American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 394

Joint MOTION to Stay the Case and Extend Current Deadlines Pending Mediation and Request for Expedited Treatment filed by American Airlines Inc, Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, Travelport Limited, Travelport, LP (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Garcia, Yolanda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
v.
TRAVELPORT LIMITED, et al.

§
§
§
§
§

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

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.’S, TRAVELPORT LIMITED AND TRAVELPORT,
L.P.’S, AND ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC’S JOINT MOTION TO STAY THE CASE
AND EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT1
Plaintiff American Airlines, Inc. (“American”) and Defendants Travelport Limited and
Travelport, L.P. (collectively, “Travelport”) and Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (“Orbitz,” together
with Travelport and American, the “Movants”) hereby file this Joint Motion to Stay the Case and
Extend Current Deadlines Pending Mediation (the “Joint Motion”). The Movants have agreed to
and respectfully request that the case be stayed and pretrial deadlines be extended so that such
parties can focus their efforts on mediation and potential resolution of this case. Given the
current discovery schedule, the Movants also respectfully request that the Court set an expedited
briefing schedule for the Joint Motion. The current fact discovery cutoff is September 14, 2012,
and the Defendants’ expert disclosure deadline on September 26, 2012. If Sabre were permitted
twenty-one days to file a response, its response would be due on September 13, 2012, thus
requiring the parties to engage in discovery to meet those deadlines even though the Movants
believe that their time and resources are better spent in mediation and discussing resolution of
this case. American therefore requests that the Court expedite Sabre’s response to this Motion so

1

Defendants Sabre Inc., Sabre Holdings Corporation, and Sabre Travel International Ltd. d/b/a Sabre Travel
Network (collectively, “Sabre”), have indicated that they will oppose this Joint Motion. For the reasons discussed
herein, any opposition by Sabre should be overruled.

US_ACTIVE:\44076642\6\14013.0135 

that its response is due on Monday, August 27, 2012, and the Movants’ reply is due on
Wednesday, August 29, 2012.
I.

ARGUMENT

American, Travelport, and Orbitz jointly seek a stay of the case and all current deadlines
so that the parties can concentrate their efforts on mediation and settlement discussions rather
than discovery, including a heavy deposition calendar which includes the depositions of the
current and former Chief Executive Officers of American (both of whom have already been
deposed once in the Tarrant County litigation), the Chief Executive Officer of Travelport, and
the Chief Executive Officer of Orbitz.2 American and Travelport have already mediated once
before mediator Layn R. Phillips and believe that a second mediation could materially advance
settlement. However, due to the mediator’s busy schedule, the Movants have been unable to
schedule a mediation until the Fall. American and Orbitz have been separately pursuing a
settlement. The interests of judicial and party economy strongly dictate a brief stay of these
proceedings so that American and Travelport can continue mediation and focus efforts on the
possibility of settlement. Movants do not want to spend resources and valuable employee time
on discovery at a time when those resources could be used to resolve this case. A brief stay and
extension of all pending deadlines would give the Movants an opportunity to pursue settlement.
American and Travelport further propose to notify the Court upon the completion of the
mediation session whether further settlement talks appear to be fruitful, or whether the stay
should be ended.
The Movants understand that Sabre opposes this Joint Motion. The undersigned parties
respectfully submit that Sabre’s opposition lacks merit given, among other things, that Sabre has

2
 There are approximately 12 depositions already scheduled to occur prior to the fact discovery cutoff, and the
parties are in the process of scheduling other depositions. American has noticed certain Sabre witnesses, but Sabre
has so far refused to provide dates or agree to appear for those depositions.  

US_ACTIVE:\44076642\6\14013.0135 

2

expended significantly less resources in this case than have been expended by American,
Travelport, and Orbitz. Instead, Sabre has focused most of its litigation efforts in the Tarrant
County litigation. By way of example, Sabre has not asked questions during the depositions of
American’s representatives in this matter when it already deposed those witnesses in Tarrant
County and apparently will continue this practice.3 Further, Sabre takes the position that it
should not have to present any of its representatives for depositions requested by American in
this matter, when those witnesses were previously deposed in Tarrant County.4 Thus, denial of
this Joint Motion will result in the Movants being forced to continue spending their resources on
discovery unnecessarily.
II.

