American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 42

RESPONSE filed by Orbitz Worldwide, LLC re: #33 MOTION for Rule 16(a) Conference (Yates, Christopher)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRAVELPORT LIMITED, a foreign
corporation, and TRAVELPORT, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership, d/b/a
TRAVELPORT;
and
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, d/b/a ORBITZ,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00244-Y

DEFENDANT ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN AIRLINES’ REQUEST FOR RULE 16(a) CONFERENCE
Defendant Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (“Orbitz”) respectfully submits this Response to
Plaintiff American Airlines, Inc.’s (“American”) Request for Rule 16(a) Conference (the
“Request”).
American’s Request reads more like a brief presenting its view of the merits of its case
rather than a simple request for a scheduling conference. From Orbitz’s perspective, several
points are notable and confirm that there is neither need for a scheduling conference, nor the
expedited discovery that American intends to seek at that scheduling conference.
Initially, Orbitz is barely mentioned in American’s Request. This is no accident. As
alleged in American’s Complaint, American terminated the ticketing authority of Orbitz.com in
November 2010, which means that customers can no longer view information about American’s
flights on Orbitz.com. (Complaint ¶ 82: “on November 1, 2010, American notified Orbitz that it

1

was terminating their relationship.”) Indeed, American is now advertising the fact that its flights
are not available on Orbitz.com and that travelers should use its website, AA.com, instead:

This fact makes American’s antitrust case against Orbitz—premised on Orbitz supposedly
preventing American from reaching customers through an alleged unlawful exclusive contract
with Travelport—incongruous. But, it also has important implications for the expedited
discovery that American apparently intends to seek.
As a primary basis for its Request, American indicates it believes it will need to seek a
preliminary injunction against “Defendants” to prevent them from engaging in “further
damaging and anticompetitive actions in the next few months” because “Defendants” have
supposedly refused “to provide any assurances to the contrary.” See Request at 1-2 (emphasis
added). Because American terminated—and now trumpets the end of—its business relationship
with Orbitz, Orbitz is not in a position to provide “assurances” to American about future conduct
relative to American. In fact, when the Court looks at the Exhibits to American’s request, it will
note that American has not even made a request for “assurances” to Orbitz. The business
relationship between American and Orbitz was brought to an end by American; for that reason,
there is nothing for the Court to enjoin with respect to Orbitz and the Request certainly does not

2

point to any conduct of Orbitz that American seeks to enjoin. That means that American’s
speculations about a possible preliminary injunction motion provides no basis, whatsoever, for
expedited discovery against Orbitz.
American’s Request also points to ongoing litigation between American and Travelport
as the basis for its contention that “absolutely no prejudice will befall Defendants for moving
forward with the necessary discovery.” Request at 6 (emphasis added). Not so. American fails
to inform the Court that Orbitz is not a party to the litigation pending in state court in Illinois. In
fact, Orbitz will be prejudiced in this case because American’s Complaint fails to state a claim as
a matter of law (see Orbitz’s motion to dismiss) and discovery against Orbitz should not proceed
until the Court has ruled on that motion.
For the foregoing reasons, Orbitz respectfully requests that the Court deny American’s
Request.
DATED:

May 25, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Christopher S. Yates
Christopher S. Yates (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
California State Bar No. 161273
Email: [e-mail]
Daniel M. Wall (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
California State Bar No. 102580
Email: [e-mail]
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
and
John J. Little
Texas State Bar No. 12424230
Email: [e-mail]
Stephen G. Gleboff
Texas State Bar No. 08024500
Email: [e-mail]
Megan K. Dredla
Texas State Bar No. 24050530
Email: [e-mail]

3

LITTLE PEDERSEN FANKHAUSER LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4110
Dallas, TX 75202-3714
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On May 25, 2011, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of the
court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, using the
electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of
Electronic Filing” to the attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice
as service of this document by electronic means.

s/ Christopher S. Yates
Christopher S. Yates
SF\857478

4