In Re: In the Matter of the Application of Lufthansa Technik AG, Petitioner, for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782

Filing 97

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge James V. Selna for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 95 , The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Lufthansa's application (Dkt. 45 ) is granted in part and denied in part; 2. Lufthansa is authorized to issue the subpoena modified by the Court and attached to the R&R, with a 60-day deadline for compliance; 3. Luft hansa and Thales should each bear 50% of the reasonable costs of complying with the subpoena; and 4. determining the amount of Thales' reasonable costs in complying with the subpoena is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to decide as a non-dispositive, pretrial matter under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (es)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

Case No. 8:22-mc-00034-JVS-KES

LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AG,
Petitioner,
v.
THALES AVIONICS, INC.,

15

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Respondent.

16
17
18

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all

19

the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the

20

United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 95). No objections to the Report and

21

Recommendation were filed, and the deadline for filing such objections has passed.

22

The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United

23

States Magistrate Judge.

24

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

25

1.

Lufthansa’s application (Dkt. 45) is granted in part and denied in part;

26

2.

Lufthansa is authorized to issue the subpoena modified by the Court

27
28

and attached to the R&R, with a 60-day deadline for compliance1;

1
2

3.

3
4

Lufthansa and Thales should each bear 50% of the reasonable costs of
complying with the subpoena; and

4.

determining the amount of Thales’ reasonable costs in complying with

5

the subpoena is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to decide as a

6

non-dispositive, pretrial matter under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

7
8
9
10

DATED: August 29, 2024

11
12

____________________________________
JAMES V. SELNA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

This deadline does not prevent the parties from stipulating to reasonable
extensions of time.
2