Lufthansa Technik v. Panasonic Avionics Corporation

Filing 295

ORDER. This matter comes before the Court on Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems Corp.'s ("AES") submission for in camera review of a sample of documents supporting the privilege log (Dkt. No. 273 -1) provided to Lufthansa Technik A G ("Lufthansa"), at issue presently before the Court. (See Dkt. Nos. 265 , 293 ). AES is ORDERED to (a) produce the documents listed herein and similar documents, even if attached to otherwise-privileged communications, and (b) revise its privilege log for this production, within 14 days (and to notify the Court once that production is made). The Court STAYS further consideration of Lufthansa's motion to compel and enforce (Dkt. No. 265 ) until 7 days following this production, to afford Lufthansa an opportunity to revise and reconsider this portion of its motion.The Clerk is DIRECTED to renote Lufthansa's motion to compel and enforce (Dkt. No. 265 ), along with the companion motion to seal (Dkt. No. 264 ) to 9/13/2024. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (KRA)

Download PDF
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 TECHNIK 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 CORP. as Intervenor. CASE NO. C17-1453-JCC ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems Corp.’s 16 (“AES”) submission for in camera review of a sample of documents supporting the privilege log 17 (Dkt. No. 273-1) provided to Lufthansa Technik AG (“Lufthansa”), at issue presently before the 18 Court. (See Dkt. No. 265) (motion to enforce and compel production); (see also Dkt. No. 293) 19 (minute order directing AES to provide the Court with a sample of documents withheld in 20 accordance with its privilege log). 21 Based on the Court’s in camera review, it largely concurs with AES’s invocations as to 22 the selected items. (See Dkt. No. 293.) The e-mails at issue, along with the attachments, are 23 generally subject to the attorney-client privilege, work-product protections, or both. Given AES’s 24 general compliance with privilege rules, the Court sees no basis for in camera review of the 25 entirety of AES’s log (Dkt. No. 273-1). That being said, the Court did find, in a few instances, no 26 basis to withhold from production certain e-mail attachments. These are documents identified as ORDER C17-1453-JCC PAGE - 1 1 numbers 360, 361, 654, 951, and 1146 (associated with privilege log group numbers 125, 225, 2 350 and 425). These documents have no direct bearing on the privilege or protection 3 appropriately invoked in the associated e-mail. 4 Accordingly, AES is ORDERED to (a) produce these and similar documents, even if 5 attached to otherwise-privileged communications, and (b) revise its privilege log for this 6 production, within 14 days (and to notify the Court once that production is made). The Court 7 STAYS further consideration of Lufthansa’s motion to compel and enforce (Dkt. No. 265) until 8 7 days following this production, to afford Lufthansa an opportunity to revise and reconsider this 9 portion of its motion. 10 11 The Clerk is DIRECTED to renote Lufthansa’s motion to compel and enforce (Dkt. No. 265), along with the companion motion to seal (Dkt. No. 264) to September 13, 2024. 12 13 DATED this 23rd day of August 2024. A 14 15 16 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER C17-1453-JCC PAGE - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?