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. APPOINTMENT OF DISCOVERY REFEREE 10 LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Re: Dkt. No. 204 Defendant. 11

12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is Lenovo (United States) Inc.’s (“Lenovo”) 14 Administrative Motion for the Appointment of Discovery Referee. Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 53 requires that prior to appointment of a discovery referee, the Court make a 16 determination that no district judge or magistrate judge be is available to effectively and timely 17 address discovery matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1)(C). The appointment of a special master 18 should be the exception and not the rule. See Burlington N. R. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue of State of 19 Wash., 934 F.2d 1064, 1071 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 The Court has considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant legal authority in 21 connection with the many discovery disputes that have been raised throughout this case. The 22 Court will take one of the many issues referenced in Lenovo’s brief off the proverbial table. Only 23 one lawyer per side shall object during a deposition, which is consistent with this Court rules at 24 trial. 25 The Court did advise the parties that it would consider appointing a special master, but the 26 Court is persuaded that Magistrate Judge Illman can effectively and timely address the parties’ 27 discovery disputes. If, at any point, Judge Illman disagrees with that assessment, the Court will ] Accordingly, the Court DENIES Lenovo’s motion. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Dated: June 11, 2024 fo } lod 4 JEF $. WHITE|“ 5 United St tes Distrigt Judge i / i 8 9 10 1] as 12

13 «14

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