Axelrod v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDREW AXELROD, et al., Case No. 21-cv-06770-JSW

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY ORDER ON JOINT LETTER BRIEF AT 10 LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., DOCKET 180 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 180-181, 183 11

12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is Lenovo (United States) Inc.’s (“Lenovo”) 14 motion for review of Magistrate Judge Illman’s Order compelling it to provide supplemental 15 responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production 75. (See Dkt. No. 181, Order on Discovery 16 Disputes at 5:9-6:9.) The issue is whether Lenovo should be required to produce communications 17 relating to changes in its pricing policies after it changed to using “Est Value” on its website. 18 A District Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s orders is governed by Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 72. Under Rule 72(a), a district court may reconsider a magistrate judge’s non- 20 dispositive order “only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. 21 Apple, Inc., 34 F.4th 801, 804 (9th Cir. 2022). In evaluating an order under the “clearly erroneous 22 or contrary to law” standard, the Court does not consider whether it may have “weighed 23 differently the various interests and equities,” but instead only whether the order is contrary to the 24 law. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 25 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to 26 the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 27 access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance 1 Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in 5 evidence to be discoverable.

3 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 4 The Court has carefully reviewed and considered the parties’ arguments, the underlying 5 || discovery dispute, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case. The Court concludes that 6 || and it concludes that Judge Illman’s ruling is neither clearly erroneous nor an abuse of discretion. 7 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES Lenovo’s motion. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. a | 9 || Dated: June 7, 2024 f | / I } 10 LAS JEFFREY} S/ WHIT United jAtes Distyft Judge 12 Lf

2B

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28