American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 101

NOTICE of Joinder re: #88 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on Travelport's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre Inc, Sabre Travel International Ltd (Fredricks, Scott)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORTH WORTH DIVISION
American Airlines, Inc,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Travelport Limited, Travelport, LP,
Civil Action No.: 4:11-CV-00244Y

Orbitz Worldwide, LLC,
and
Sabre Inc.; Sabre Holdings Corporation; and
Sabre Travel International Limited
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS SABRE INC., SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AND SABRE
TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED’S NOTICE OF JOINDER IN DEFENDANTS
TRAVELPORT LIMITED AND TRAVELPORT, LP’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Defendants Sabre Inc., Sabre Holdings Corporation, and Sabre Travel International
Limited (together, “Sabre”) hereby join defendants Travelport Limited and Travelport, LP’s
(together, “Travelport”) Motion to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on Travelport’s Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 88) and the
accompanying Memorandum in Support (Docket No. 89) that Travelport filed on June 27, 2011.
For reasons explained by Travelport, this Court should stay discovery until it rules on any
motions to dismiss, including Sabre’s motion to dismiss that was filed July 13, 2011. See also,
e.g., Ingram Corp. v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 698 F.2d 1295, 1323 n.13 (5th Cir. 1983)
(affirming decision to stay discovery when “parties were in the motions stage”); Scroggins v. Air
Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (5th Cir. 1976) (finding “no possible abuse of discretion” in
stay of discovery when the case could be resolved on summary judgment motion). American

Airlines’s broad discovery requests, which were served after Travelport filed its motion, amply
confirm Travelport’s arguments that the discovery burden will be substantial and warrants a stay.
Indeed, American Airlines’s requests for production seek “all documents” about large portions of
Sabre’s business, including its relationships with other airlines, travel agents, and other industry
participants, as well as “all documents” about its internal plans and strategies.1 The Court should
rule on defendants’ motions to dismiss before such a massive undertaking begins. Beyond this,
American Airlines has already issued document subpoenas to more than 25 third parties, all of
which will be needlessly burdened should a stay not be entered.
In addition, discovery should be stayed because Sabre has petitioned the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to centralize this action with a similar antitrust action US
Airways filed in the Southern District of New York for “coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings” under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See Motion of Sabre Inc., Sabre Holdings Corporation,
and Sabre Travel International Ltd. for Transfer of Actions to the Northern District of Texas for
Coordinated and Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, In re GDS Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2281 (Docket No. 1). Staying discovery until after the JPML has an
opportunity to consider and rule on Sabre’s transfer motion would further the basic goals of the
multidistrict litigation statute of centralizing pretrial proceedings to “promote the just and
efficient conduct of such actions” and “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.” 28
U.S.C. 1407.

1

To illustrate, Request for Production (“RFP”) 8 asks for “All documents and internal or external communications
concerning the profitability, profit margin or cost of operating the GDSs, including marginal and fixed costs, and
research, development, and investment with respect to the GDSs.” (Ex. 1, SABRE APPX 000008, American
Airlines’s First Requests for Production of Documents 7, July 5, 2011.) Similarly, RFP 14 asks for “all marketing
materials, analyses, studies, or presentations in connection with any actual or potential investment, acquisition,
merger, or exit strategies” since January 1, 2006. (SABRE APPX 000009). And RFP 22 asks for “all documents
and internal or external communications referring or relating to Travelport’s and Sabre’s contracts with their travel
agent subscribers referring or relating to the following topics,” and then gives a list eight topics that cover almost all
aspects of travel agents contracts, including discounts, term, and termination. (SABRE APPX 000010).

2

Sabre filed its transfer motion on July 1, 2011, and responses to that motion are due on
July 29, 2011. The JPML’s first sitting after briefing is complete is September 27, 2011, and
Sabre anticipates that its motion will be heard on that date. Typically, the JPML makes decisions
soon after a hearing; thus, Sabre expects a decision on its motion in the fall of 2011.
Motions for stays pending resolution of a transfer motion before the JPML are regularly
granted. See, e.g., Esquivel v. BP Company North America, Inc., No. B-10-227, 2010 WL
4255911, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2010); Bonenfant v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 0760301-CIV, 2007 WL 2409980, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007); U.S. Bank v. Royal Indem. Co.,
No. 3:02-cv-0853-P, 2002 WL 31114069, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2002). Here, Sabre does
not even seek a complete stay, just a modest one staying only discovery for a short time.
The various factors that bear on whether a stay should be granted while a transfer motion
is pending before the JPML support one here. See Meinhart v. Haillburton Energy Services,
Inc., No. H-11-0073, 2011 WL 1463600, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2011) (listing factors as (1) the
hardship to the moving party if a stay is not granted, (2) the prejudice to the non-moving party if
it is, and (3) the judicial resources saved by avoiding duplicative litigation). The hardship on
Sabre of proceeding with discovery is obvious —potentially an “enormous waste of time,
money, and judicial resources associated with repetitive and overlapping discovery, as well as
undue hardship on the parties and witnesses.” U.S. Bank, 2002 WL 31114069, at *2. Judicial
resources too will be wasted if discovery proceeds before the JPML rules: if a transfer is granted
and the actions are consolidated in this Court, this Court likely will have to revisit similar
discovery matters a second time; if instead a transfer is granted but the actions are consolidated
in another forum, this Court’s pretrial efforts will have been wasted. See, e.g., id. In contrast,
staying discovery for a few months so that the JPML may consider and rule on Sabre’s motion

3

would not cause any real hardship or prejudice to American Airlines. See, e.g., id.; Falgoust v.
Microsoft Corp., 2000 WL 462919, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). American Airlines principally
complains about agreements that have existed for years, First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 49-68,
belying the claim that immediate discovery is needed.
For the foregoing reasons, Sabre joins in Travelport’s Motion to Stay Discovery and
Memorandum in Support and requests that discovery be stayed both until this Court rules on any
motions to dismiss and until the JPML rules on Sabre’s transfer motion.

Dated: July 14, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Scott A. Fredricks
Ralph H. Duggins
Texas Bar No. 06183700
([e-mail])
Scott A. Fredricks
Texas Bar No. 24012657
([e-mail])
Philip A. Vickers
Texas Bar No. 24051699
([e-mail])
CANTEY HANGER LLP
600 West 6th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Donald E. Scott
Colorado Bar No. 21219, Illinois Bar No. 2531321
([e-mail])
Karma M. Giulianelli
Colorado Bar No. 30919, Cal. Bar No. 184175
([e-mail])
Sean C. Grimsley
Colorado Bar No. 36422, Cal. Bar No. 216741
([e-mail])
Sundeep (Rob) K. Addy
Colorado Bar No. 38754
([e-mail])
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR
& SCOTT LLP
1899 Wynkoop Street, 8th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
4

Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Chris Lind
Illinois Bar No. 6225464, Colorado Bar No. 27719
([e-mail])
Andrew Polovin
Illinois Bar No. 6275707
([e-mail])
Katherine M. Swift
Ilinois Bar No. 6290878
([e-mail])
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR
& SCOTT LLP
54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60610
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
George S. Cary
([e-mail])
Steven J. Kaiser
([e-mail])
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
HAMILTON LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Defendants Sabre Inc.,
Sabre Holdings Corporation, and
Sabre Travel International Limited.

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this 14th day of July 2011, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was filed electronically via the CM/ECF system, which gave notice to all
counsel of record.
/s/ Scott A. Fredricks
Scott A. Fredricks

6