American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 110

Proposal for contents of scheduling and discovery order [Joint Discovery Plan] by American Airlines Inc, Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre Inc, Sabre Inc, Sabre Travel International Ltd, Travelport Limited, Travelport, LP. (Garcia, Yolanda) Modified filer on 7/20/2011 (klm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
American Airlines, Inc., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Sabre, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sabre
Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation
and Sabre Travel International Ltd., a foreign
corporation, d/b/a Sabre Travel Network;
Travelport Limited, a foreign corporation and
Travelport, LP, a Delaware limited partnership,
d/b/a Travelport;
and
Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, d/b/a Orbitz;
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:11-cv-0244-Y

Joint Discovery Plan Pursuant to Rule 26(f)

The Plaintiff, American Airlines, Inc. (“American”), and Defendants, Sabre, Inc., Sabre
Holdings Corporation and Sabre Travel International Ltd. (collectively, “Sabre”); Travelport
Limited and Travelport, LP (collectively, “Travelport”), and Orbitz Worldwide, LLC
(“Orbitz”),1 file this Discovery Plan pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Counsel for American—Richard Rothman, Yolanda Garcia, M.J. Moltenbrey, Paul Yetter,
Bill Bogle, and Roland Johnson—Sabre—Sundeep K. Addy, Kenneth Reinker, and Larry Work1

The term “Defendants” herein refers to Sabre, Travelport, and Orbitz.
herein refers to Sabre and Travelport.

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

The term “GDS Defendants”

Dembowski—Travelport—Michael Weiner and Michael Cowie—and Orbitz—Christopher
Yates and Brendan McShane—conferred on July 5, 2011, and again on July 14, 2011, to discuss
the matters herein.
(1)

All parties have reviewed this Discovery Plan and agreed to its submission.

Initial Disclosures

The parties will make their disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)
on July 19, 2011.
(2)

Subjects upon which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be
completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be
limited to or focused on particular issues
(a)

American’s statement of the subjects on which discovery may be needed2

American’s position is that discovery should commence and proceed expeditiously.
Defendants’ Motion to Stay discovery is without merit because Defendants have failed to satisfy
their burden required to justify a stay of discovery, and American’s complaint more than meets
the applicable pleading burden as it contains detailed factual allegations demonstrating that the
defendants are engaged in significant ongoing antitrust violations to stop American from
developing an alternative channel in the distribution of airlines tickets—violations which are the
subject of a parallel antitrust investigation by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).

Any delay of

discovery would have detrimental effects on American's ability to prosecute its claims and
protect itself from Defendants’ retaliatory and otherwise unlawful, anticompetitive conduct, such
as increased prices, manipulation of American’s flight and fare content to travel agencies, and
termination from defendants’ GDS systems altogether.
American has issued, or will issue, discovery requests regarding the following topics3:

2

This statement is without prejudice to the parties’ rights to request discovery regarding additional topics
as may become necessary during the course of this litigation.

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

2

The relevant product and geographic market and sub-market for the distribution
of airline flight, fare, and availability information to travel agents;
The GDS Defendants’ market shares in the distribution of airline flight, fare, and
availability information and the power that GDSs have over airlines as a result of
their role in distributing such information;
Actual or potential competition or competitors in the distribution of airline flight,
fare, and availability information;
Barriers to entry into distribution of airline flight, fare, and availability
information;
The GDS Defendants’ potential for sales growth or expansion into product or
geographic markets;
American’s AA Direct Connect initiative and any other alternative channels for
distributing airline flight and fare information to travel agents, Defendants’
reactions and responses thereto, and Defendants’ analyses and communications
regarding same;
Actions that any defendant has taken or considered taking—either independently
or in concert with others—to oppose, limit, frustrate, delay, or otherwise hinder
American’s AA Direct Connect initiative;
The relationships between and among the parties to this litigation, including all
express or implied agreements currently existing or contemplated between or
among any of the parties to this litigation, negotiations related to modifying or
extending those agreements, and the allegedly anticompetitive provisions
contained in the parties’ contracts (including most-favored nation or full content
provisions and termination dates);
The termination of American’s relationship with Orbitz on November 1, 2010,
Defendants’ reactions and responses thereto, and Defendants’ analyses and
communications regarding same;
Defendants’ communications regarding this or any other litigation between or
among the parties;
Defendants’ relationships with current or former applications developers,
including Defendants’ actual or potential licenses or express or implied
agreements therewith;

3

American has already served its First Requests for Production of Documents on each Defendant, but it
intends to serve additional discovery requests, including interrogatories, and depose witnesses regarding
the topics listed below.

