American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 401

REPLY filed by American Airlines Inc, Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, Travelport Limited, Travelport, LP re: #394 Joint MOTION to Stay the Case and Extend Current Deadlines Pending Mediation and Request for Expedited Treatment (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 REPLY TO
SABRE’S OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT MOTION TO STAY THE CASE AND
EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
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 Reply to Defendants Sabre
Inc., Sabre Holdings Corporation, and Sabre Travel Limited (collectively, “Sabre’s”) Opposition
(Dkt. No. 399) (Sabre’s “Response”) to the Movants’ Joint Motion to Stay the Case and Extend
Current Deadlines Pending Mediation (Dkt. No. 394) (the “Joint Motion”).
I.

ARGUMENT

The Movants seek a stay of this litigation to provide a meaningful opportunity to mediate
and focus on settlement over the next few months. The stay is sought because the parties want to
avoid the substantial costs of taking and defending numerous key depositions (including those of
their most senior executives), paying expert witnesses, and incurring attorney fees responding to
outstanding written discovery requests, at a time when they are working to resolve this litigation.
The upcoming mediation was difficult to schedule given the mediator’s busy schedule, but has
now been set for December 12-13, 2012. In the meantime, the brief stay requested would serve
all parties’ legitimate interests as well as judicial economy.

JOINT REPLY TO SABRE’S OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT MOTION TO STAY
THE CASE AND EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
US_ACTIVE:\44082995\9\14013.0135 

PAGE 1

On the other hand, Sabre’s opposition brief is meritless because (1) it is the one party not
meaningfully participating in any of the discovery which the moving parties are trying to stay (it
has not asked a single question of an American witness and is refusing to have any of its
witnesses sit for deposition in this case if they have already been deposed), (2) there is a parallel
state court proceeding between Amerian and Sabre which will be tried shortly, and (3) Sabre’s
claimed “prejudice” is makeweight, given its course of conduct throughout this litigation.
Sabre’s efforts to force the Movants and the Court to waste resources continuing to litigate this
case at a time when they are striving to resolve it should be denied.
First, the Movants here are not seeking an indefinite stay. The Movants only seek a stay
pending the outcome of a scheduled mediation and while settlement efforts proceed. Based on
the mediator’s busy schedule, American and Travelport have not been able to schedule a
mediation until December 12 and 13, but the mediation is in fact scheduled.1 The stay will,
therefore, only be in effect for a few months, and the Movants have no intention of letting this
case languish on the Court’s docket.2
Second, Sabre argues that the case should not be stayed because Sabre is not participating
in the mediation. American attempted in good faith to mediate with Sabre and those efforts were
fruitless. Accordingly, the state case with Sabre is scheduled for trial in October.3

1
 The parties have also requested that the mediator inform them if, as sometimes happens, earlier dates become
available on his calendar.
2

 Although not explicit, there is a suggestion in Sabre’s response of an effort by American and Travelport and Orbitz
to suspend this case in order to prejudice Sabre. This is preposterous. American and Travelport and Orbitz have
aggressively litigated their disputes in this case. The only reason that they jointly move herein is to save
unnecessary discovery expenses. As explained in the Joint Motion, since Sabre is not participating in deposition
discovery in this case, the burden falls only on the Movants to conduct such discovery.
3

 American previously mediated with Sabre for three days and was not able to reach resolution. (See Dkt. No. 300.)

JOINT REPLY TO SABRE’S OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT MOTION TO STAY
THE CASE AND EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
US_ACTIVE:\44082995\9\14013.0135 

PAGE 2

Third, Sabre’s argument that American is using the litigation “to exert leverage over
Sabre in the parties’ commercial negotiations” is baseless. (See Resp. at 2.) There is a pending
state court litigation between American and Sabre that is about to go to trial in October (the
“Tarrant County Litigation”). And given Sabre’s refusal to produce any witnesses for
depositions in this case if they have already been deposed in the Tarrant County Litigation (a
position American strongly disagrees with as stated in the Joint Motion), it is unclear how a stay
of this second litigation provides any leverage in commercial discussions. To the contrary, it is
Sabre’s opposition to a brief stay that appears motivated to pressure American by requiring
American to engage in significant discovery with Travelport and Orbitz (while Sabre continues
to sit on the sidelines) at a time when American is simultaneously preparing for trial against
Sabre in the Tarrant County Litigation.
Moreover, Sabre criticizes Travelport and Orbitz for taking a “wait and see” approach to
the pending Tarrant County case. (See Resp. at 3.) While this stay request is motivated by a
desire to focus resources on mediation and potential settlement, the Movants recognize that there
also are efficiencies in staying this case pending the Tarrant County Litigation trial in October, as
a decision in that case could be directly relevant to the parties’ respective assessments of this
case and the desirability of a consensual resolution. Contrary to Sabre’s argument, these
efficiencies are a reason to grant a brief stay, not deny one. Indeed, in Sabre’s parallel lawsuit
against U.S. Airways in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, it
was Sabre that asked the court there to stay that lawsuit pending the outcome of the trial in the
Tarrant County Litigation. (See Docket from U.S. Airways case (Minute Entry from 7/16/2012),
(Ex. 1, App. 1).) Sabre asked the Southern District of New York to stay its case there so that it
did not need to take and defend depositions at the same time it was preparing for trial. Yet,

