Hunt v. Sunrise Operations LLC

Background

Andrew Hunt and defendants The Pasha Group (TPG) and Sunrise Operations, LLC filed two discovery-dispute statements. TPG argued that some discovery was outside the case because it was not Hunt’s joint employer. TPG also argued that broader questions about its policies and decisions should be limited unless Hunt showed that those policies were applied to him. TPG proposed a first phase of discovery limited to whether it was a joint employer.

The Pasha Group’s Discovery

The court found that TPG had unreasonably withheld discovery responses. The court stated that whether TPG was Hunt’s joint employer was a factual issue for resolution on summary judgment or at trial, and was not a proper reason to withhold relevant discovery at that stage. The court also found that TPG had waited too long to request phased discovery.

The court ordered TPG to respond to the requested discovery and produce a witness under Rule 30(b)(6), including on the disputed topics. TPG may redact identifying information for third parties from responses that disclose sensitive third-party medical or religious information, but must retain enough information for Hunt to understand the grounds for the accommodation request and the response.

Sunrise Operations’ Discovery

The court ordered Sunrise to provide the requested discovery without limiting its responses to employees who belonged to the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, Hunt’s union. The court found that how Sunrise responded to accommodation requests concerning the COVID-19 vaccine requirement was relevant to Sunrise’s undue-hardship defense, even though mariners on the vessel came from three different unions.

For Request for Production No. 24, concerning Sunrise employees’ COVID-19 vaccination rate, the court ordered Sunrise to respond to the best of its ability. The supplied opinion text is incomplete as to the remainder of the limitation following the statement that Sunrise would not be required to produce something. Sunrise may redact identifying information for third parties from its responses.

The court ordered Sunrise to respond to Request for Production No. 26, seeking documents showing the number of employees unable to serve a shipboard tour because of COVID-19 infection. The court found that information relevant to Hunt’s claim that Sunrise unreasonably refused his request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement and found that Sunrise had identified no burden from responding.

For Special Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 13, the court found that no further action was needed at that time. If Sunrise located versions of its COVID-19 policy from before the May 2021 version, it had to produce them immediately. The court did not order further action because those earlier versions would not have been in effect when Hunt was terminated in December 2021. The court also found Special Interrogatory No. 13 duplicative of No. 4.

Privilege Log

The court ordered Sunrise to state whether it was withholding privileged documents based on objections and, if so, provide a privilege log. A privilege log is a list describing withheld materials sufficiently to allow the opposing party and court to evaluate the privilege claim without revealing the protected information.

The court found Sunrise’s one-page privilege log inadequate. It ordered Sunrise to revise the log to include, at minimum, a description of the withheld material; the author’s identity and position; the date written; the identities and positions of the people involved; the privilege asserted; and the grounds for asserting it. The court specifically noted that the existing log used a date range described only as “various” and did not adequately identify certain participants or communications. The court also noted that the basis for claiming privilege in communications with TPG’s executive counsel was unclear, given TPG’s and Sunrise’s emphasis that they were separate legal entities.

Disposition and Deadlines

TPG’s required responses and witness production, and Sunrise’s required responses and revised privilege log, were due within two weeks of the order. The court declined to order sanctions at that time. The case-management conference remained scheduled for December 19, 2025, and the parties could file their joint statement by December 17, 2025.