American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 245

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE, DENYING MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO EXTEND...granting in part and denying in part #168 Motion to Extend Time; denying #211 Motion to File Supplemental Brief; denying #221 Request for Rule 16 Status Conference. Amended Pleadings due by 5/1/2012. Discovery due by 7/16/2012. Joinder of Parties due by 3/30/2012. Motions due by 8/17/2012. [see Order for specifics] (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 2/28/2012) (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 STATUS CONFERENCE,
DENYING MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO EXTEND
Before the Court are the Motion to Extend Scheduling Order
Deadlines (doc. 168), Motion to File Supplemental Brief (doc. 211),
and Request for Rule 16 Status Conference (doc. 221) filed by
plaintiff American Airlines, Inc. (“American”).

After review, the

Court will deny American’s motion for leave to file a supplemental
brief and its request for a status conference, but will grant in
part and deny in part its motion to extend the scheduling-order
deadlines.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a) authorizes the Court to
hold a status conference “for such purposes as: (1) expediting
disposition of the action; (2) establishing early and continuing
control so that the case will not be protracted because of lack of
management; (3) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities; (4)
improving

the

quality

of

the

trial

through

preparation; and (5) facilitating settlement.”
16(a).

more

thorough

Fed. R. Civ. P.

American contends that a Rule 16 conference would help the

Court determine an effective sequence for ruling on the pending

motions to dismiss.

Such a conference would also, according to

American, assist the Court in establishing an efficient pretrial
schedule that accommodates American’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case.
The

defendants

respond

that

American’s

request

for

a

status

conference is merely an attempt to obtain oral argument on the
various matters pending before the Court.
In the Court’s view, no status conference is necessary.
Requiring counsel to appear personally before the Court would prove
expensive for the parties.

American’s motion to extend has been

fully briefed, and American has adequately apprised the Court of
its chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.

Moreover, the Court is

confident that it will be able to rule on the motions to dismiss in
an efficient and judicious manner, even in the absence of a status
conference.

Accordingly,

American’s

request

for

a

Rule

16

conference is DENIED.
Along those same lines, the Court concludes that it has no
need for supplemental briefing in connection with American’s motion
to extend.

American’s principal brief, along with the defendants’

responses and American’s reply, enable the Court to properly
evaluate the merits of American’s extension request.

Therefore,

American’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is DENIED.
By its motion to extend, American seeks a five-month extension
of all deadlines in the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order (doc.
121).

American posits a number of reasons for its request,

2

including its recently filed bankruptcy petition, the voluminous
amounts of discovery materials that it must review, alleged delays
on the part of certain defendants in responding to discovery
requests, and technical difficulties.
Rule 6(b) provides generally that “[w]hen an act may or must
be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause,
extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court
acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its
extension expires.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).

Similarly, where

a scheduling order has been entered, the Court may modify the
schedule “for good cause.”
After

review,

the

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
Court

concludes

that

American

has

demonstrated good cause for extending certain deadlines in the
Initial Scheduling Order, but not for a length of five months.
Therefore, American’s motion to extend is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. The Court’s Initial Scheduling Order is AMENDED as
follows:1
(4)

The parties must file any motions to implead third

parties or to join additional parties pursuant to Rules 14 or 19,
respectively, no later than March 30, 2012.

1

After American filed its motion to extend, the parties reached a number
of stipulations regarding mediation and settlement-conference requirements (doc.
220) and expert-related deadlines (doc. 209). The Court will not disturb those
deadlines. In addition, the Court will not disturb deadlines that expired prior
to the filing of American’s motion to extend (e.g., the initial-disclosure
deadline).

3

(6)

Each party must file any motions for leave to amend his

pleadings no later than May 1, 2012.
(7)

The parties shall cease all document-production activity

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on May 1, 2012, and
cease all fact discovery on July 16, 2012.
(8)

The

parties

must

file

all

pretrial

and

dispositive

motions except motions in limine no later than August 17, 2012.
SIGNED February 28, 2012.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

TRM/dc

4