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
ANDREW AXELROD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 21-cv-06770-JSW
ORDER REGARDING OUTSTANDING
MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 391, 402, 449, 452, 477, 479
On September 4, 2026, the parties appeared before the Court for a hearing relating to the
their request for an injunction on alleged violations of the Protective Order. As part of the
briefing, Defendant asked for rulings on outstanding motions to seal. Those motions include the
docket numbers referenced in the caption.
On May 26, 2026, the Court denied the motions at docket numbers 391 and 402 without
prejudice and stated that the sealed materials would remain conditionally under seal. (Dkt. No.
411.) The Court further ordered “that no later than one week after Judge Illman rules on the
motion for sanctions and attendant motions to seal, Plaintiffs and Defendant shall meet and confer
and submit a joint motion to seal the briefs and exhibits relating to Defendant’s motion to enforce
the scheduling order. If the parties disagree on what materials should be sealed, they shall set
forth their respective positions in that joint motion.” (Id. at 1:19-23.) Although Judge Illman has
issued a Report and Recommendation on the sanctions motion, he has not yet ruled on the
attendant motions to seal. Once he rules on those motions, the Court will revisit the motions at
docket numbers 391 and 402, after considering the joint motion required by Docket No. 411.
Because Judge Illman’s Report remains under seal in its entirety, the Court GRANTS the
motions to seal filed at 477 and 479, which address the parties’ objections to the Report. The
Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 489 Filed 09/10/26 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
Court will consider whether portions of those objections should be unsealed after Judge Illman has
determined which portions of his Report and the briefing underlying that Report should be
unsealed.
However, the Court DENIES Lenovo’s motion to seal at Docket No. 449 as corrected at
Docket No. 452. Defendant’s publicly filed administrative motion to seal refers to a “confidential
report.” Although the Report does not appear on the public docket, the fact that the Court referred
Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions to Judge Illman is a matter of public record. In addition, the
parties’ briefing on the motion for sanctions was not filed entirely under seal. The Court has
considered the authority cited by Defendant, In re Acetaminophen - ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab.
Litig., No. 22-MD-3043 (DLC), 2026 WL 1266003 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2026). In that case, the
court concluded one of plaintiffs’ attorneys violated the protective order by disclosing the
substance of information designated as confidential by defendant. Id., at *3-*4. Here, except for a
request for further briefing, the materials Defendant moved to seal do not disclose the contents of
the Report, including the result.
Defendant shall file the materials at Docket Nos. 449-4 through 449-6 in the public record
by September 17, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2026
______________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge
Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 489 Filed 09/10/26 Page 2 of 2