CONCLUSION AND REQUESTED RELIEF

The Movants respectfully request that the Court consider this Joint Motion on an
expedited basis, stay the case, and extend all existing pretrial deadlines. The Movants have
agreed and respectfully request that, if the stay does not result in the resolution of the case, or if
this Joint Motion is denied, then the following deadlines shall apply: (1) Defendants’ answers to
the Second Amended Complaint and any counterclaims (or, in the case of Travelport, any motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated August 17, 2012 and/or motion for leave to file
additional counterclaims) shall be filed within two weeks after expiration of the stay or the denial
of this Joint Motion; (2) responses to all pending written discovery shall be due two weeks after
the expiration of the stay or the denial of this Joint Motion; (3) depositions shall be completed

3
 (See Dkt. 383 at 3 (“[Sabre] has not asked a single question during the deposition of American witnesses in this
case when the witness has been, or will be, deposed in the Tarrant County case as well.”).)  
4

  Sabre argues that a deposition of Sabre’s witnesses in this action (to the extent they have been deposed in the
parallel state court action) “would subject Sabre and its employees an undue expense and burden.” (See id. at 3.)
Yet, Sabre refuses to allow a stay of this litigation, which the parties are seeking in order to avoid the potentially
unnecessary expense of significant depositions. American strongly disagrees with Sabre’s position that it does not
need to participate in depositions in this case and has moved to compel Sabre to submit its witnesses to depositions
as a party to this case. Travelport and Orbitz take no position on American’s Motion to Compel. 

US_ACTIVE:\44076642\6\14013.0135 

3

within four weeks after the expiration of the stay or the denial of this Joint Motion; (4) all
defendants’ expert reports shall be served six weeks after the expiration of the stay or the denial
of this Joint Motion; (5) all plaintiffs’ rebuttal reports shall be served four weeks after service of
the defendants’ expert reports; and (6) all pretrial and dispositive motions shall be due thirteen
weeks after expiration of the stay or the denial of this Joint Motion. The Movants further
respectfully request any such additional relief to which they are entitled

Dated August 23, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Yolanda C. Garcia
Yolanda C. Garcia
State Bar No. 24012457
Michelle Hartmann
State Bar No. 24032401
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201-6950
214.746.7700
214.746.7777 (Fax)

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

Bill Bogle
State Bar No. 02561000
Roland K. Johnson
State Bar No. 00000084
HARRIS, FINLEY & BOGLE, P.C.
777 Main Street, Suite 3600
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817.870.8700
817.332.6121 (Fax)
R. Paul Yetter
State Bar No. 22154200
Anna Rotman
State Bar No. 24046761
YETTER COLEMAN LLP
909 Fannin, Suite 3600
Houston, TX 77010
713.632.8000
713.632.8002 (Fax)

US_ACTIVE:\44076642\6\14013.0135 

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

4

Of Counsel:

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)

Richard A. Rothman
James W. Quinn
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
212.310.8426
212.310.8285 (Fax)
M.J. Moltenbrey
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
875 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202.551.1725
202.551.0225(Fax)

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)

Attorneys for Plaintiff
American Airlines, Inc.

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)
Attorneys for Defendants
Travelport Limited and Travelport, L.P.

/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

US_ACTIVE:\44076642\6\14013.0135 

5

415.391.0600
415.395.8095 (Fax)
John J. Little
[e-mail]
Stephen G. Gleboff
[e-mail]
Megan K. Dredla
[e-mail]
LITTLE PEDERSON FANKHAUSER LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4110
Dallas, TX 75202-3714
214.573.2300
214.573.2323 (Fax)
Attorneys for Defendant
Orbitz Worldwide, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Between August 17-22, 2012, counsel for American spoke and emailed regarding
this Motion. Sabre’s counsel declined to participate in this Joint Motion and indicated that Sabre
will oppose the relief sought herein.
s/ Yolanda Cornejo Garcia
Yolanda Cornejo Garcia

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
service are being served with a copy of the foregoing document via the Court’s CM/ECF system
pursuant to the Court’s Local Rule 5.1(d) this 23rd day of August, 2012.

s/ Yolanda Cornejo Garcia
Yolanda Cornejo Garcia

US_ACTIVE:\44076642\6\14013.0135 

6