American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 49

MOTION to Stay Discovery Until Dispositive Motions are Decided filed by Travelport Limited, Travelport, LP (Friedman, Walker)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
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

TRAVELPORT LIMITED AND TRAVELPORT, LP’S MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY UNTIL DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS ARE DECIDED
Defendants Travelport Limited and Travelport, LP (collectively “Travelport”)
respectfully request that this Court stay discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(c) until the Court decides Travelport’s pending Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(b)(3) motions. 1 As
discussed in Travelport’s supporting memorandum, 2 Travelport’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss is dispositive of all claims and would thus obviate the need for any discovery in this
case. Similarly, Travelport’s Rule 12(b)(3) motion would transfer this case to Illinois, obviating
the need for this Court to manage any discovery.
This Court has broad authority to stay discovery until threshold questions that may
1

Travelport’s Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(b)(3) motions were filed on May 25, 2011. Travelport submits this
motion subject to and without waiving the arguments asserted in those motions.

2

Travelport’s Opposition to Request for Rule 16 Conference and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay
Discovery Pending a Decision on the Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(b)(3) Motions. (Docket # 47).

1

dispose of the case are determined. In this case, a stay of discovery is proper in light of: (1) the
strength of Travelport’s dispositive motions; (2) the well-recognized burdens of subjecting the
parties and third parties to costly antitrust discovery that, in this case, would span over four years
of conduct occurring in Europe as well as the United States; and (3) Plaintiff’s failure to provide
any coherent explanation as to why discovery should proceed immediately. 3 Travelport thus
respectfully submits that discovery is premature at this stage of the case and requests the Court to
stay all discovery until the Court first decides both of Travelport’s dispositive motions.

Dated: June 1, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael L. Weiner____
Michael L. Weiner
[e-mail]
DECHERT LLP
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-6797
212.698.3608
212.698.3599(Fax)
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)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
TRAVELPORT LIMITED and
TRAVELPORT, LP

3

See Plaintiff American Airline’s Request for Rule 16(a) Conference (Docket # 33).

2

Of Counsel to Travelport Defendants:

/s/ Walker C. Friedman
Walker C. Friedman
State Bar No. 07472500
[e-mail]
Christian D. Tucker
State Bar No. 00795690
[e-mail]
FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE, P.C.
Tindall Square Warehouse No. 1
604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
817.334.0400
817.334.0401 (Fax)
John T. Schriver
[e-mail]
Paul E. Chronis
[e-mail]
DUANE MORRIS LLP
Suite 3700
190 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603-3433
312.499.6700
312.499.6701 (Fax)

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that on the 1st day of June, 2011, I attempted to confer with counsel for
Plaintiff, including Michelle Hartmann, Paul Yetter, and Bill Bogle, regarding the merits of this
Motion via email. As of the execution of this Certificate of Conference, I had not received a
response to my email. Therefore this Motion is submitted to the Court for determination.

/s/ Christian D. Tucker
Christian D. Tucker

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 1st day of June, 2011, I electronically filed 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/ Walker C. Friedman
Walker C. Friedman

4