Axelrod
Andrew Axelrod, et al. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION 6 ANDREW AXELROD, et al., Case No. 21-cv-06770-JSW (RMI) Plaintiffs,
ORDER ON DISCOVERY LETTER
v. BRIEF LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Re: Dkt. No. 319 Defendant. 12 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena to Non-Party Hattis & Lukacs (dkt. 319). Both Defendant Lenovo and Non-Pary Hattis Lukacs & Corrington have filed oppositions to the Motion (dkts. 325 & 327.) The court finds that this matter is suitable for determination on the papers. See L. R. 7-1(b). For the reasons that follow the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks to compel certain documents from the law firm of Hattis Lukacs & Corrington in relation to its representation of a certain person.1 As to Defendant Lenovo, they oppose the Motion on the basis that the information sought is not relevant, or at least not relevant enough to overcome the “heightened showing” requirement…