Andrew Axelrod, et al. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 4:21-cv-06770
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 EUREKA DIVISION 6 7 ANDREW AXELROD, et al., Case No. 21-cv-06770-JSW (RMI) 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON DISCOVERY LETTER 9 v. BRIEF 10 LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Re: Dkt. No. 319 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena to 14 Non-Party Hattis & Lukacs (dkt. 319). Both Defendant Lenovo and Non-Pary Hattis Lukacs & 15 Corrington have filed oppositions to the Motion (dkts. 325 & 327.) The court finds that this matter 16 is suitable for determination on the papers. See L. R. 7-1(b). For the reasons that follow the 17 Motion is GRANTED. 18 Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks to compel certain documents from the law firm of Hattis Lukacs 19 & Corrington in relation to its representation of a certain person.1 As to Defendant Lenovo, they 20 oppose the Motion on the basis that the information sought is not relevant, or at least not relevant 21 enough to overcome the “heightened showing” requirement that such requested documents 22 require. (See generally, Def. Lenovo’s Resp., dkt. 325.) However, Lenovo’s foray into this matter 23 by way of filing an opposition to the Motion to Compel is awry. That is, Lenovo’s options to 24 oppose this subpoena are moving to quash or moving for a protective order.2 And even then, 25 26 1 The court is using purposefully obtuse language so as not to require the sealing of this Order since the 27 court is granting the attendant motions to seal the unredacted papers in this dispute. 1 they would need to first establish standing by claiming a personal right or privilege. See In re 2 Uber Techs., Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., No. 23-MD-03084-CRB (LJC), 2024 WL 3 3416644, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2024) (“Generally speaking, a party to an action does not have 4 standing to move to quash a subpoena served upon a nonparty unless the party claims a personal 5 || right or privilege with respect to the documents requested in the subpoena.” (citation omitted)). 6 || Even were the court to treat Lenovo’s Opposition as a properly filed motion, and find that they had 7 established standing, the court finds the relevance objection unavailing. For the same reasons statec 8 within the mostly redacted portion of Plaintiffs’ Reply regarding relevancy (see dkt. 333, 335-3), 9 || the court finds that these documents are sufficiently relevant over Lenovo’s objections. In addition. 10 || the court finds that the documents can be produced pursuant to a protective order to assuage any 11 confidentiality concerns. 12 As to the Opposition filed by Hattis Lukacs & Corrington, the firm merely joins Lenovo’s 5 13 improper opposition, stands on its original objections, and reiterates “that the attorney-client 14 || privilege or the work-product doctrine prohibits or circumscribes Plaintiffs’ requests.” (Non-Party 15 Opp'n., dkt 327.) First, the Motion at hand seeks an Order requiring Hattis Lukacs & Corrington to 16 || produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 1-4 and 6-9. Second, “[t]he burden 3 17 of proving that the privilege applies lies with the party asserting the privilege.” United States v. 18 ChevronTexaco Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2002). The Opposition does not 19 meet this burden. Additionally, the materials may be produced subject to a protective order to 20 || maintain their confidentiality. 21 Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Hattis Lukacs & Corrington shall 22 || produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 1-4 and 6-9 appended to the Rule 23 45 Subpoena dated June 11, 2025, within 15 business days of this order. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: November 3, 2025

27 28 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge