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-