Lufthansa Technik v. Panasonic Avionics Corporation
Filing
80
ORDER granting Petitioner Lufthansa Technick AG's 57 application for § 1782 discovery as to Intervenor. Any discovery conducted pursuant to this order must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Intervenor's motion to strike (Dkt. No. 77 ) is DENIED. 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
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
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Lufthansa Technick AG’s petition for a
15
16
discovery order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 compelling Intervenor Astronics Advanced
17
Electronic Systems to produce documents for use in foreign litigation (Dkt. No. 57). Having
18
thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument
19
unnecessary and GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.
20
I.
21
BACKGROUND
The Court has previously set forth the factual background of this case, and will not repeat
22
it here. (See Dkt. No. 39.) Petitioner commenced patent infringement proceedings against
23
Intervenor in Germany. (See Dkt. No. 1.) That proceeding was bifurcated, so that liability would
24
be established before damages would be calculated. (See Dkt. No. 39.) Thereafter, Petitioner
25
commenced similar proceedings in France and the United Kingdom (together with the German
26
proceedings, the “pending proceedings”). (Dkt. Nos. 54-3 at 2, 54-4 at 3.) If Petitioner
ORDER
C17-1453-JCC
PAGE - 1
1
establishes liability in those countries, Petitioner reasonably contemplates initiating similar
2
proceedings in Spain and Japan (the “contemplated proceedings”). (See Dkt. No. 57 at 3.)
3
In 2011, Petitioner sought § 1782 discovery from for use in the German patent
4
enforcement proceedings. In re Lufthansa Technik AG, C11-1386-JCC (W.D. Wash. 2011.) The
5
Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner’s petition, in part because damages-related
6
discovery was unwarranted prior to a finding of Intervenor’s liability. Id. at Dkt. No. 21. The
7
German tribunal has since ruled that Intervenor is liable for infringing Petitioner’s patent. (Dkt.
8
No. 1 at 3.) Petitioner sought § 1782 discovery from Respondent Panasonic Avionics
9
Corporation for use in the damages stage of the German proceedings and for sue in future
10
infringement actions. (Dkt. No. 39 at 2.) The Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner’s
11
petition, largely because some of the discovery sought was more likely in Intervenor’s control.
12
(Id. at 9–11.) Petitioner now seeks § 1782 discovery from Intervenor for use in the pending and
13
contemplated proceedings. (Dkt. No. 57.)
14
II.
DISCUSSION
15
A.
Statutory Requirements
16
A party to a foreign proceeding may seek discovery in the United States pursuant to 28
17
U.S.C. § 1782, which provides in pertinent part that a federal district court “may order” a person
18
residing or “found” in the district to give testimony or produce documents “for use in a
19
proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal . . . upon the application of any interested
20
person.” The “proceeding” for which § 1782 discovery is sought “must be within reasonable
21
contemplation, but need not be ‘pending’ or ‘imminent.’” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro
22
Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 243 (2004).
23
First, Intervenor resides in this district or can be found in this district. Intervenor is a
24
subsidiary of Astronics Corporation, which is incorporated and has its principal place of business
25
in New York. (Dkt. No. 54-2 at 3.) Intervenor has a “main office” in Kirkland, Washington. (Id.)
26
Petitioner contends, and Intervenor does not dispute, that the documents Petitioner seeks are
ORDER
C17-1453-JCC
PAGE - 2
1
either located in Washington or are within Intervenor’s control. (Dkt. No. 57 at 5.) Second, the
2
requested discovery is for use in the pending proceedings before tribunals in Germany, the
3
United Kingdom, and France. (Dkt. Nos. 54 at 4–5, 57 at 2–3.) The contemplated proceedings
4
are within reasonable contemplation, as Petitioner has prevailed in the German enforcement
5
litigation as to Intervenor’s liability for infringing the same patent that would be at issue in the
6
contemplated proceedings. (Dkt. Nos. 54 at 4–5, 57 at 2–3.) Third, Petitioner is an interested
7
person within the meaning of § 1782. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 256 (holding that a litigant is an
8
“interested person” within the meaning of § 1782); (see Dkt. Nos. 54-1 at 4, 54-3 at 2, 54-4 at 3).
9
Therefore, the basic requirements of § 1782 are met in this case.
10
B.
