American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 228

Appendix in Support filed by Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre Inc, Sabre Travel International Ltd, Travelport Limited, Travelport, LP re #227 Response/Objection to Plaintiff American Airlines, Inc.'s Motion for Rule 16 Status Conference (Falls, Craig)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRAVELPORT LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:11-cv-00244-Y
)
)
)
)
)
)

APPENDIX TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.’S REQUEST FOR RULE 16 STATUS CONFERENCE
Appendix
Exhibit
(App’x ___)
1
2
3
4

Description

Page(s)

Email from Carolyn Feeney to Rob Velevis, et al. (Jan.
23, 2012, 2:59 PM)
Email from Carolyn Feeney to Rob Velevis, et al. (Jan.
23, 2012, 3:25 PM)
Email from Rob Addy to Carolyn Feeney (Jan. 31,
2012, 4:11 PM)
Email from Carolyn Feeney to Yolanda Garcia, et al.
(Jan. 31, 2012, 5:10 PM)

5-6
7-11
12-13
14-15

Dated: February 13, 2012
/s/ Christopher S. Yates
Christopher S. Yates
[e-mail]
Daniel M. Wall
[e-mail]
Brendan A. McShane
[e-mail]
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

/s/ Michael L. Weiner
Michael L. Weiner
[e-mail]
DECHERT LLP
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-6797
212.698.3608
212.698.3599 (Fax)

1

John J. Little
Texas State Bar No. 12424230
[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

/s/ Sundeep (Rob) Addy
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
Cantey Hanger Plaza
600 West 6th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, TX 76102-3685
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Chris Lind
Illinois Bar No. 6225464,
Colorado Bar No 27719
([e-mail])
Andrew K. Polovin
Illinois Bar No. 6275707
([e-mail])
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN
PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60610
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

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)
Carolyn Feeney
[e-mail]
Justin N. Pentz
[e-mail]
DECHERT LLP
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215.994.4000
215.994.2222 (Fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
TRAVELPORT LIMITED and
TRAVELPORT, LP

Of Counsel to Travelport Defendants:
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)

2

Donald E. Scott
Colorado Bar No. 21219,
Illinois Bar No. 2531321
([e-mail])
Karma M. Giulianelli
Colorado Bar No. 30919,
California Bar No. 184175
([e-mail])
Sean C. Grimsley
Colorado Bar No. 36422,
California Bar No. 216741
([e-mail])
Sundeep K. (Rob) Addy
Colorado Bar No. 38754
([e-mail])
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN
PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
1899 Wynkoop Street, 8thFloor
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

John T. Schriver
[e-mail]
Paul E. Chronis
[e-mail]
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois 60603-3433
312.499.6700
312.499.6701 (Fax)
Faith E. Gay
[e-mail]
Steig D. Olson
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
212.849.7000
212.849.7100 (Fax)

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]
ATTORNEYS FOR SABRE INC.,
SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
AND SABRE TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 13th day of February, 2012, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the clerk of the court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division, using the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic
case filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to the attorneys of record who have
consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means.

/s/ Craig Falls
Craig Falls

4

McConnell, Sean
From:
Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Feeney, Carolyn
Monday, January 23, 2012 2:59 PM
Velevis, Rob; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Weiner, Michael; Falls, Craig; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Steven J Kaiser' ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; Pentz,
Justin
Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]
RE: AA/Travelport (ND Tex) - call to court regarding February status conference

Rob
To say we agree the parties “should have” a status conference in February overstates our position. What would be the
purpose of such a conference, beyond argument on the pending motions, which the Court will presumably ask for if
desired?
Thanks,
Carrie

From: Velevis, Rob [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:55 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Weiner, Michael; Feeney,
Carolyn; Falls, Craig; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Steven J Kaiser' ([e-mail]);
[e-mail]
Cc: Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]
Subject: AA/Travelport (ND Tex) - call to court regarding February status conference

Counsel,
Since the parties are all in agreement that we should have a status conference in February after the briefing on the
motions to dismiss is complete, we think it makes sense to have a representative from each of the parties call the court
on Monday to ask for a date for a status conference. Please let us know if there is a time on Monday that works so we
can try to set it up. Thanks,
Rob

Robert Velevis
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201-6950
[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax

Joint Defendants
App'x Exhibit 1

1

5

________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, [e-mail],
and destroy the original message. Thank you.

2

6

McConnell, Sean
From:
Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Feeney, Carolyn
Monday, January 23, 2012 3:25 PM
Velevis, Rob; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Weiner, Michael; Falls, Craig; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Steven J Kaiser' ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; Pentz,
Justin
Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]
RE: AA/Travelport (ND Tex) - call to court regarding February status conference

Rob
I am aware of the prior communications on this issue. My question remains: what would be the purpose of such a
conference, beyond argument on the pending motions, which the Court will presumably ask for if desired?
Thanks,
Carrie

From: Velevis, Rob [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 3:18 PM
To: Feeney, Carolyn; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Weiner,
Michael; Falls, Craig; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Steven J Kaiser' ([e-mail]);
[e-mail]; Pentz, Justin
Cc: Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: AA/Travelport (ND Tex) - call to court regarding February status conference

Carrie,
I want to call your attention to the email string below. First, Sabre said that it will join our request for a status
conference in February after the briefing is complete, then Orbitz said that it too would join in the request.
Then Craig Falls, on behalf of Travelport, said that "Travelport agrees with Sabre and Orbitz that it would be
more productive to hold a status conference after the briefing is completed on the pending motions to dismiss,
AA's motion for reconsideration, and AA's motion for a five-month extension." Thus, we are reaching out
simply to effectuate the date in February where we can have the status conference that all parties had agreed to
below.

