject to defendants narrowing the scope of the documents sought to encompass only
plaintiff’s vaccine and prescription medication records for the relevant period.
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), and the further dispute
regarding the Tenth Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No. 182), in which the parties did not file any further
statement by the July 10, 2026 deadline set by the Court. See Dkt. No. 186 at 3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 14, 2026
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-06441-SI Document 198 Filed 07/14/26 Page 4 of 4