I have an intuition that one can derive the principle of sufficient reason from the law of identity or non-contradiction but i don't know how. If someone knows I'd like some help.
Maybe, but then only trivially.
One could argue that the Law of Identity is that for every A, A → A.
One could also argue that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is that for every B, there is an A such that A → B.
And then, for any given A, "For every B, there is an A such that A → B" reduces to "For every A, there is an A such that A → A". Which is true, if only trivially.
However, this also says that if you had to consider some fact in isolation, then it would have to be its own sufficient reason.
What we call facts are generally not isolated and so this doesn't apply to them. However, this applies to one fact we know is isolated by definition.
In this case, the Principle of Sufficient Reason requires that this fact be its own sufficient reason.
Then, if you accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason, you have to accept that a fact which is isolated by definition be its own sufficient reason.
And if you don't accept that a fact which is isolated by definition is its own sufficient reason, then you have to reject the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
This, assuming that there is at least one fact which is isolated by definition, which seems true, and assuming the twin interpretations of identity and sufficient reason given above, which we are all free to accept or reject.