--- From: Falls, Craig [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 09:50 AM
To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Rothman, Richard; Feeney, Carolyn <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Weiner, Michael <[e-mail]>; Pentz, Justin <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: AA requests
Richard,

Joint Defendants
App'x Exhibit 2

1

7

Travelport is also willing to extend the due date for AA’s response to Travelport’s motion to dismiss to January 19 if AA agrees to:
(1) permit the DOJ to receive an unredacted version of Travelport’s partial answer and counterclaims [Doc. 172] as requested by
Michael Weiner’s letter to MJ Moltenbrey on December 23rd; and
(2) create a public version of Travelport’s partial answer and counterclaims [Doc. 172] that redacts the parties’ confidential
rd
information as requested by Michael Weiner’s email to Rob Velevis on December 23 .
Further to the second point, we are attaching a version of Travelport’s partial answer and counterclaims that highlights suggested
redactions to protect AA’s confidential information. Please let us know if you agree with the redactions made in the attached. We
may make additional redactions to protect Travelport’s confidential information after discussing with our client.
With regard to your request for a status conference, Travelport agrees with Sabre and Orbitz that it would be more productive to
hold a status conference after the briefing is completed on the pending motions to dismiss, AA’s motion for reconsideration, and
AA’s motion for a five-month extension.
Regards,
Craig
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:25 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Feeney, Carolyn; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Weiner, Michael; Pentz, Justin; Falls, Craig; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: AA requests
Richard:
Orbitz is willing to extend the time for American Airlines to respond to Orbitz’s motion to dismiss from January 12
to January 19 if American Airlines agrees to extend the time for Orbitz to respond to American Airlines’ motion to compel
production of documents (filed during the holiday week) from January 19 to January 26. Please let me know if this is
acceptable.
We agree with Sabre that a status conference would be most productive once the parties have completed the
briefing on all pending motions.
Chris
From: Rob Addy [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 7:37 AM
To: Rothman, Richard; Feeney, Carolyn; Yates, Chris (SF); Wall, Dan (SF); McShane, Brendan (SF); Weiner, Michael;
Pentz, Justin; Falls, Craig; Andrew MacNally; Andrew Polovin; Chris Lind; Karma Giulianelli; Sean Grimsley; Steven J.
Kaiser ([e-mail]); George S. Cary ([e-mail]); Kenneth Reinker ([e-mail]); Larry C. WorkDembowski ([e-mail])
Cc: [e-mail]; Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Moltenbrey, MJ
Subject: RE: AA requests

Richard,
Sabre is willing to extend the due date for AA’s response to our motion to dismiss to January 19 if AA is also
willing to extend the due date for our response to your motion for reconsideration to the same date. Please
let me know if this compromise is acceptable.
2

8

As for your request for a status conference, we think such a conference would be most productive once the
parties have completed their briefing on the pending motions to dismiss, the motion for reconsideration, and
American’s motion for continuance. Thus, we are willing to join in your request for a status conference,
provided that it is scheduled after the first week in February (when the briefing will be complete).
__________________________
Sundeep K. (Rob) Addy
Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP
1899 Wynkoop St., Suite 800
Denver, CO 80202
[phone] (office)
[phone] (fax)
[phone] (cell)
This message is the property of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP. If this message has been delivered to you by mistake,
then do not copy or deliver this message to anyone. Instead, destroy it and notify me by reply e-mail.

From: Rothman, Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 3:57 PM
To: Feeney, Carolyn; Chris Lind; Rob Addy; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Weiner, Michael; Pentz, Justin; Falls, Craig
Cc: [e-mail]; Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Moltenbrey, MJ
Subject: RE: AA requests
That's fine Carrie. Happy New Year to all.
From: Feeney, Carolyn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 4:44 PM
To: Rothman, Richard; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Weiner, Michael; Pentz, Justin; Falls, Craig
Cc: [e-mail]; Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Moltenbrey, MJ
Subject: RE: AA requests
Rich
As January 2 is a holiday, we will endeavor to get back to you the following day.
Happy new year to you too.
Regards,
Carrie
From: Rothman, Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 4:21 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Weiner, Michael; Feeney, Carolyn; Pentz, Justin; Falls, Craig
Cc: [e-mail]; Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Moltenbrey, MJ
Subject: AA requests

I hope you've all had a good holiday. I'm writing with two requests: First, we request a short extension to
respond to the motions to dismiss filed on December 22. Given the intervening holidays and the fact that
American has to respond to three separate briefs, we would ask for a short extension from Thursday January
12th to Monday January 23. I would appreciate if you would let us know by noon on January 2 whether this is
3

