Opinion
21-cv-06770-JSW
06-11-2024
ANDREW AXELROD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF DISCOVERY REFEREE RE: DKT. NO. 204
JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Now before the Court for consideration is Lenovo (United States) Inc.'s (“Lenovo”) Administrative Motion for the Appointment of Discovery Referee. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 requires that prior to appointment of a discovery referee, the Court make a determination that no district judge or magistrate judge be is available to effectively and timely address discovery matters. Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(a)(1)(C). The appointment of a special master should be the exception and not the rule. See Burlington N. R. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue of State of Wash., 934 F.2d 1064, 1071 (9th Cir. 1991)).
The Court has considered the parties' arguments and the relevant legal authority in connection with the many discovery disputes that have been raised throughout this case. The Court will take one of the many issues referenced in Lenovo's brief off the proverbial table. Only one lawyer per side shall object during a deposition, which is consistent with this Court rules at trial.
The Court did advise the parties that it would consider appointing a special master, but the Court is persuaded that Magistrate Judge Illman can effectively and timely address the parties' discovery disputes. If, at any point, Judge Illman disagrees with that assessment, the Court will revisit this decision.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Lenovo's motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.