Axelrod

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDREW AXELROD, et al., Case No. 21-cv-06770-JSW

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

9 v. RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE

ORDER

10 LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Re: Dkt. No. 147 Defendant. 11

12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is Lenovo (United States) Inc.’s (“Lenovo”) 14 motion for review of Magistrate Judge Illman’s Amended Order Re Outstanding Sampling Issues. 15 Lenovo has objects to the portion of the Amended Sampling Order that limits redactions to 16 “protect attorney-client privilege or work product materials.” (See Dkt. No. 136, Amended 17 Sampling Order 4 ¶ 5; see also Dkt. No. 130, Order Re Outstanding Sampling Issues at 4 ¶ 5.) 18 A District Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s orders is governed by Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 72, which provides that a party who objects to a Magistrate Judge’s non- 20 dispositive order may file objections within 14 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Judge 21 Illman issued the Sampling Order on January…