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

3

Booking fees that the GDS Defendants have charged to American and other
airlines, including increases in those fees and the reasons therefor;
The GDS Defendants’ operating, research, and development costs;
The GDS Defendants’ relationships with travel agencies, including all express or
implied agreements between or among any travel agents and the GDS Defendants,
the GDS Defendants’ providing of software to travel agents and the reasons for
providing such software, the GDS Defendants’ marketing to travel agencies, and
the GDS Defendants’ analyses, presentations, or studies concerning their travel
agency subscribers;
Actual, proposed, or contemplated legislation, regulation, or rule-making
regarding the distribution of airline flight, fare, and availability information;
Technology currently or formerly used or considered by Defendants for
distributing or displaying American’s flight or fare information;
The DOJ’s investigation into the GDS industry, including documents produced in
response to Civil Investigative Demands as part of that investigation;
Actions that any of the Defendants or any nonparties with whom they have
communicated are planning to take or have contemplated taking upon expiration
of the amendments to the GDS Defendants’ contracts with American; and
The use of display bias by the GDS Defendants or others acting in concert with
them with respect to American’s flight and fare information.4
(b)

Defendants’ statement of the subjects on which discovery may be needed5

Defendants believe that American’s Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
and should therefore be dismissed.

Accordingly, Defendants have moved to stay discovery

pending the Court’s ruling on their motions to dismiss.

In the event that that Court denies the

4

American has previously asked the Defendants to agree that documents produced to the DOJ in
response to CIDs and documents produced in other litigation between the parties be deemed as having
been produced in this case, which would allow discovery in this case to proceed more expeditiously and
efficiently. American also has asked Defendants to produce the documents they previously have
produced to the DOJ in response to CIDs, but they have refused to do so.

5

This statement is without prejudice to the parties’ rights to request discovery regarding additional topics
as may become necessary during the course of this litigation.

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

4

Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Defendants reserve the right to take discovery on the following
additional subjects, including but not limited to:
Competition between GDSs and single-carrier distribution channels, such as
supplier.coms and direct-connect products;
The impact of metasearch products like Kayak and Google/ITA on airline ticket
distribution;
The share of airline bookings made through non-GDS channels and trends in nonGDS share over time;
Airline bargaining power in negotiations with GDSs;
Trends in booking fees and financial assistance payments to travel agents over
time;
GDS investments in product improvements;
Comparative advantages of GDS technologies vs. single-carrier distribution;
Inefficiencies and other costs to travel agents of using single-carrier distribution
vs. GDS distribution;
Impact of single-carrier distribution on price transparency and price competition
among airlines;
Actions American has taken or considered taking to force travel agents to use
direct connect technology, including but not limited to threatening to withhold
content if travel agents do not switch to direct connect; terminating travel agent’s
ticketing authority if they do not switch to direct connect; and imposing
surcharges on travel agents for booking tickets through competing distribution
channels;
American’s advertising and marketing campaign during the period of its
termination of Orbitz’s ticketing authority;
Communications between American and its competitors regarding any GDS or
any other medium through which tickets are sold;
Any attempts by American, Farelogix, or others to compete with any GDS for
distribution of fare or other information;
The ability of American, Farelogix, or others to compete with any GDS through
incentives to travel agents;

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

5

American’s attempts to prevent comparison shopping and to obscure the full price
of its services and fares;
American’s unbundling of services, including ancillary data, including the reasons
for such unbundling;
American’s communications to travel agents regarding Direct Connect, Farelogix,
or any other facilitator of Direct Connect;
American’s communications to travel agents regarding Sabre, Travelocity or any
other GDS;
The nature of American’s contracts with travel agents, including the duration of
the contracts and any incentive payments to American;
American’s plans to charge GDSs and travel agents for the access to AA airfares;
and
Internal and external communications regarding all of the above matters.
In addition, in the event that the Court denies the Defendants’ motions to dismiss,
Defendants reserve the right to assert counterclaims and may seek additional discovery in
support of any such counterclaims.6
(c)

When discovery should be completed

The parties have been unable to agree on a proposed schedule for the case.

