American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 88

MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on Travelport's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 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,
vs.
SABRE, INC., a Delaware corporation;
SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation and SABRE TRAVEL
INTERNATIONAL LTD., a foreign
corporation, d/b/a SABRE TRAVEL
NETWORK;
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 PENDING A DECISION ON TRAVELPORT’S
RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants Travelport Limited and Travelport, LP (collectively, “Travelport”)
respectfully renew their request that this Court stay discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) until the Court decides Travelport’s dispositive Rule 12(b)(6) motion. On June
9, 2011, plaintiff American Airlines, Inc. (“AA”) filed its First Amended Complaint, rendering
moot Travelport’s then pending dispositive motion to dismiss the original complaint. See Nowell
v. Coastal Bend Surgery Ctr., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10005, *1-2 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (amended

1

complaint renders earlier filed motion to dismiss moot); see also Stipulation Concerning
Response to Travelport’s and Orbitz’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss the Complaint [Doc.
No. 76]. As a result, Travelport is filing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion directed at the Amended
Complaint and this corresponding motion to stay discovery until a decision on that Rule 12(b)(6)
motion.
This Court has broad authority to stay discovery until threshold questions that may
dispose of the case are determined. In this case, a stay of discovery is proper in light of: (1) the
strength of Travelport’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which is dispositive of all claims against
Travelport; (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) AA’s continued failure to provide any coherent explanation
as to why discovery should proceed immediately. Travelport thus respectfully requests the Court
to stay all discovery until the Court decides Travelport’s dispositive Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Dated: June 27, 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

2

202.261.3300
202.261.3333 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
TRAVELPORT LIMITED and
TRAVELPORT, LP
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)

3

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that on the 27th 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 27th 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