Lufthansa Technik AG v. Astronics Corporation , 553 F. App'x 22 ( 2014 )

11-4116
Lufthansa Technik AG v. Astronics Corporation
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 24th day of January, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AG,
13 Petitioner-Appellant,
14
15 -v.- 11-4116
16
17 ASTRONICS CORPORATION,
18 Respondent-Appellee,
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
20
21 FOR APPELLANT: LAWRENCE D. ROSENBERG (Susan M.
22 Gerber, on the brief), Jones
23 Day, Washington, D.C.
24
25 FOR APPELLEE: JONATHAN M. FREIMAN, Wiggin and
26 Dana LLP, New Haven, Conn.
27
1
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
2 Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, J.).
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
5 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
6 AFFIRMED.
7
8 Lufthansa Technik AG appeals from the judgment of the
9 United States District Court for the Western District of New
10 York (Arcara, J.), dismissing Lufthansa’s application for
11 discovery in aid of a foreign proceeding pursuant to 28
12 U.S.C. § 1782. Lufthansa is pursuing a patent infringement
13 claim in Germany against Astronics Advanced Electronic
14 Systems Corporation (“AES”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
15 respondent Astronics Corporation. Lufthansa has filed two
16 nearly-identical applications for discovery assistance: one
17 in the Western District of Washington against the
18 subsidiary, and the other against the parent in the Western
19 District of New York. The New York court dismissed the
20 petition without prejudice as duplicative of the petition in
21 Washington. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
22 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues
23 presented for review.
24 “As part of its general power to administer its docket,
25 a district court may stay or dismiss a suit that is
26 duplicative of another federal court suit.” Curtis v.
27 Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000); see also
2
1 Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424
2 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1976). “We review the exercise of this
3 power for abuse of discretion.” Curtis, 226 F.3d at 138.
4 The district court appropriately exercised its
5 discretion in dismissing Lufthansa’s duplicative petition.
6 The document requests in both petitions are substantively
7 identical, they relate to the same foreign proceeding, and
8 both corporations are represented by the same counsel. As
9 Lufthansa points out, there is no rule requiring
10 subsidiaries to produce the documents held by a parent;
11 however, courts may at times order the production of those
12 documents in an action against the subsidiary. See, e.g.,
13 United States v. Stein, 488 F. Supp. 2d 350, 361 (S.D.N.Y.
14 2007) (“Parent corporations have been compelled to produce
15 documents in the hands of subsidiaries, [and] subsidiaries
16 documents in the hands of their parent entities . . . .”);
17 Ferber v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., No. 84 Civ. 3105, 1984 WL
18 912479, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 1984). This conclusion is
19 reinforced by assurances and representations made by
20 Astronics at oral argument: 1) Astronics concedes that the
21 Washington court has authority to order it to produce
22 discovery; and 2) Astronics has already searched for
3
1 materials in its possession under the Washington court’s
2 order.1
3 Lufthansa cites the policy purposes behind § 1782 and a
4 historical practice of granting overlapping discovery
5 requests. However, no case supports Lufthansa’s argument
6 that § 1782 forecloses an exercise of discretion to dismiss
7 duplicative actions. To the contrary, district courts have
8 dismissed duplicative § 1782 petitions for reasons similar
9 to the ones discussed in this order. See, e.g., In re Adolf
10 Horler, 799 F. Supp. 1457, 1465 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); In re Alves
11 Braga, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1310-11 (S.D. Fla. 2011)
12 (staying part of a § 1782 petition pending the resolution of
13 foreign proceedings). Additionally, in many of the cases
14 relied on by Lufthansa, the overlapping discovery requests
15 were filed in a single tribunal, where the risk of competing
16 judgments is lessened. Here, the district judge was
17 appropriately concerned with issuing decisions conflicting
18 with those made by the court in Washington. To protect
19 Lufthansa’s interests, though, the district court dismissed
20 the petition without prejudice in the event the Washington
1
Despite finding several documents responsive to
Lufthansa’s discovery request, Astronics claims they are all
privileged and has created a privilege log to that effect.
4
1 court could not provide Lufthansa with the discovery it
2 seeks.
3 While Lufthansa argues the district court
4 inappropriately imposed an extra-statutory barrier to its
5 petition, the statute itself is to the contrary. District
6 courts are directed to order discovery “in accordance with
7 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a).
8 Thus, “the district court retains broad authority under Fed.
9 Rawle Civ. P. 26(b)(1) to limit discovery where . . . the
10 discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative .
11 . . .” In re Malev Hungarian Airlines, 964 F.2d 97, 102 (2d
12 Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Concern for
13 duplicative § 1782 petitions is not an extra-statutory
14 burden.
15 In regard to Lufthansa’s motion to take judicial notice
16 of related proceedings, the motion is GRANTED. However,
17 finding no merit in Lufthansa’s other arguments, we hereby
18 AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.2
19
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
22
2
To the extent the parties cannot reach an agreement
in their discovery conflict, they are encouraged to seek
mediation in the Court’s Civil Appeals Management Program
(“CAMP”) or a similar program.
5