9

acceptable.
Second, we would like the defendants to join with American in requesting a prompt status conference with
the Court so that we can ensure that the issues regarding the sufficiency of American's pleadings are decided
in an efficient manner. As you know, American's motion for reconsideration is pending. In addition, we
previously asked the Defendants to consent to our including in our second amended complaint factual
allegations regarding the identities of travel agents with whom American asserts Defendants conspired, as
well as the extent of foreclosure, in order to address certain points in the Court's decision with respect to the
First Amended Complaint. We did not receive the consent of all the Defendants, and their motions now attack
the Second Amended Complaint for omitting to incude the kind of allegations American was and is prepared
to include. We believe it will be inefficient and a waste of the Court's valuable time if the Court has to decide
the pending motions before American has an opportunity to include these additional allegations and until the
Court passes on the pending motion for reconsideration. In any event, we believe it would make sense to get
the Court's view as to how it would like to proceed. Hence, our request for a prompt status conference.
Please let us know if you're willing to join in this request.
Thanks for your consideration, and Happy New Year to all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Velevis
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201-6950
[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax

From: Feeney, Carolyn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 1:59 PM
To: Velevis, Rob; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Weiner,
Michael; Falls, Craig; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Steven J Kaiser' ([e-mail]);
[e-mail]; Pentz, Justin
Cc: Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: AA/Travelport (ND Tex) - call to court regarding February status conference

Rob
To say we agree the parties “should have” a status conference in February overstates our position. What would be the
purpose of such a conference, beyond argument on the pending motions, which the Court will presumably ask for if
desired?
Thanks,
Carrie

4

10

From: Velevis, Rob [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:55 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Weiner, Michael; Feeney,
Carolyn; Falls, Craig; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Steven J Kaiser' ([e-mail]);
[e-mail]
Cc: Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]
Subject: AA/Travelport (ND Tex) - call to court regarding February status conference

Counsel,
Since the parties are all in agreement that we should have a status conference in February after the briefing on the
motions to dismiss is complete, we think it makes sense to have a representative from each of the parties call the court
on Monday to ask for a date for a status conference. Please let us know if there is a time on Monday that works so we
can try to set it up. Thanks,
Rob

Robert Velevis
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201-6950
[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax

________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, [e-mail],
and destroy the original message. Thank you.

This e-mail is from Dechert LLP, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If
you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead, please
notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you.

5

11

Joint Defendants
App'x Exhibit 3

12

13

McConnell, Sean
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Feeney, Carolyn
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:10 PM
Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]; Weiner, Michael; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Rothman, Richard; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Falls, Craig; Pentz, Justin; '[e-mail]'; Christian Tucker
RE: American Airlines v. Travelport, et al.: Correspondence

Yolanda
It is clear from Paul Yetter’s letter that AA’s intent in seeking a status conference is to obtain oral argument on pending
motions. As you know, Local Rule 7.1(g) states: “Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, oral argument on a
motion will not be held.”
If the Court wishes to hold argument on the pending motions, we will of course attend and participate, and we believe any
such argument should cover all pending motions, not just those filed by AA. It is our position, however, that oral
argument on the pending motions is not necessary, and therefore we will not join in your request.
To the extent you and Mr. Yetter suggest that Travelport previously agreed to join in a request for a status conference, you
are mistaken. The January 4 email from Craig Falls simply expressed our agreement with Sabre and Orbitz that any status
conference would be premature prior to the completion of briefing on the pending motions.
Regards,
Carrie

From: Garcia, Yolanda [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM
To: [e-mail]; Weiner, Michael; Feeney, Carolyn; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Rothman, Richard; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: American Airlines v. Travelport, et al.: Correspondence

Counsel:
We have not heard any response to Paul Yetter's letter regarding the status conference. We believe it is important to ask
the Court to set this conference, as it had been our understanding that all parties had agreed to a status conference.
Therefore, we are conferring on a motion to set a status conference. Please let me know your position on the motion. I
am also available to confer by telephone if you would like to discuss.
Yolanda
Yolanda Cornejo Garcia
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201-6950

Joint Defendants
App'x Exhibit 4

1

14

[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax

From: Rotman, Anna [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 08:49 PM
To: Weiner, Michael <[e-mail]>; Feeney, Carolyn <[e-mail]>; Chris J. Lind
<[e-mail]>; Rob Addy <[e-mail]>; Steven J Kaiser <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Rothman, Richard; Garcia, Yolanda; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: American Airlines v. Travelport, et al.: Correspondence

Counsel: Please note the attached letter and accompanying exhibit sent on behalf of Paul Yetter.
Cordially,
Anna

Anna Rotman
Yetter Coleman LLP
909 Fannin Street, Suite 3600, Houston, Texas 77010
phone [phone] fax [phone]
http://www.yettercoleman.com
This transmission is confidential and intended solely for the person or organization to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender at the email address above.

The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, [e-mail],
and destroy the original message. Thank you.

2

15