Lufthansa Technik v. Panasonic Avionics Corporation

Filing 151

ORDER re order to show cause (Dkt. No. 114 . The Court CLOSES Lufthansa's September 2017 Application for Discovery in Aid of Foreign Litigation (Dkt. No. 1 ), except for the limited purpose of enforcing the Court's Second Amended Pro tective Order (Dkt. No. 85 , as revised by Dkt. No. 117 ). No additional subpoenas may be issued on the September 2017 petition and the Court will not entertain further discovery motions based on the petition. The Court will address Lufthansa 9;s response to the Court's order to show cause regarding the status of its November 2018 petition, including its recently filed motion to compel production from AES, by separate order. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

In the Matter of the Application of
LUFTHANSA TECHNICK AG, Petitioner, for
an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Take
Discovery, Pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, of Respondent PANASONIC
AVIONICS CORPORATION, for Use in
Foreign Proceedings, with ASTRONICS
ADVANCED ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS as
Intervenor.

CASE NO. C17-1453-JCC
ORDER

The Court recently issued an order to show cause (Dkt. No. 114) why Lufthansa’s section

16

1782 petitions seeking discovery from Respondent Panasonic Avionics Corporation

17

(“Panasonic”) (Dkt. No. 1) and Intervenor Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems (“AES”)

18

(Dkt. No. 57), filed in September 2017 and November 2018, respectively, should not be

19

terminated. In its response, Lufthansa agreed that the petition seeking discovery from Panasonic

20

(Dkt. No. 1) should be terminated, except for the limited purpose of enforcing the Court’s

21

Second Amended Protective Order. (See Dkt. No. 115 at 2.) Panasonic did not object to that

22

portion of Lufthansa’s response.

23

Accordingly, the Court CLOSES Lufthansa’s September 2017 Application for Discovery

24

in Aid of Foreign Litigation (Dkt. No. 1), except for the limited purpose of enforcing the Court’s

25

Second Amended Protective Order (Dkt. No. 85, as revised by Dkt. No. 117). No additional

26

subpoenas may be issued on the September 2017 petition and the Court will not entertain further
ORDER
C17-1453-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

discovery motions based on the petition.

2

The Court will address Lufthansa’s response to the Court’s order to show cause regarding

3

the status of its November 2018 petition, including its recently filed motion to compel production

4

from AES, by separate order.

5

DATED this 21st day of June 2021.

A

6
7
8

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-1453-JCC
PAGE - 2