American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 115

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RULE 16(a) CONFERENCE, DENYING MOTION TO STAY, AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE...denying #33 Request for Rule 16(a) Conference; denying #88 Motion to Stay; and denying as moot #103 Motion to Consolidate Cases, as the companion case, No. 4:11-CV-0488-A, has been remanded back to state court. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 7/26/2011) (klm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

§
§
§
§
§

VS.
TRAVELPORT LIMITED, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-244-Y

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RULE
16(a) CONFERENCE, DENYING MOTION TO
STAY, AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Before the Court are the Request for Rule 16(a) Conference
(doc. 33) filed by plaintiff American Airlines, Inc. (“American”);
the

Motion

to

Stay

Discovery

(doc.

88)

filed

by

defendants

Travelport Limited and Travelport, LP (collectively, “Travelport”);
and the Motion to Consolidate (doc. 103) filed by defendants Sabre
Inc., Sabre Holdings Corporation, and Sabre Travel International
Limited (collectively, “Sabre”).1
By its motion, American asks the Court to convene a conference
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a) “so that American may
apprise the Court of anticipated preliminary injunction proceedings
this summer and the need for discovery to proceed expeditiously.”
(Pl.’s Mot. 1 (doc. 33).)

Travelport, on the other hand, along

with co-defendants Sabre and Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (“Orbitz”),2 ask

1

Travelport’s Motion to Stay (doc. 88) supercedes an earlier-filed motion
to stay (doc. 49). Accordingly, the earlier-filed stay motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
2

Sabre has filed a Notice of Joinder (doc. 101) announcing its intention
to join Travelport’s motion to stay. Similarly, Orbitz has filed a Motion to
Join Travelport’s Motion to Stay (doc. 92), and the Court now GRANTS this motion.

the Court to stay discovery in this case pending the Court’s ruling
on

the

defendants’

American’s

position

motions
that

to

dismiss.

discovery

in

Thus,
this

while

case

it

is

should

be

expedited, each of the defendants is of the opinion that discovery
should be halted.
The Court, having reviewed the parties’ arguments and the
relevant authorities, concludes that neither expedited discovery
nor a stay is appropriate in this case.

First of all, American’s

request for expedited discovery, which is based largely on its
speculation as to how the defendants will respond to the expiration
of certain contract amendments later this summer, is premature.
Should the events of the upcoming months unfold as American
anticipates, then American may renew its request for relief at that
time.

Meanwhile, however, the Court is of the opinion that an

order expediting discovery is not merited.

And in light of the

Court’s disinclination to expedite discovery at this time, a Rule
16(a) conference seems unnecessary.
At the same time, however, the defendants have not established
a sufficiently compelling reason to stay discovery in this case.
The primary reason that Travelport advances for granting a stay is
cost-prevention.

Travelport also points out that it is common to

grant this type of stay in anti-trust cases. But given the Court’s

Accordingly, all defendants are on record as having requested a stay of discovery
pending the Court’s ruling on the motions to dismiss.

2

decision not to expedite discovery, the Court is satisfied that
discovery will not prove overly burdensome for the defendants,
particularly given that they will have to produce many of the same
documents in a related lawsuit in Illinois.
Therefore,

in

view

of

the

foregoing,

the

Court

DENIES

American’s request for a Rule 16(a) conference and, likewise,
DENIES Travelport’s motion to stay. Additionally, the Court DENIES
AS MOOT Sabre’s motion to consolidate, as the companion case, No.
4:11-CV-0488-A, has been remanded back to state court.
SIGNED July 26, 2011.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

TRM/dc

3