Axelrod v. Lenovo Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-06770
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Axelrod v. Lenovo, Judge White denied Lenovo’s motion to appoint a discovery referee because Magistrate Judge Illman could handle discovery disputes effectively and on time.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. and the plaintiffs were affected because the court denied Lenovo’s request for a discovery referee and directed that only one lawyer per side may object during a deposition.
What happened
In Axelrod v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo asked the court to appoint a person to manage discovery disputes in the case.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 requires a finding that no district judge or magistrate judge is available to address discovery matters effectively and promptly. The court also stated that appointing a special master should be an exception, not the usual practice. Separately, it directed that only one lawyer for each side may object during a deposition.
The court concluded that Magistrate Judge Illman could handle the parties’ discovery disputes effectively and on time. Judge White therefore denied Lenovo’s motion for appointment of a discovery referee.
The detailed version
- Axelrod v. Lenovo Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-06770
- Jeffrey White
- June 11, 2024
Background
Lenovo filed an administrative motion asking the court to appoint a discovery referee. The motion arose from multiple discovery disputes during the case. The court noted that it had previously advised the parties that it would consider appointing a special master, a person appointed to assist the court with particular matters.
Legal standard and additional direction
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 provides that, before appointing a discovery referee, the court must determine that no district judge or magistrate judge is available to address discovery matters effectively and promptly. The court stated that appointing a special master should be the exception rather than the rule. The court also removed one issue from Lenovo’s arguments by directing that only one lawyer for each side may object during a deposition, consistent with the court’s trial practice.
Ruling
The court was persuaded that Magistrate Judge Illman could effectively and promptly address the parties’ discovery disputes. Accordingly, the court denied Lenovo’s motion for appointment of a discovery referee. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.