Tavantzis v. American Airlines, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs asked the court to compel, meaning require, American Airlines to provide further discovery in response to three requests:

- Interrogatory 3, seeking identification and descriptions of American Airlines’ internal policies and procedures for handling passengers’ medical complications arising on its aircraft. - Request for Production 19, seeking policies and procedures concerning passengers’ medical complications before, during, or after a flight. - Request for Production 27, seeking any document American Airlines used to answer the plaintiffs’ first five interrogatories.

American Airlines said it possessed two responsive documents but could not produce them without approval from the Transportation Security Administration. It relied on federal regulations governing Sensitive Security Information, or SSI, and argued that the Transportation Security Administration first had to determine whether the documents qualified as SSI. That administrative process was still pending.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the SSI regulations did not give American Airlines an automatic privilege that it could invoke without supporting evidence. American Airlines had provided little description of the documents and no explanation for why they might contain SSI. The court also noted that federal law does not allow the SSI system to be used to prevent or delay release of information that does not require protection for transportation security.

The court therefore required American Airlines to provide evidentiary support for its position, particularly concerning Interrogatory 3 and Request for Production 19. The court required American Airlines to address the legal authority for its interpretation of the SSI regulations, describe the documents in detail, explain why they might contain SSI, and explain why redacted versions would not avoid any regulatory problem.

The court treated Request for Production 27 separately. That request sought American Airlines’ communications with the Transportation Security Administration concerning this case. The court found that the plaintiffs had not explained the communications’ relevance to any claim or defense. It also stated that discovery into another party’s discovery process is disfavored.

Order

By August 12, 2024, American Airlines was ordered to submit a supplemental brief of no more than three pages, with supporting evidence, addressing the four subjects identified by the court. A modest extension was allowed only if the parties stipulated to one.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to compel American Airlines’ communications with the Transportation Security Administration under Request for Production 27. The order did not determine whether the two other documents actually contained SSI or finally decide whether American Airlines had to produce them.