In re Application of Caterpillar Credito

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 IN RE: CASE NO. C22-1549JLR

11 Application of CATERPILLAR ORDER CRÉDITO, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA DE CAPITAL 12 VARIABLE, SOCIEDAD FINANCIERA DE OBJECTO MÚLTIPLE, ENTITAD 13 REGULADA for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1782 Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, 15

Applicant. 16 CAROLINA ELIZABETH VÁRADY DE BELLOSTA, et al., 17 Intervenors, 18 v.

19 CATERPILLAR CRÉDITO, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA DE 20 CAPITAL VARIABLE, SOCIEDAD FINANCIERA DE OBJECTO MÚLTIPLE, ENTIDAD 21 REGULADA,

22 Applicant. 1 On November 2, 2022, Intervenors Carolina Elizabeth Varady de Bellosta and 2 Carlos Mercelino Jose Bellosta Pallares (collectively, the “Bellostas”) filed an emergency

3 motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, asking the court to 4 enjoin Caterpillar Crédito, Sociedad Anónima de Capital Variable, Sociedad Financiera 5 de Objeto Multiple, Entidad (“Caterpillar”) from using, disseminating, and reviewing 6 phone records it obtained pursuant to a subpoena issued by this court. (See TRO Mot 7 (Dkt. # 5).) On Sunday, November 6, 2022, the court denied the Bellostas’ motion but 8 granted much of the relief the Bellostas sought. (See 11/6/2022 Order (Dkt. # 9) at 20.)

9 Sensitive to the impending deadlines in collateral litigation, the court ordered the parties 10 to enter into a stipulated protective order regarding Caterpillar’s use of the disputed 11 phone records consistent with Local Rule 26(c) within three days of the entry of the 12 court’s order. (See id. at 19-20.) The court provided that if the parties are unable to 13 reach agreement on a protective order, they must each file their own proposed protective

14 orders and indicate the specific terms that remained in dispute. (Id. at 19 (noting that the 15 court would then promptly resolve any disputes).) The deadline for the parties to submit 16 their proposed protective order(s) has now passed. (See id. at 19-20.) Neither party filed 17 a proposed protective order, sought an extension of the deadline, or provided any 18 explanation for its failure to comply with the court’s deadline. (See Dkt.)

19 The court ORDERS the parties to SHOW CAUSE why this matter should not be 20 dismissed by Monday, November 14, 2022. Any response to this order shall be limited to 21 five pages. The court warns the parties that failure to timely respond to this order to 22 show cause may result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. See Pagtalunan v. 1 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors that the court considers 2 in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order).1

3 Dated this 10th day of November, 2022. 4 A 5 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20

21 1 The court reminds the parties that the court and its resources are not tools for delay or obstruction and that sanctions may be imposed if the parties’ conduct continues to fall below the 22 acceptable standard for conduct in this district.