Axelrod v. Lenovo Inc.

Background

The court addressed a dispute about how the parties’ lawyers should meet and confer before bringing discovery disputes to the court. The plaintiffs’ lawyers said Lenovo’s lawyers had refused several requests to discuss disputes involving broad groups of requests for documents and interrogatories. They suggested Lenovo’s lawyers were delaying discovery while the deadline for the class-certification motion approached. Plaintiffs asked the court to appoint a discovery referee or special master to monitor and supervise the lawyers while they discussed the disputes by telephone.

Lenovo’s lawyers responded that plaintiffs’ lawyers had created the dispute by proposing call times when Lenovo’s lawyers were unavailable. They also complained that plaintiffs’ lawyers used an uncivil, belligerent, or abusive tone, including allegedly questioning their professional experience. Lenovo’s lawyers said written communications would be more effective unless a call was required.

Court’s assessment

The court found both sides’ lawyers responsible for allowing their professional relationship to deteriorate and for wasting judicial time and resources. The court stated that Lenovo’s lawyers appeared to be creating unnecessary obstacles to delay discovery, while plaintiffs’ lawyers appeared to be pushing large volumes of discovery requests without sufficient regard for relevance, proportionality, or the burden imposed. The court directed the lawyers to follow its professional-conduct guidelines, especially the sections concerning communications with opposing counsel and discovery.

The court warned that it could impose monetary sanctions on individual attorneys if Lenovo’s lawyers believed plaintiffs’ lawyers’ conduct warranted sanctions or a bar complaint, or if Lenovo’s lawyers were found to be delaying discovery. It also warned that an attorney who made a discovery request that was plainly irrelevant, harassing, overly burdensome, or disproportionate could face harsh monetary sanctions. The court said it expected the lawyers to work collegially and professionally and to make a genuine effort to avoid wasting court resources.

Ruling

The court denied Lenovo’s lawyers’ request to be excused from meeting and conferring in good faith, whether by telephone, videoconference, or in person, as often as necessary to resolve or substantially narrow discovery disputes. The court also denied plaintiffs’ request to appoint a discovery referee or special master to monitor and supervise the lawyers. The court decided the matter without oral argument. Judge Robert M. Illman issued the order.