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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUREKA DIVISION
ANDREW AXELROD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 21-cv-06770-JSW (RMI)
ORDER ON DISCOVERY LETTER
BRIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 319
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena to
Non-Party Hattis & Lukacs (dkt. 319). Both Defendant Lenovo and Non-Pary Hattis Lukacs &
Corrington have filed oppositions to the Motion (dkts. 325 & 327.) The court finds that this matter
is suitable for determination on the papers. See L. R. 7-1(b). For the reasons that follow the
Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks to compel certain documents from the law firm of Hattis Lukacs
& Corrington in relation to its representation of a certain person.1 As to Defendant Lenovo, they
oppose the Motion on the basis that the information sought is not relevant, or at least not relevant
enough to overcome the “heightened showing” requirement that such requested documents
require. (See generally, Def. Lenovo’s Resp., dkt. 325.) However, Lenovo’s foray into this matter
by way of filing an opposition to the Motion to Compel is awry. That is, Lenovo’s options to
oppose this subpoena are moving to quash or moving for a protective order.2 And even then,
1 The court is using purposefully obtuse language so as not to require the sealing of this Order since the
court is granting the attendant motions to seal the unredacted papers in this dispute.
2This is so because if Hattis & Lukacs had complied with the subpoena, this Motion and Lenovo’s
opposition would not exist.
Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 343 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
they would need to first establish standing by claiming a personal right or privilege. See In re
Uber Techs., Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., No. 23-MD-03084-CRB (LJC), 2024 WL
3416644, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2024) (“Generally speaking, a party to an action does not have
standing to move to quash a subpoena served upon a nonparty unless the party claims a personal
right or privilege with respect to the documents requested in the subpoena.” (citation omitted)).
Even were the court to treat Lenovo’s Opposition as a properly filed motion, and find that they had
established standing, the court finds the relevance objection unavailing. For the same reasons stated
within the mostly redacted portion of Plaintiffs’ Reply regarding relevancy (see dkt. 333, 335-3),
the court finds that these documents are sufficiently relevant over Lenovo’s objections. In addition,
the court finds that the documents can be produced pursuant to a protective order to assuage any
confidentiality concerns.
As to the Opposition filed by Hattis Lukacs & Corrington, the firm merely joins Lenovo’s
improper opposition, stands on its original objections, and reiterates “that the attorney-client
privilege or the work-product doctrine prohibits or circumscribes Plaintiffs’ requests.” (Non-Party
Opp'n., dkt 327.) First, the Motion at hand seeks an Order requiring Hattis Lukacs & Corrington to
produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 1-4 and 6-9. Second, “[t]he burden
of proving that the privilege applies lies with the party asserting the privilege.” United States v.
ChevronTexaco Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2002). The Opposition does not
meet this burden. Additionally, the materials may be produced subject to a protective order to
maintain their confidentiality.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Hattis Lukacs & Corrington shall
produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 1-4 and 6-9 appended to the Rule
45 Subpoena dated June 11, 2025, within 15 business days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 3, 2025
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 343 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 2