American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 403

RESPONSE filed by American Airlines Inc re: #400 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to American's Motion to Compel the Second Deposition of Sabre Witnesses (Hartmann, Michelle)

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
(Relates to Motion Referred to Magistrate
Judge Cureton)

AMERICAN’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO SABRE’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO AMERICAN’S
MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT SABRE’S WITNESSES
Sabre seeks leave to file a sur-reply to American’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 377)
purportedly in order to address American’s request to depose Sam Gilliland, its Chief Executive
Officer. Sur-replies are “highly disfavored,” and courts “only permit pleadings beyond Local
Civil Rule 7.1 in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.” Lacher v. West, 147 F. Supp. 2d
538, 539 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (Lindsay, J.). For the following two reasons, the fact circumstances
before the Court are neither exceptional nor extraordinary, and Sabre’s motion for leave to file a
sur-reply should be denied.
First, the legal issue in American’s Motion to Compel is whether American is entitled to
depose any Sabre witnesses in this case, not simply whether American is entitled to depose Chris
Wilding, Sabre’s vice president. (See Mot. at 6 [Dkt. No. 377].) Sabre drew a clear line in the
sand, refusing to sit for any depositions in the federal matter if those witnesses previously sat for
deposition in the state matter (albeit months earlier and in an entirely different case). (See Email
from A. MacNally to M. Hartmann dated July 6, 2012 (App. at 1, Ex. A).) American’s Motion
to Compel seeks an order of the Court overruling that objection and compelling Sabre to comply
with its Rule 30 deposition obligations, as American has done in the federal matter. There can
be no doubt that Sabre understands the scope of American’s Motion to Compel, as it repeatedly
AMERICAN’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO SABRE’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
X:\NRPORTBL\US_ACTIVE\CADE\44085530_7.DOCX

Page 1

acknowledges (both in its response filed with this Court and in correspondence with American)
that American needs to depose more Sabre witnesses in the federal matter than simply Mr.
Wilding. (See Resp. at 1 (“American asks this Court [to compel] depositions of any Sabre
witnesses it may ask for” (emphasis in original), 10 (“American’s requested relief extends far
beyond a second deposition of Mr. Wilding. American asks for a sweeping and ambiguous
Order compelling Sabre to produce numerous, unidentified witnesses for second depositions.”
[Dkt. No. 383]); Email from M. Hartmann to A. MacNally dated June 29, 2012 (App. at 3, Ex.
B).)
Second, American noticed the deposition of Mr. Gilliland on August 14, 2012—before
Sabre filed its response to American’s Motion to Compel. (See Notice of Intent to Take the
Videotaped Dep. of S. Gilliland (App. at 5, Ex. C).) Sabre chose not to address the Gilliland
Deposition Notice in its response, notwithstanding its acknowledgment that American’s Motion
to Compel sought an order overruling Sabre’s broad objection to sit for any depositions.
Accordingly, Sabre cannot claim it just became aware of American’s intention to depose Mr.
Gilliland.
Sabre has not presented the Court with exceptional or extraordinary reasons to justify its
request for leave to file a sur-reply. Indeed, Sabre’s insistence that this Court rule separately
each time American notices a new Sabre witness for deposition is far from exceptional. It is
exhausting. That is not the role of the Court, and Sabre fails to cite any authority for the position
that it is excused from sitting for any depositions in this case.

AMERICAN’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO SABRE’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
X:\NRPORTBL\US_ACTIVE\CADE\44085530_7.DOCX

Page 2

DATED: September 4, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michelle Hartmann
Yolanda Cornejo Garcia
State Bar No. 24012457
[e-mail]
Michelle Hartmann
State Bar No. 24032401
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75201-6950
214.746.7700
214.746.7777 (fax)
R. Paul Yetter
State Bar No. 22154200
[e-mail]
Anna Rotman
State Bar No. 24046761
[e-mail]
YETTER COLEMAN LLP
909 Fannin, Suite 3600
Houston, Texas 77010
713.632.8000
713.632.8002 (fax)
Bill F. Bogle
State Bar No. 02561000
[e-mail]
Roland K. Johnson
State Bar No. 00000084
[e-mail]
HARRIS, FINLEY & BOGLE, P.C.
777 Main Street, Suite 3600
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
817.870.8700
817.332.6121 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff American Airlines, Inc.

AMERICAN’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO SABRE’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
X:\NRPORTBL\US_ACTIVE\CADE\44085530_7.DOCX

Page 3

Of Counsel to Plaintiff:
Richard A. Rothman
[e-mail]
James W. Quinn
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
212.310.8426
212.310.8285 (fax)
M.J. Moltenbrey
[e-mail]
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
875 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202.551.1725
202.551.0225 (fax)
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 4th day of September, 2012.
/s/ Michelle Hartmann
Michelle Hartmann

AMERICAN’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO SABRE’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
X:\NRPORTBL\US_ACTIVE\CADE\44085530_7.DOCX

Page 4