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 JOINT LETTER BRIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 361
Upon consideration of the Joint Letter Brief (dkt. 361), the court ORDERS as follows:
RFPs 37-39 & 41-43
Lenovo shall either provide a statement that it has produced all responsive documents in its
possession and is not withholding any documents based on its objections, or provide a statement
that it is withholding certain documents based on certain objections, or produce all non-privileged
responsive documents.
RFP 35 & 69
Plaintiffs’ requests for further discovery responses here are DENIED. Lenovo has already
run the search terms “Est Value” and “Estimated Value” across the ESI of 5 custodians selected by
Plaintiffs and any non-privileged hits through April 30, 2022, were produced and Plaintiffs have
had an opportunity to question witnesses as to estimated value. As Lenovo has articulated, the
determination to switch to estimated value was on the advice of litigation counsel, which means
further discovery here is only likely to lead to more privileged information and Plaintiff has failed
to provide a sufficient relevance basis to overcome the burden it seeks to impose. Plaintiffs have
already received sufficient discovery on this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2025
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 363 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 1