American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 338

ORDER REOUIRING TRAVELPORT DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW RELATING TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL: The Travelport Defendants deliver to the undersigned's chambers, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 8, 2012, copies of the documents set forth in Exhibit 1 of Plaintiff's Appendix in Support of its Motion to Compel Documents for the Court's in camera review. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L Cureton on 5/29/2012) [see Order for specifics] (klm)

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

$
$

$

VS.

TRAVELPORT LIMITED, ET

AL.

CryIL ACTION NO. 4:ll-CY-244-Y

$
$

ORDER REOUIRING TRAVELPORT DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
FOR /N C.4MEII,,4 REVIEW RELATING TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO
COMPEL
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff American Airlines Inc. ("American)'s Combined (I)
Amended Motion to Compel Production of Documents Wrongfully Witt*reld Under the Guise

of

Privilege by the Travelport Defendants, and (II) Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Amended

Motion [doc. # 316], filed May 7,2012. Having carefully considered the motion, the Court
concludes that Defendants Travelport Limited and Travelport, L.P. (collectively refened to as "the

Travelport Defendants") shall produce a sampling of the disputed documents for in camera review.
Based on the foregoing,

it is ORDERED

that the Travelport Defendants deliver to the

undersigned's chambers, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 8, z0lzrcopies of the documents
set forth in

Exhibit I of Plaintiff s Appendix in Support of its Motion to Compel Documents for the

Court's in camera review.r The in camera documents shall be assembled in a self-contained
notebook that is appropriately marked on the outside to indicate that it contains the documents
responsive to this order in the above-styled and numbered cause. Each page must measure 8%

x

ll

inches and be sequentially bates-stamped in the lower, right-hand corner of the document. The first

tSee

Nevada Partners Fund, LLC v. United Stales, No. 3:06-CY-379-HTW-MTP,2008 WL 2484198,at*8
each group of documents
(totaling in the thousands) withheld by the Govemment."); see qlso Schreiber v. Soc'y for Sav. Bancorp, Inc., ll F .3d
217,221 (D.C. Dir, 1993) (statingthata court may appropriately review a representative sample of the disputed
documents rather than "comb[ing] though a mountain of material" to determine which documents are privileged).

n.l1 (S.D. Miss. May 12,2008) ("The court reviewed a sampling of hundreds of pages from

item in the notebook shall be the Travelport Defendants' privilege log that is in a similar format as
shown in Exhibit

l, supra. The Travelport

Defendants may include (but not delete) additional

information in the privilege log if they believe such information will assist the Court in reviewing
the documents. Furtherrnore, the Travelport Defendants shall indicate on each of the one hundred

documents listed in the privilege log which portions of the document are claimed to be privileged
and, for documents in which more than one privilege is claimed, the Travelport Defendants shall

indicate the specific portion(s) of each document to which each privilege applies. In addition, the

Travelport Defendants shall include a document, immediately after the privilege log, that sets forth
the title, company employed by, and job description of each individual named in the privilege log.

The Court notes that both parties appear to agree that the Court's review of the one hundred
exemplar documents in the Travelport Defendants' privilege log designated by American would

result in a procedure that is acceptable to both parties. American suggested that the Court engage

in this in camera exercise and Travelport stated in its response that it was willing to produce in
camero any or all of the documents listed in its privilege

log. (Defs.' Resp. at 10, n.ll.) Thus,

unless the parties notifu the Court in writing of their position to the contrary no later than 4:00 p.m.

on Thursday, May 31r2012, the Court assumes that the parties agree with the above-outlined
cqmero process in reaching a final ruling on American's

ir

n to compel2

SIGNED Mav 29.2012.

JEFFREY

N
ATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JLC/knv

ultimate ruling on American's motion to compel, as permitted by the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Instead, the Court
is concluding that all parties, unless they noti$ the Court differently, have agreed to the above-described in camera
process for making a ruling on American's motion to compel.

')