11
A district court is not required to grant a § 1782 petition simply because it has the
Discretionary Factors
12
authority to do so. Intel, 542 U.S. at 264. Rather, once the statutory requirements are met, a
13
district court has discretion to determine whether, and to what extent, to honor a request for
14
assistance under § 1782. Four Pillars Enters. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075, 1078
15
(9th Cir. 2002). If the district court permits discovery under § 1782, it “may prescribe the
16
practice and procedure, which may be in whole or part the practice and procedure of the foreign
17
country,” for taking testimony or producing documents. 28 U.S.C § 1782(a). The district court
18
should consider the statute’s goals of “providing efficient assistance to participants in
19
international litigation and encouraging foreign countries by example to provide similar
20
assistance to our courts.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 252 (quoting Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel
21
Corp., 292 F.3d 664, 669 (9th Cir. 2002)).
22
The Supreme Court has provided four factors for district courts to consider in ruling on
23
§ 1782 petitions: (1) whether the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the
24
foreign proceeding; (2) “the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings
25
underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to
26
U.S. federal-court judicial assistance;” (3) whether the request “conceals an attempt to
ORDER
C17-1453-JCC
PAGE - 3
1
circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions” or policies of a foreign country; and (4) whether
2
the requests are unduly burdensome or intrusive. Intel, 542 U.S. at 264–65.
3
4
1. Participation in the Foreign Proceedings
The Supreme Court has cautioned that “when the person from whom discovery is sought
5
is a participant in the foreign proceeding . . . the need for § 1782(a) aid generally is not as
6
apparent as it ordinarily is when evidence is sought from a nonparticipant in the matter arising
7
abroad.” Id. at 264. The foreign tribunal itself may order the parties before it to produce
8
documents or carry out other pretrial discovery as it sees fit, but may lack the ability to order
9
such discovery from a nonparticipant residing in a different jurisdiction. Id.
10
Intervenor is a participant in the pending legal proceedings. (Dkt. No. 57 at 6.) However,
11
the discovery procedures available to Petitioner in the pending proceedings are insufficient to
12
procure the requested discovery. (See Dkt. Nos. 54-1 at 7–8 (Germany), 54-3 at 3 (France), 54-4
13
at 3 (the United Kingdom).) Therefore, although Intervenor is a participant in the pending
14
proceedings, the lack of effective discovery mechanisms available to Petitioner in those countries
15
weighs in favor of allowing Petitioner to obtain the discovery material via § 1782. See In re
16
Lufthansa Technik AG, C11-1386-JCC, Dkt. No. 21 at 4 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (citing In re
17
Chevron Corp., 633 F.3d 153, 162 (3d Cir. 2011); In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324, 1334–35 (11th
18
Cir. 2007)). Further, if Petitioner obtains the requested discovery at this juncture, the foreign
19
tribunals presiding over future enforcement actions may address its admissibility in the context
20
of those actions. Therefore, the first Intel factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor.
21
2. Receptivity of the Foreign Tribunals to Judicial Assistance
22
The second Intel factor takes into account the “nature of the foreign tribunal, the
23
character of the proceedings abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign court to U.S. federal-court
24
judicial assistance.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 264. The receptivity of the foreign court to assistance from
25
a U.S. court is a critical consideration, given that one of the primary goals of § 1782 is to
26
encourage foreign courts to provide similar assistance to U.S. courts. See In re Premises Located
ORDER
C17-1453-JCC
PAGE - 4
1
at 840 140th Ave. Ne., Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557, 563 (9th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court
2
has not elaborated on how to evaluate the receptivity of the foreign court, other than to caution
3
against attempting to conduct in-depth analysis of the laws of the foreign jurisdiction. Intel, 542
4
U.S. at 263. In evaluating the nature of the tribunal and character of the proceedings, courts have
5
focused on the utility of the evidence sought. In re Ex Parte Application of Qualcomm Inc., 162
6
F. Supp. 3d 1029, 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2016); see also Intel, 542 U.S. at 264.
7
In support of its argument that German tribunals are receptive to § 1782 discovery
8
materials, Petitioner repeats the arguments it raised in its prior petitions seeking discovery from
9
Respondent. (See Dkt. Nos. 1 at 11–13, 54 at 14–15, 57 at 7–10.) The German tribunal has not
10
submitted a request for assistance or otherwise indicated that it has stayed proceedings while
11
awaiting resolution of this § 1782 petition, and the parties have not presented evidence that the
12
German tribunal would object to the present petition. In addition, the discovery sought is relevant
13
to the calculation of Petitioner’s damages claim against Intervenor in Germany, which is ripe and
14
being actively pursued by Petitioner. (Dkt. No. 54-1 at 6.) Therefore, the second Intel factor
15
weighs in favor of Petitioner as to the German proceedings.
