Opinion
C17-1453-JCC
05-05-2022
In the Matter of the Application of LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AG, Petitioner, for an 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
MINUTE ORDER
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. In September 2017, Lufthansa Technick AG filed a petition with this Court seeking discovery from Panasonic Avionics Corporation to support foreign patent enforcement proceedings against Intervenor Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems Corp. (“AES”). (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court granted the petition in part in December 2017. (Dkt. No. 39; see Dkt. No. 46-1 at 1-6 (resulting subpoena).) Lufthansa later moved to take discovery from AES as well (Dkt. No. 54), which the Court granted in January 2019. (Dkt. No. 80; see Dkt. No. 81-1 at 17-23 (resulting subpoena).)
Since then, the parties have engaged in substantial motion practice regarding the resulting subpoenas. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 81, 88, 103, 120, 132.) More recently, Lufthansa agreed to terminate that portion of its petition seeking discovery from Panasonic, except for the limited purpose of enforcing the Second Amended Protective Order entered in this matter. (See Dkt. No. 151 at 1-2.) Thus, as far as the Court is aware, all that remains on Lufthansa's 2017 petition is AES's compliance with the January 2019 subpoena. Consistent with this, in December 2021, the Court ordered AES to give a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding some of the information AES. (Dkt. No. 172 at 2.) The Court has received no update from the parties regarding the status of this matter since then.
Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report no later than 30 days from today. To the extent Lufthansa seeks to continue to keep this case open, other than for the limited purpose of enforcing the Second Amended Protective Order entered in this matter, it should provide (1) updated status information for each foreign proceeding, (2) details regarding the remaining items at issue with respect to its January 2019 subpoena to AES, and, finally, (3) how those items are relevant and necessary with respect to each of the foreign proceedings. AES, in turn, should provide a response to Lufthansa's position with respect to each.