American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 271

Appendix in Support filed by American Airlines Inc re #270 Response/Objection Motion for an Order to Permit Disclosure of Certain Documents (Attachments: #1 App. 1-7) (Garcia, Yolanda)

EXHIBIT 1

Well, GotshaI & Manges LLP
BY E-MAIL

February 26, 2012

200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201-6950
[phone] tel
[phone] fax
Yolanda Cornejo Garcia
1 214 746 8134
yola nda.garcia@well, corn

Carolyn H. Feeney, Esq.
Dechert LLP
Cira Centre
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
Re: American Airlines, Inc. ("American') v. Travelport Ltd. ("Travelport'), et al., Case 4:11-cv00244-Y(ND. Tex.)
Dear Carrie:
After reviewing the ongoing production of documents by Travelport, we believe that certain documents
must be shown to American's in house personnel in order to adequately prepare our case for trial.
Pursuant to paragraph 13 of the protective order in this case, American requests that Travelport permit
the documents listed below (by the bates number of the first page) to be seen by American's in house
counsel Gary Kennedy, Bruce Wark and Donald Broadfield Jr. Please let us know by March 2, 2012
(five business days from today) whether Travelport is amenable to this request, or if not, why not.
American also believes that many of these documents were improperly labeled as able to be seen only
by outside counsel, and American reserves the right to challenge Travelport's confidentiality
designations. In addition, American anticipates that further documents will be necessary to be shown to
in-house personnel as this case progresses. Thank you for your attention to this.
Travelport Documents
TP-DOJ-0472052
TVP-DOJ-0112796
TVP-DOJ-0133467
TRVP003051
TRVP003148
TRVP007861
TRVP008024

US ACTIVE:\43907740\01\14013,0135

1

Carolyn H. Feeney, Esq.
February 26, 2012
Page 2

Wail, Gotshal & Mangos LLP

Sincerely,

Is Yolanda C. Garcia
Yolanda Cornejo Garcia

Us ACTIVE :\43907740\01\14013,0135

2

EXHIBIT 2

Waal, Gotshal & Manges LLP
BY E-MAIL

February 26, 2012

200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 752016950
[phone] tel
+1 214' 746 7777 fax
Yolanda Cornejo Garcia
412147468134
yolanda.garcia@weitcom

Steven J. Kaiser
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Re: American Airlines, Inc. v. Travelport Limited, et al., Civ. Action No. 4:1 I-CV-244-Y (N.D. Texas)
Dear Steve:
After reviewing the ongoing production of documents by Sabre, we believe that certain documents must
be shown to American's in house personnel in order to adequately prepare our case for trial. Pursuant to
paragraph 13 of the protective order in this case, American requests that Sabre permit the documents
listed below (by the bates number of the first page) to be seen by American's in house counsel Gary
Kennedy, Bruce Wark, and Donald Broadfield Jr. Please let us know by March 2, 2012 (five business
days from today) whether Sabre is amenable to this request, or if not, why not. The below American
also believes that many of these documents were improperly labeled as able to be seen only by outside
counsel, and American reserves the right to challenge Sabre's confidentiality designations. In addition,
American anticipates that further documents will be necessary to be shown to in-house personnel as this
case progresses. Thank you for your attention to this issue.
SBR0001467
SBR0025120
SBR0027639
SBR0071657
SBR0071970
SBROOSI 135
SBROO83001
SBR0087844
SBROO88561
SBR0099346
SBRO103809
SBRO110833
SBRO129565
SBRO169171
SBRO177137

US ACTIVEM13907728\01\14013.0135

3

Steven J. Kaiser
February 26, 2012
Page 2

SBRO179085
SBR0202606
SBR0238320
SBRO239895
SBRO248645
SBRO252371
SBR0299069
SBR0292409
SBR0332112
SBR0355631
SBR0368188
SBR20329485
SBR21189369
SBR22352182
Sincerely,
Is Yolanda C. Garcia
Yolanda Cornejo Garcia

US ACTIVE^43907728\01\14013.0135

4

EXHIBIT 3

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Pentz, Justin <[e-mail] >
Friday, March 02, 2012 1:58 PM
Garcia, Yolanda
Allen, Margaret; Weiner, Michael; Feeney, Carolyn; Falls, Craig
American Airlines, Inc. V. Travelport Limited, et al. - Response to 2/26 letter

