Aircraft Fueling Systems, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co.
Filing
210
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; denying 197 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) (hbo, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
AIRCRAFT FUELING SYSTEMS, INC.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
Defendant.
Case No. 08-CV-414-GKF-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is plaintiff Aircraft Fueling Systems, Inc.’s (“AFS”) Verified Motion to
Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines. [Dkt. #197]. Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery and
extend all remaining deadlines on the basis of the late production by defendant, Southwest
Airlines Co. (“Southwest”), of documents plaintiff contends have a “significant bearing on the
merits of this case and should have been produced years earlier.” [Id. at 1].1 Plaintiff contends
the newly produced documents “call into question” assertions made by Southwest in connection
with its summary judgment motion.
The specific document identified by AFS is an “Audit Finding Form” in which, AFS
contends, Southwest “recognize[d] that it was required to pay project management fees for
periods between phases or while AFS was required to remain mobilized to oversee projects.”
[Id.]. Thus, AFS asserts, it was entitled to project management fees for the Houston project over
1
Southwest contends the late production consisted of approximately 800 documents. [Dkt. #206 at 3]. AFS
characterizes the production as “more than 4,000 pages.” [Dkt. #197 at 1]. In any event, it appears the production
filled one and one-half boxes [Dkt. #206 at 4], and AFS concedes many of the documents had been previously
produced. [Dkt. #197 at 3].
1
and above those approved under the parties’ agreement and change orders. [Dkt. #197 at 11].
Southwest disputes AFS’s conclusion.2 It contends, however, that AFS had both a draft Audit
Report and final Audit Report containing language virtually identical to the language in the
Audit Finding Form in its possession by November 2008, well in advance of Southwest’s
September 14, 2009, summary judgment motion. [Dkt. #206 at 16-17 and Ex. F at pp. 13, 16;
Dkt. #40].
Having reviewed the documents at issue, the court concludes the previously-produced
documents apprised AFS of substantially the same information contained in the Audit Finding
Form. The fact that its former attorney chose not to advance such an argument at summary
judgment is not grounds for an extension of discovery and/or dispositive motion practice.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines [Dkt. #197] is denied.
ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2011.
2
Southwest asserts it never agreed to pay project management fees in addition to those approved under the parties’
agreement and change orders. [Dkt. #206 at 17]. It contends that because of project delays, it simply agreed to a
change order extending the project management payments to October 2003—the month specifically addressed in
the Audit Finding Form. [Id.].
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?