Accordingly,

they are submitting two proposed scheduling orders, attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, for the
Court’s consideration.
As reflected in Exhibits A and B, the parties are in substantial agreement regarding the
steps involved in the discovery process and the intervals at which they should be completed.
The primary disagreement between American and Defendants is that Defendants seek to stay
discovery while American’s view is that discovery should commence immediately.

6

Defendants dispute the assertion that they have “refused” to turn over documents already produced to
the DOJ. (See supra, n.4.) American requested these documents in Requests for Production dated July
5, 2011, and Defendants responses are not due for several more weeks.

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

6

(d)

Whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or
focused on particular issues

Discovery should be conducted in the phases set forth in the parties’ proposed scheduling
orders, attached hereto as Exhibits A and B.
(3)

What changes, if any, should be made in the limitations on discovery
imposed under the federal or local rules, and what other limitations, if any,
should be imposed?

The parties agree that due to the complex nature of this action and the number of parties
involved, the 10-deposition limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2) should be modified.

The

parties have been unable to agree on a final number of depositions, and their respective proposals
are below.

However, the parties do agree that, to the extent any party files a motion for

summary judgment or a motion for preliminary injunction in this case, or a response thereto, and
relies on an affidavit from an individual who has not been previously been deposed in this case
to support the motion or response, any party opposing the motion or response may notice the
affiant for a deposition. Such depositions will be limited to three hours each and will not count
toward the limits on the number of depositions or time for questioning set forth above.
Likewise, to the extent any party lists as a trial witness any person that has not previously been
deposed, the other side may notice the witness for deposition and such depositions will be
limited to three hours each and will not count toward the limits on the number of depositions or
time for questioning set forth above.
(a)

Plaintiff’s statement

While both sides recognize that 10 depositions per side will not be sufficient, the parties
do not agree on the number of depositions that should be permitted.

American proposes that

each side (i.e. American and Defendants) be allotted the greater of forty depositions or 280 hours
of questioning time for depositions of party and nonparty fact witnesses. American believes

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

7

that a forty deposition limit is appropriate in this case, given the complexity of the case, the
importance of the issues to the country’s transportation system, the fact that there are three
separate defendants and that there are a large number of third parties that have important
information relevant to this lawsuit. American further proposes that for purposes of calculating
the number of depositions of fact witnesses, a deposition of a corporation pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) shall count as a single deposition even if the corporation
designates multiple individuals to testify on its behalf.
(b)

Defendants’ statement

Defendants also recognize that 10 depositions per side will not be sufficient but cannot
agree to American’s proposal, which would amount to 560 hours of deposition testimony.
Recognizing the complexity of this case but also believing that the parties can and should work
together to avoid unnecessarily burdensome discovery, Defendants propose doubling the default
limits under the Federal Rules.

Specifically, Defendants propose that each side (i.e., American

and Defendants) be allotted the greater of twenty depositions or 140 hours of questioning time
for depositions of party and non-party fact witnesses.
(4)

Statement regarding whether any other orders should be entered by the
Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) or under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and (c).

The parties anticipate discovery will involve confidential information entitled to
protection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(i)(g).

The parties are in the

process of negotiating an appropriate protective order and have narrowed the issues in dispute,
although there still are a few issues in dispute. To the extent the parties cannot reach an
agreement, they anticipate that they will submit to the court two versions of a protective order to
allow the Court to determine the appropriate order.

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

8

If this case goes to trial, the parties anticipate that an order pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 16(c) will be necessary.
Dated: July 19, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
/s Yolanda C. Garcia
Yolanda C. Garcia
Bill F. Bogle
State Bar No. 02561000
[e-mail]
Roland K. Johnson
State Bar No. 00000084
[e-mail]
HARRIS, FINLEY & BOGLE, P.C.
777 Main Street, Suite 3600
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
817.870.8700
817.332.6121 (Fax)
R. Paul Yetter
State Bar No. 22154200
[e-mail]
Anna Rotman
State Bar No. 24046761
[e-mail]
YETTER COLEMAN LLP
909 Fannin, Suite 3600
Houston, Texas 77010
713.632.8000
713.632.8002 (Fax)
Yolanda C. Garcia
State Bar No. 24012457
[e-mail]
Michelle Hartmann
State Bar No. 24032402
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75201-6950

