American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al
Filing
409
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S #377 MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT SABRE'S WITNESSES AND DENYING SABRE'S #383 MOTION FOR PROTECTION filed by American Airlines Inc. (See order for specifics.) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L Cureton on 9/19/2012) (mdf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
s
s
$
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4zll-CY-244-Y
$
TRAVELPORT LIMITED, et al.
s
$
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS OF
DEFENDANT SABRE'S WITNESSES AND DENYING SABRE'S MOTION FOR
PROTECTION
Pending before the Court are two motions:
(1) Plaintiff American Airlines,
Inc.
("American")'s Motion to Compel the Depositions of Defendant Sabre'sl Witnesses ("Motion to
Compel") [doc. # 377], filed July 25, 2012 and (2) Defendant Sabre's Motion for Protection
[doc. # 383], filed August 15,2012. In its Motion to Compel, American argues that
repeatedly sought
to obtain deposition
dates
for the deposition of
it has
Christopher Wilding
("Wilding"), Sabre's Vice-President of North American Airline Sales, but that Sabre has refused
to provide any dates. (Plaintiffs Motion ("PI.'s Mot.") at 1,
Sabre has refused to produce Wilding or any witness
in a separate lawsuit between American and
3.)
American further claims that
for deposition if that witness was deposed
Sabre that is currently pending
Court of Tarrant County, Texas ("Tarrant County Case").2 (Pl.'s Mot. at
in the 67fi District
l.) American claims
Although it is not clear, it appears that when the parties refer to "Defendant Sabre" they are actually
collectively refening to Defendants Sabre Inc.; Sabre Holdings Corporation; and Sabre Travel Intemational Ltd.
'
The Court
will likewise refer to Defendant Sabre herein.
2
American states that in the Tarrant County Case, each side has been given 180 hours of deposition time.
American further states that depositions in the Tarrant County case have been ongoing since February 24,2012, and
that, so far,22 American witnesses and24 Sabre witnesses have been deposed. (Pl.'s Mot. at 2.) ln its response,
Sabre states that American has deposed 28 current and former Sabre employees in the Tarrant County Case. (Def.'s
Resp. at L) As to the other defendants in this case, American states that it has reached an agreement with them that
sets forth parameters for deposing witnesses who had previously been deposed in the Tanant County Case. (Pl.'s
Mot. at 2.)
-l-
that "American witnesses deposed in the Tarrant County Case have been, and continue to be,
deposed in this action, and Sabre offers no reason why
other parties."
(Id.) In addition, American
witnesses for deposition because:
case since
(l)
it should be treated differently than the
argues that Sabre should be compelled to produce its
Sabre has belatedly produced important documents
in this
Wilding and other Sabre witnesses were deposed in the Tarrant County Case and (2)
Travelport and Orbitz, the other two defendants in this case, have not consented to American's
use of
prior deposition testimony to prove American's claims against them. (1d.) Furthennore,
American contends that Sabre has repeatedly attended the federal court deposition of a witness,
refused to ask any questions, and then later deposed the same witness in the Tarrant County
Case. (Pl.'s Mot. at 4-5.)
In its response, Sabre argues that American's request to compel the second depositions of
any Sabre witness
it may ask for is cumulative
and harassing as such witnesses have already
been deposed in the Tarrant County Case. (Defendant's Response
claims that
("Def.'s Resp.") at
l.) Sabre
it has made reasonable efforts to resolve this dispute with American
American has refused its offers of compromise. (Def.'s Resp. at
but that
l, 5.) Sabre states that "[w]hat
is really happening here is that American is using this federal proceeding as a means to obtain
additional discovery beyond the limits set by the court in a parallel state action currently pending
between American and Sabre." (Def.'s Resp. at
l.)
In this regard, Sabre argues that the claims,
allegations, and subject matter in this case are essentially identical to the claims, allegations, and
subject matter
in the Tarrant County Case. (Def.'s Resp. at
2)
Sabre claims that
it
and
American agreed in principal to depose each other's witnesses only once between the two cases,
but that American refused to sign a stipulation to this effect. (Def.'s Resp. at
3.) Additionally,
Sabre contends that American's strategy of bringing two different causes of action in different
a
courts against different parties has caused American to expose its own witnesses to multiple
depositions. (Def.'s Resp. at
what witnesses that
it
4.)
