Defendants’ Ability to Subpoena Settling Co-Defendant Relieves Plaintiff of Burden of Producing Settlement Information

Adopting the special master’s recommendation, the court partially denied defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to answer interrogatories about plaintiffs’ settlement agreement with former defendant Southwest Airlines because defendants could directly go to Southwest. “Defendants Delta and United are not prohibited from obtaining facts from Southwest that may be used to support the Plaintiffs’ case. . . . The Special Master’s recommendation does not prevent Defendants from ascertaining facts but merely seeks to prevent Defendants from piggybacking on the Plaintiffs’ case strategy when obtaining those facts. ‘Information provided by Southwest to Plaintiffs took place in the context of Southwest providing information to Plaintiffs and also in response to questions posed by Plaintiffs’ counsel’ and accordingly, there is ‘no persuasive reason to order Plaintiffs to provide Defendants with information Plaintiffs gleaned from Southwest.’ . . . Defendants’ preparation of a defense in this case should not rely upon gaining insight into Plaintiffs’ trial strategy; instead, Defendants may ascertain directly relevant factual information from Southwest, which it can then use either to bolster its defense or to challenge it.”

In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, 1-15-mc-01404 (DCD 2018-07-10, Order) (Colleen Kollar-Kotelly)

2018-07-12T11:57:02+00:00July 12th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|