Yolanda,
I write in response to your February 26, 2012 letter to Carrie Feeney in which you requested that Travelport give AA
permission to show seven Travelport documents to Gary Kennedy, Bruce Wark, and Donald Broadfield Jr., all of whom
are AA in-house counsel.
First, in the interest of clarity, your letter referred to two documents -- TVP-DOJ-01 12796 and TVP-DOJ-0133467--that
do not exist in Travelport's productions. We assume that you were referring to TP-DOJ-01 12796 and TP-DOJ0133467. Similarly, your letter refers to TRVP003148, which is not the beginning Bates number of any document in
Travelport's production, but is rather the last page of a document beginning at TRVP003146. We assume that you meant
to refer to TRVP003146. Please let me know if our assumptions are incorrect.
We are confused as to why AA believes that the documents cited in your letter "must be shown to American's in house
personnel in order to adequately prepare [AA's] case for trial." As you know, Section 13 of the protective order allows a
party to request that "certain limited pieces of information" be shared with its client despite a designation of "Outside
Attorneys' Eyes Only." While we understand and appreciate that certain documents will need to be shared with our
respective clients, particularly as we move closer to trial, we cannot understand how you would benefit from your client's
explanation with regard to these documents. Six of the seven documents cited in your letter reflect communications
between Travelport and its subscribers and the other document reflects a wholly internal Travelport discussion - how
could AA personnel assist you in understanding these documents? Additionally, some of the documents reflect highly
confidential, extremely sensitive details regarding Travelport's business. We are concerned about AA personnel having
access to this information.
Notwithstanding our concerns, we. are willing to consider your request and discuss with you an approach whereby we
could both agree to share certain documents with our respective clients. Given AA's position in its response brief to
Orbitz's motion to disclose certain documents to its in-house counsel (Doc. 248), it appears that you would support such
an approach. You state in your brief that AA is "not opposed to a process by which all parties can agree, in an even
handed manner, upon a core set of documents that are important for in-house counsel to review to help prepare the case
for trial." I am happy to discuss your proposed approach further to determine if we can agree on a mutual process
whereby we could identify documents to share with in-house counsel. Please let me know when you are available to
discuss.
Justin N. Pentz
Dechert LLP
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax
ju stin.pentz(a7dechert.com
www.dechert.com

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

EXHIBIT 4

RENNETN I. OAE ii 1.1 /. H. JR

2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-1801

RAIIEIIA KEIl

VIIADL EY 'US TUN'

HAl1R LEMVY
DAVID N MOVER
0AOAOE Y GARY
MITCIIEI.v C DUPLIR
CIOVANNI P PRESIDED
MAYTHE1v D EI.AYEYI

CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP

ECVY VIEW OUOWIN
JOHN P AICCILL, JR
PAYRICIA MIIRDIERIADVI
TENIOIN A"CHINETS

ERIN LANOI.IiT'
JAR LEE
SAMUEL LI:NR'
A1,10EY LEVINOTON
COMM O LLOYD
CARL L M ALlS

DAVID I CELFANO

SIIANOOIINAELOV

RICHAEL A ISAZZVOIII

WWW CLEARYGOTTLIED CON

JSAPREN O MA EON

AORIAHA AIIIIAIAOA

TIi,IOTXY N MI:CAR TEN

ROOM M RIinNEN
DV SPIN IV ISO III
ORIAN DYRNC
PAULO NAROVAROT
JUAN P AIORILLO
JEREMY CALOYN

FACSIMILE
[phone]

JAMES AOIi.1.L

IAARR AR II (LEON

[phone]

MICIIAINL ARIRIII
iDWRLL OA1IREROPA
LEE F I,EROER
PATRICK 00011
AATIILERN VI 0RADIRIt
ALLISON H RRFAULT

RO>ANNE IRMILIRN
BENJAMIN //165116
JENNIFER IAELLOTT
NAFNEEN IAEHTA'
DREG I.fOKOOSAN
ANNE DARURN

LEAH RRANNON
NEW YORK

PARIS

LINDSAY PINTO

NICOLE RVNICK
JACOB M f.N.1C11KIN
CNAN C
SVE CHEN
KAYIA S COLITTI

ANTONIO Al POZOO
KENNETH R REINAEII
LAVIIIIYNC511I
PAUL 11Fl
VALERIE SCHUSS
OMAN EI:RAIIKLOIN

MARCARRT COWAN

MILAN

BRUSSELS

COURTNEY DROWN

OHA1'IN J Ci1EN
NATNERINE 1100NEY CANEOLL
REFIVCNi PJ.NixnR.

ROME

CREGONY M

HONG KONG
OANIEI. b SILVER
RICHARD 00 0 HIIVDR
Y.ARA O ECNOTLANO
JOHN 5 .AO NET
JAMES L IVELLER
RANTER NODU,IAL

LONDON
BEIJING

FRANKFURT

BUENOS AIRES

COLOGNE

MOSCOW

SAO PAULO

1v RICHARD RIDKTRDP
STEVEN J IIAIVER
JOYCE E MCCARTY
1DUIINR1.