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

9

214.746.7700
214.746.7777 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
Of Counsel to Plaintiff:
M.J. Moltenbrey
[e-mail]
DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
1101 New York Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
202.346.8738
202.346.8102 (Fax)
Richard A. Rothman
[e-mail]
James W. Quinn
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
212.310.8426
212.310.8285 (Fax)

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

10

AGREED:
/s Walker C. Friedman
Walker C. Friedman
State Bar No. 07472500
[e-mail]
Christian D. Tucker
State Bar No. 00795690
[e-mail]
FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE, P.C.
Tindall Square Warehouse No. 1
604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
817.334.0400
817.334.0401 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
TRAVELPORT LIMITED and
TRAVELPORT, LP
Of Counsel to Travelport Defendants:
Michael L. Weiner
[e-mail]
Dechert LLP
1095 Avenues of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-6797
212.698.3608
212.698.3599 (Fax)
Mike Cowie
[e-mail]
Craig Falls
[e-mail]
Dechert LLP
1775 I Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-2401
202.261.3300
202.261.3333 (Fax)
John T. Schriver
[e-mail]
Paul E. Chronis
[e-mail]
Duane Morris LLP
Suite 3700
190 South LaSalle Street
US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

11

Chicago, Illinois 60603-3433
312.499.6700
312.499.6701 (Fax)
AGREED:
/s John J. Little
John J. Little
Texas State Bar No. 12424230
Email: [e-mail]
Stephen G. Gleboff
Texas State Bar No. 08024500
Email: [e-mail]
Megan K. Dredla
Texas State Bar No. 24050530
Email: [e-mail]
LITTLE PEDERSEN FANKHAUSER LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4110
Dallas, TX 75202-3714
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC

Of Counsel to Defendant
Orbitz Worldwide, LLC:
Daniel M. Wall
California State Bar No. 102580
Email: [e-mail]
Christopher S. Yates
California State Bar No. 161273
Email: [e-mail]
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

12

AGREED:
/s Ralph H. Duggins
Ralph H. Duggins
State Bar No. 06183700
[e-mail]
Scott A. Fredricks
State Bar No. 24012657
[e-mail]
Philip A. Vickers
State Bar No. 24051699
[e-mail]
CANTEY HANGER LLP
600 West 6th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
SABRE INC., SABRE HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, and SABRE TRAVEL
INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Of Counsel to Sabre Defendants:
Donald E. Scott
[e-mail]
Karma M. Giulianelli
[e-mail]
Sean C. Grimsley
[e-mail]
Sundeep (Rob) K. Addy
[e-mail]
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR
& SCOTT LLP
1899 Wynkoop Street, 8th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Chris Lind
[e-mail]
Andrew Polovin
[e-mail]
Katherine M. Swift
[e-mail]
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

13

& 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
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

14

Exhibit A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
American Airlines, Inc., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Sabre, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sabre
Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation
and Sabre Travel International Ltd., a foreign
corporation, d/b/a Sabre Travel Network;
Travelport Limited, a foreign corporation and
Travelport, LP, a Delaware limited partnership,
d/b/a Travelport;
and
Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, d/b/a Orbitz;
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:11-cv-0244-Y

AMERICAN’S PROPOSED INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), this Initial Scheduling Order will
govern the preparation of this case for trial. The Court, having reviewed the Discovery Plan
submitted by the parties hereby establishes the deadlines set forth below to ensure that the case is
expeditiously prepared for trial.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.

Initial Disclosures
The Plaintiffs and Defendants shall serve their initial disclosures on or before
July 19, 2011.

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

2.

Joinder of Additional Parties
Additional parties may be added to this proceeding no later than sixty (60) days
prior to the close of fact discovery.

3.

Amendment of Pleadings
Pleadings may be amended no later than sixty (60) days prior to the close of fact
discovery.

4.

Fact Discovery
The parties shall substantially complete their document productions by October 1,
2011. All fact discovery, including all depositions of fact witnesses, shall be
completed by March 1, 2012.

5.

Expert Discovery
(a)

(b)

Defendants shall identify their experts on or before February 3, 2012, and
shall serve reports from Defendants’ expert(s) retained under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before April 30, 2012.

(c)

American shall identify any rebuttal experts and serve any rebuttal expert
reports pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 on or before May
15, 2012.

(d)
6.

