Axelrod v. Lenovo Inc.

Background

The court considered the plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance with a subpoena issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to nonparty Hattis Lukacs & Corrington. The motion sought documents relating to the law firm’s representation of a person. The court decided the matter based on the written submissions.

Lenovo’s Opposition

Lenovo opposed the motion on the ground that the requested information was not relevant, or was not sufficiently relevant to satisfy a heightened showing. The court stated that Lenovo’s opposition was not the proper way to challenge the subpoena. It explained that Lenovo’s available options were to move to quash the subpoena or seek a protective order, and that Lenovo would first need to establish standing by claiming a personal right or privilege in the requested documents.

The court nevertheless considered Lenovo’s relevance objection. It found the documents sufficiently relevant and concluded that the documents could be produced under a protective order addressing confidentiality concerns.

The Law Firm’s Opposition

Hattis Lukacs & Corrington joined Lenovo’s opposition, maintained its original objections, and argued that attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine barred or limited the requests. The court stated that the motion sought only non-privileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 1–4 and 6–9. It also stated that the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving that the privilege applies, and found that the law firm’s opposition did not meet that burden. The court again noted that a protective order could preserve confidentiality.

Ruling

Judge Robert M. Illman granted the motion to compel. The order requires Hattis Lukacs & Corrington to 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 the order.