DANIEL CULLS
STEPHANIE OENSEL'
'0'IET A PRAKIi
CARL P HMIONOLY
ELAINE LWIN0
CATHERINE L FACO.
IcATHERINE LEIINCLL'
PATRICK PULLER
CAROL INE 11 OREENE
II ARVEN A HAIOAR
RODEnT MANES
MICHAEL HU(IST
MEESIiAN A (RULER •
HEATH lYE IA JOHNSON

55111 I

NNON

EELSRY IV
ALEX SISTLA
fiIA

DAVID SMITH
CIIARI.ES GTERLINS
JEREMY J STE\YART
JEER C YHI:000IIE
SUSAN TORYILLI
TEALE VOWEILL
MNI.Y I'I \v
TER
MATTMEIY Ii v 1VINRR IRYIiII
ERIK WITT AJAR
LARRY WCRK.DEMRCW&KI
VERONICA TEPEE
AERBCAi SE

AOMIY TIED ONLY TO A RAN OTHER THAN THAT OP THE DISTRICT OF COI.VM01A
WORIIIND uMbER THE 54PERVASIRN OF PRIIICIPALE Of TIIE WAOHEIOTON OFFICE

Writer's Direct Dial: [phone]
&Mail: skaiscr©pOgsI.coIM

March 9, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Yolanda Garcia, Esq,
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300

Dallas, TX 75201
Re: American Airlines. Inc. v Travel -port Ltd., et al., 4:11-cv-244-Y (N.D. Tex.)
Dear Yolanda:
Sabre is not willing to permit American's in house counsel to see the documents
identified in your letter of February 26, 2012.

,

4

A4.~4

(

Steven J. I ' er

CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LI_P OR AN AFFILIATED ENTITY I JAS AN OFFICE IN EACH Of THE CITIES LISTED ABOVE

6

EXHIBIT 5

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Garcia, Yolanda
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:20 PM
[e-mail] ; Steven J Kaiser; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; Allen,
Margaret; Zambrano, Angela; Velevis, Rob
American Airlines, Inc. v. Travelport, et al.
Letter to C. Feeney- 2-26-12.pdf; Kaiser Itr.pdf; American Airlines, Inc. v. Travelport Limited,
et al. Response to 2/26 letter
-

Carrie, Steve, and Brendan,
We write with respect to the parties' various requests to show certain documents designated under
the protective order to our respective clients' in-house counsel. As you know, the protective order
was the result of negotiations between all of the parties. However, to date, the parties have taken
divergent positions with respect to which party has the burden as to whether a document can be
shown to in-house counsel, and what that burden should be. In this regard, Orbitz previously filed a
motion to permit its counsel to view certain documents produced by American. In that motion and
reply in support, Orbitz sets forth the position that it would be American's burden to show that Orbitz's
request to show documents to its in-house counsel is improper, or that the documents are somehow
inappropriate for disclosure. Orbitz's view is in conflict with Sabre's: American previously requested
that Sabre permit American's in-house counsel to view certain documents designated by Sabre, and
Sabre flatly refused without any explanation as to why such disclosure is inappropriate. American
has also asked Travelport to permit American's in-house counsel to view certain documents
designated by Travelport, and Travelport position appears to be that American should be obligated to
show how its outside counsel would benefit from showing the documents to in-house personnel, and
how this need outweighs Travelport's interests in keeping the information from being disclosed. That
said, Travelport also said that it would be willing to consider an approach whereby the parties could
agree to share certain documents with the respective clients.
This correspondence is attached so that everyone can review the various positions of the parties.
At present, as this correspondence shows, there are divergent tacks taken by the parties with respect
to the framework under which permission should be given to a receiving party to show documents
designated by the producing party under the protective order to in-house counsel. We do not think it
makes sense for these issues to be resolved through piecemeal negotiations or serial motions to the
Court, all of which risk inconsistent results under the protective order. Instead, American believes
that these issues and the standard that should be used under the negotiated protective order to
determine which documents can be reviewed by in-house counsel once a request is made should be
resolved through a group conference.
Accordingly, pursuant to the parties' obligations under Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Savings
& Loan Assoc., 121 F.R.D. 284, 286 (N.D. Tex. 1988), we write to you to request that the parties
confer on an approach whereby we could come to an agreement as to a process by which certain
documents designated under the protective order can be shown to our respective clients. Please let
us know if you are available tomorrow to discuss.
Sincerely,
Yolanda Garcia

7