American shall identify its experts on or before January 3, 2012, and
shall serve reports from its experts retained under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before March 30, 2012.

Depositions of all parties’ experts, including rebuttal experts, shall be
completed on or before May 31, 2012.

Dispositive Motions
All potentially dispositive motions shall be filed on or before June 15, 2012. In
accordance with the Court’s Local Rules, all responses in opposition to any such
motion shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of said motion, and
any reply in support of such motion shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after
the filing of a response.

7.

Witness and Exhibit Lists and Motions in Limine
(a)

Witness lists, separately identifying each witness that a party intends to
call or may call as a witness, other than as a rebuttal witness, shall be
exchanged no later than forty-five (45) days before the start of trial.

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

2

(b)

(c)

8.

Exhibits, other than those used for rebuttal purposes, and deposition
designations shall be exchanged no later than thirty (30) days before the
start of trial. Any deposition counter designations and objections to
exhibits shall be exchanged no later than fifteen (15) days before the start
of trial.
The parties shall file any motions in limine no later than forty-five (45)
days before the start of trial. Any opposition to any such motion in limine
shall be filed no later than twenty (20) days before the start of trial. Any
reply to such opposition to a motion in limine shall be filed no later than
ten (10) days before the start of trial.

Trial
Trial shall commence on September 17, 2012, or as soon thereafter as the parties
may be heard.

9.

Other Items
The parties’ agreement to this schedule shall not be construed as a waiver of any
right or privilege under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s Local
Rules, or any other applicable state or federal law, including any right to move to
compel or preclude discovery.

10.

Modification of Scheduling Order
This Scheduling Order may be modified by mutual agreement of the parties,
subject to Court approval, or by motion for good cause shown. This Scheduling
Order is contingent upon trial of the above-captioned matter in this Court, and
shall be reconsidered in the event that this case is transferred to a different court.
Nothing herein shall waive any party’s right to seek a continuance of the trial date
to allow additional time for the Court to rule on any dispositive motion.

SIGNED:

_________, 2011
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

3

Exhibit B
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
American Airlines, Inc., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Sabre, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sabre
Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation
and Sabre Travel International Ltd., a foreign
corporation, d/b/a Sabre Travel Network;
Travelport Limited, a foreign corporation and
Travelport, LP, a Delaware limited partnership,
d/b/a Travelport;
and
Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, d/b/a Orbitz;
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:11-cv-0244-Y

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), this Initial Scheduling Order will
govern the preparation of this case for trial.
case.

Discovery remains premature at this stage of the

Each Defendant has a dispositive Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss pending that, if granted,

would obviate the need to subject the parties and third parties to burdensome antitrust discovery.
Travelport has filed a motion to stay discovery pending a decision on its dispositive motion, and
defendants Orbitz and Sabre have joined in that motion.

The Court, having reviewed the

parties’ submissions, hereby grants Travelport’s motion to stay discovery pending the outcome
of the Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

In the event that the Court ultimately denies the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the
following schedule shall be entered, with “Day 1” representing the first business day after the
Court enters its last order resolving the Rule 12(b)(6) motions:
Deadline

Defendants’ Proposal

Deadline for Document Production

Day 1 + 7 months

Deadline to join parties and amend
pleadings

Day 1 + 6.5 months

All fact discovery complete including
depositions

Day 1 + 9.5 months

Expert reports on issues where party has
burden

Day 1 + 10 months

Expert reports on issues where party does
not have burden

Day 1 + 11 months

Rebuttal expert reports

Day 1 + 12 months

Expert depositions complete

Day 1 + 13 months

Dispositive motions

Day 1 + 14.5 mos.

Trial

Day 1 + 16.5 mos.

The parties’ agreement to this schedule shall not be construed as a waiver of any right or
privilege under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s Local Rules, or any other
applicable state or federal law, including any right to move to compel or preclude discovery.
This Scheduling Order may be modified by mutual agreement of the parties, subject to Court
approval, or by motion for good cause shown.

This Scheduling Order is contingent upon trial

of the above-captioned matter in this Court, and shall be reconsidered in the event that this case
is transferred to a different court. Nothing herein shall waive any party’s right to seek a

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

2

continuance of the trial date to allow additional time for the Court to rule on any dispositive
motion.
SIGNED:

_________, 2011
__________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

US_ACTIVE:¥43766860¥04¥14013.0135

3