Axelrod et al v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- 	Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW-RMI
SMRH:4917-2646-6168 	[PROPOSED] ORDER
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
P. CRAIG CARDON, Cal. Bar No. 168646
ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
BENJAMIN O. AIGBOBOH, Cal. Bar No. 268531
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
ALYSSA SONES, Cal. Bar No. 318359
asones@sheppardmullin.com
CHLOE G. CHUNG, Cal. Bar No. 341398
cchung@sheppardmullin.com
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, California 90067-6055
Telephone: 	310.228.3700
Facsimile: 	310.228.3701
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
ABBY H. MEYER, Cal. Bar No. 294947
ameyer@sheppardmullin.com
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993
Telephone: 	714.513.5100
Facsimile: 	714.513.5130
Attorneys for Defendant
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT BURK,
individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW-RMI
[Assigned to the Hon. Jeffrey S. White]
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN
PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED IN
CONNECTION WITH PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC
CONFERENCE OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, ORDER COMPELLING
LENOVO TO FILE JOINT LETTER
BRIEF PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH
4(b) OF THE GENERAL STANDING
ORDER OF JUDGE ROBERT M.
ILLMAN
Complaint Filed: 	August 31, 2021
FAC Filed: 	January 25, 2022
Trial Date: 	None Set
Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 370 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- 	Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW-RMI
SMRH:4917-2646-6168 	[PROPOSED] ORDER
This matter having come before this Court upon Plaintiffs Andrew Axelrod and Eliot Burk’s
(“Plaintiffs”) Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Material Should be Sealed (“Sealing
Motion”), and the Court having read and considered all documents filed in support thereof, including
Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc.’s (“Lenovo” or “Defendant”) Statement in Support of
Plaintiff’s Sealing Motion (the “Statement”), the supporting declarations and exhibits thereto, and all
other documents in the record, and the Court finding good cause and compelling reasons therefor,
hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Plaintiffs’ Sealing Motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Exhibit A to the Declaration
of Natasha Dandavati (“Dandavati Declaration”) [Dkt. 347-1].
2. 	Plaintiffs’ Sealing Motion is GRANTED as to Exhibit B to the Dandavati Declaration.
3. 	The following portion of Exhibit A to the Dandavati Declaration, as well as the entirety
of Exhibit B to the Dandavati Declaration, is hereby ordered sealed:
Materials Sought To Be Sealed 	Description
Exhibit A to the Dandavati Declaration, at p. 2,
first full paragraph, second to the last sentence
after “reference prices, Lenovo” to the end of
that sentence.
Cites to Lenovo’s confidential pricing
strategies.
Exhibit B to the Dandavati Declaration. 	Data derived from, and which may capture,
show or reflect, Lenovo’s confidential pricing
data.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2026
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 370 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2