JOINT REPLY TO SABRE’S OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT MOTION TO STAY
THE CASE AND EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
US_ACTIVE:\44082995\9\14013.0135 

PAGE 3

Sabre now opposes a stay when the Movants—the only parties conducting depositions—think
their time is better spent mediating.
Fourth, Sabre’s argument that the Joint Motion should be denied because it wishes to
proceed urgently with its newly-filed counterclaim against American is unsupported. (See Resp.
at 1-2.) Sabre cannot credibly claim prejudice when it filed its counterclaim just one week ago
after waiting almost a year after being given permission by the Bankruptcy Court to do so on
December 23, 2011. Sabre’s decision to file a counterclaim nearly a year and a half after the
case was filed, does not qualify as “prejudice” sufficient to oppose the motion. Awaiting a brief
stay so that each of the parties can try and resolve the remaining claims will cause it no
prejudice.4
Finally, none of the cases cited by Sabre support a denial of the Motion. None of those
cases involved a request, as here, supported by three of the four parties for a brief stay pending
mediation and settlement efforts. Nor did they involve situations where the one party opposing
the stay is not bearing the cost of continued discovery by claiming that it is not required to put its
witnesses up for depositions requested by the opposing party. This Court has broad discretion to
stay proceedings as a matter of docket control and should exercise that discretion in favor of a
brief stay. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (“The District Court has broad
discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”) (citing
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).
In short, the Movants seek a brief stay to facilitate settlement discussions without having
to prepare and depose each other’s senior executives and other key witnesses, continue with

4

 American contends that since the deadline to serve written discovery and complainants’ expert reports has long ago
passed, American would be unable to defend against such belated counterclaims at this stage in the litigation
(regardless of a stay). Thus, American contends that Sabre’s counterclaim is untimely and should be dismissed for
this among other reasons.  
JOINT REPLY TO SABRE’S OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT MOTION TO STAY
THE CASE AND EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
US_ACTIVE:\44082995\9\14013.0135 

PAGE 4

costly expert discovery, or respond to outstanding written discovery requests.5 The requested
stay will serve the legitimate interests of all parties—including Sabre—as well as the interest of
judicial economy. Sabre has not and cannot show that it will suffer any genuine prejudice from a
brief stay, and its opposition to this motion is merely an unfortunate tactical ploy.
II.

CONCLUSION AND REQUESTED RELIEF

The Movants respectfully request that the Court stay the case and extend all existing
pretrial deadlines per the schedule requested in the Joint Motion. The Movants further
respectfully request any such additional relief to which they are entitled.

5

 Sabre argues that fact discovery is “nearing the finish line.” That is not the reality with respect to depositions –
both sides have a significant number of depositions left to take. Each deposition obviously necessitates the
expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars in this complex antitrust lawsuit.

JOINT REPLY TO SABRE’S OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT MOTION TO STAY
THE CASE AND EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
US_ACTIVE:\44082995\9\14013.0135 

PAGE 5

Dated August 31, 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)

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)
Of Counsel:
Richard A. Rothman
James W. Quinn
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
212.310.8426
212.310.8285 (Fax)
MJ Moltenbrey
PAUL HASTINGS LLP

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 H. Feeney
[e-mail]
Justin N. Pentz
[e-mail]
DECHERT LLP
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215.994.4000
215.994.2222 (Fax)
Faith E. Gay
[e-mail]
Steig D. Olson
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
212.849.7000
212.849.7100 (Fax)
Walker C. Friedman
State Bar No. 07472500
[e-mail]
Christian D. Tucker

JOINT REPLY TO SABRE’S OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT MOTION TO STAY
THE CASE AND EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
US_ACTIVE:\44082995\9\14013.0135 

PAGE 6

875 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202.551.1725
202.551.0225(Fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
American Airlines, Inc.

State Bar No. 00795690
[e-mail]
FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE, P.C.
Tindall Square Warehouse No. 1
604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817.334.0400
817.334.0401 (Fax)
John T. Schriver
[e-mail]
Paul E. Chronis
[e-mail]
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 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
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)

JOINT REPLY TO SABRE’S OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT MOTION TO STAY
THE CASE AND EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
US_ACTIVE:\44082995\9\14013.0135 

PAGE 7

Attorneys for Defendant
Orbitz Worldwide, LLC

JOINT REPLY TO SABRE’S OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT MOTION TO STAY
THE CASE AND EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
US_ACTIVE:\44082995\9\14013.0135 

PAGE 8

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 31st day of August, 2012.
/s/ Victoria Neave
Victoria Neave

JOINT REPLY TO SABRE’S OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT MOTION TO STAY
THE CASE AND EXTEND CURRENT DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION
US_ACTIVE:\44082995\9\14013.0135 

PAGE 9