16
In support of its argument that tribunals in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Japan
17
are receptive to § 1782 discovery, Petitioner cites examples of U.S. courts granting § 1782
18
discovery for use in those countries. (Dkt. No. 57 at 9–10.) Neither party presents specific
19
evidence or argument regarding the tribunals of those countries’ receptivity specific to these
20
proceedings. (See id., Dkt. No. 63.) Therefore, the second Intel factor is neutral at best as to the
21
pending litigation in the United Kingdom and France and the contemplated proceedings.
22
3. Circumvention of Foreign Proof-Gathering Restrictions
23
The Supreme Court has warned that a § 1782 request could conceal an attempt to
24
circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions. Intel, 542 U.S. at 265. Although the Supreme
25
Court made clear that the requested material need not be discoverable under the relevant foreign
26
law for the U.S. court to render assistance under § 1782, it did not further elaborate on what
ORDER
C17-1453-JCC
PAGE - 5
1
2
would constitute an effort to circumvent proof-gathering restrictions abroad. Id. at 261–62.
Petitioner’s argument in support of this factor is largely identical to its argument in its
3
prior petitions seeking discovery from Respondent, and Intervenor does not appear to have
4
provided substantive argument on this factor. (See Dkt. Nos. 1 at 13, 54 at 16, 57 at 10; see
5
generally Dkt. No. 63.) As previously noted by the Court, the restrictions on damages-related
6
discovery in the German proceeding no longer apply, as Petitioner’s claim for damages is ripe
7
and being actively pursued by Petitioner. (Dkt. Nos. 39 at 7, 54-1 at 6.) Further, as previously
8
established by Petitioner, tribunals in France, Japan, and Spain generally allow parties to gather
9
evidence of damages prior to determining liability, and tribunals in the United Kingdom may
10
order early disclosure of evidence of damages prior to adjudicating liability. (See Dkt. No. 39 at
11
8) (citing Dkt. Nos. 38-1 at 3, 38-3 at 2, 38-5 at 3, 36-4 at 1). Therefore, as the discovery sought
12
is relevant to Petitioner’s damages claim against Intervenor (Dkt. No. 57 at 2), the third Intel
13
factor favors Petitioner as to German proceeding, and does not weigh against granting
14
Petitioner’s petition as to the pending litigation in the United Kingdom and France or the
15
contemplated proceedings. (See Dkt. No. 39 at 8–9.)
16
4. Intrusiveness of the Requests
17
“[U]nduly intrusive or burdensome requests may be rejected or trimmed.” Intel, 542 U.S.
18
at 265. Petitioner has filed a proposed subpoena as an exhibit to its petition for § 1782 discovery.
19
(Dkt. No. 57-1.) Having reviewed the proposed subpoena, the Court is satisfied that the
20
requested discovery is relevant to the issues of Intervenor’s liability and resultant damages in the
21
pending and contemplated proceedings. (See Dkt. No. 57-1.) Intervenor does not argue in its
22
motion that the proposed discovery requests should be narrowed. (See Dkt. No. 63 at 9–13.) 1
23
Instead, Intervenor contends that the requested discovery is duplicative, premature, available in
24
other jurisdictions, burdensome, or not within Intervenor’s possession. (Id.) The requested
25
1
26
Intervenor has stated that it “reserves its right to object to [the discovery requests],
including on the grounds that they are ambiguous and overbroad.” (Dkt. No. 63 at 7.)
ORDER
C17-1453-JCC
PAGE - 6
1
discovery is not premature, as discovery on the issues of Intervenor’s liability and damages is
2
timely in the pending and contemplated proceedings. Further, to the extent that the proposed
3
discovery requests encompass discovery that Intervenor has previously provided, it need not
4
disclose such discovery again. Similarly, Intervenor is not required to produce discovery that it
5
can demonstrate is not within its possession. Finally, if complying with a particular discovery
6
request proves overly burdensome or costly, Intervenor may move for a protective order or other
7
relief after it has met and conferred with Petitioner regarding the request. Therefore, the fourth
8
Intel factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor.
9
III.
10
CONCLUSION
The balance of factors set forth in Intel weigh in favor of granting Petitioner leave to
11
conduct its requested discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Therefore, the Court GRANTS
12
Petitioner’s application for § 1782 discovery as to Intervenor (Dkt. No. 57). Any discovery
13
conducted pursuant to this order must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
14
Intervenor’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 77) is DENIED.
15
DATED this 25th day of January 2019.
A
16
17
18
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-1453-JCC
PAGE - 7
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?