Sabre argues that American has refused to identify exactly
intends to redepose, "except to say that
it would
select others at its own
convenience." (Def.'s Resp. at 4.)
As to American's claims that it cannot use Wilding's deposition against Sabre's codefendants Travelport and Orbitz because they were not present at the Tarrant County Case
deposition, Sabre states that this claim is moot because Travelport and Orbitz have agteed to the
use of Wilding's Tarrant County Case deposition as
5-7.)
Sabre argues that a second deposition
if were taken in this action. (Def.'s
Resp. at
of any Sabre witness would be "unreasonably
cumulative and would subject Sabre and its employees to undue burden and expense." (Def.'s
Resp. at
6)
Sabre requests that the Court issue an order protecting Wilding from a second
deposition and other Sabre employees from second depositions in this action absent leave
of
Court and a showing of good cause. (Def.'s Resp. at I l.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(l) permits parties to "obtain discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Pursuant to Rule
30(a), "[a] party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including aparty, without leave
of
court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a).3 As pertinent to this case, the rule provides that leave of court is
only required
if
the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and
(l)
the deposition would
result in more than l0 depositions being taken, (2) the deponent has already been deposed in the
case, or (3) the party seeks to take the deposition before the time specified
in Rule 26(d). Fed. R.
Civ. P. 30 (aX2). In addition, the rules provide other limitations and procedural safeguards. For
' Rule 32(a)(8) provides that a "deposition lawfully taken and, if required, filed in any federal- or statecourt action may be used in a later action involving the same subject matter between the same parties, or their
representatives or successors in interest, to the same extent as if taken in the later action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(aX8)
(emphasis added).
-3-
example, "[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the Court, a deposition is limited to
of 7 hours." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(dXl). Further, a court may limit discovery if:
(l)
I
day
"the discovery
sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;" (2) "the party seeking discovery
has
had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action;" or (3) "the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefrt." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
Pursuant to the rules, American has the right to depose any person, including a party,
without leave of court. The rules themselves provide sufficient prbtections to Sabre and its
witnesses by setting fonh specific limits on the number of depositions that American is allowed
to take in this case and the length of each deposition. American only needs leave of court to
conduct such depositions
if one of the limited
circumstances listed in Rule 30(aX2) exists, none
of which appear to exist at this time.
The Court recognizes that Sabre is in the unenviable position of having to defend itself
against two lawsuits in two different Courts. However, based on the facts relating to discovery
in this case, the Court finds that it should not, at least at this time, place additional limits on the
depositions that American can take with Sabre and its witnesses pursuant to Rule 26(bX2XC).
As to Sabre's argument that, based on Rule 30(aX2XA)(ii), American must obtain leave
of court to conduct a second deposition of a witness that it has already deposed in the Tarrant
County Case, the Court finds that this rule is only applicable when a party seeks to conduct a
second deposition of the same witness in the exact same federal case. Sabre has not cited to any
case law indicating
that Rule 30(aX2XAXii) applies in
cases where a party is seeking to depose
a witness more than once due the fact that there are two separate but related cases occurring in
two different courts.
-4-
Once again, the Court is disappointed that the parties or their counsel chose to litigate a
discovery dispute that the lawyers should have resolved with little effort, thereby wasting the
time and resources of the parties, their counsel, and the Court. The Court would have expected
more professionalism.
Based on the foregoing,
it is ORDERED
that American's Motion to Compel
the
Depositions of Defendant Sabre's Witnesses [doc. # 377]is GRANTED.4
lt is further ORDERED that Sabre's Motion for
I is DENIED.
SIGNED September 19, 2012.
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
The Courl notes that an order staying all claims in this case was entered by the Honorable Terry R. Means
on September 6, 2012. According to the terms of that order, once the stay automatically expires on December 21,
2012, American has until January 25, 2013 to complete all its depositions. The Court is issuing this order now so
that American has time to schedule its depositions in accordance with the Court's September 6,2012 order. The
Court expects Sabre to work with American in good faith to meet the terms of the September 6,2012 order.
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?