Nachison v. American Airlines, Inc.

Background

Shanna Nachison brought a putative class action against American Airlines, Inc. She alleges that American Airlines wrongfully terminated her AAdvantage account, causing her to lose airline miles awarded after she obtained and used multiple co-branded Citi-AAdvantage credit cards. She asserts breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims for herself and a nationwide class of AAdvantage members whose accounts were terminated based on allegations of fraud related to the AAdvantage program.

On November 19, 2024, Nachison served Citibank, N.A., a non-party, with subpoenas for documents and deposition testimony. The deposition subpoena sought testimony from a corporate representative about six topics involving Citibank’s AAdvantage credit cards and its partnership with American Airlines. The topics covered technical systems; bonus-mile accrual, fraud detection, account management, and termination procedures; contractual and financial arrangements; marketing and communications; fraud investigations and related procedures; and the financial impact of the AAdvantage program on Citibank.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs subpoenas to non-parties. The discovery must fall within Rule 26’s scope: it must concern non-privileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The party issuing the subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden or expense, and discovery may be limited when it is duplicative or more conveniently obtained from another source. Non-parties receive extra protection because they are not parties to the litigation and cannot control its scope.

Discussion

Citibank moved to quash the subpoena on four grounds: irrelevance, overbreadth, and lack of particularity; the availability of information from American Airlines; duplication of Citibank’s document production; and the disclosure of sensitive, privileged, or work-product information.

The court found that topics 1, 3, and 6 did not describe matters relevant to any claim or defense, damages theory, or class-certification issue. Nachison did not show otherwise. The court found that topics 2, 4, and 5 concerned potentially relevant matters because they could bear on whether and to what extent American Airlines relied on information or analysis from Citibank when deciding whether to terminate AAdvantage accounts or eliminate accrued miles.

The court nevertheless found topic 4 overbroad and insufficiently specific to the extent it sought testimony about all marketing strategies, promotional campaigns, and communications with American Airlines related to the AAdvantage credit card. It reached the same conclusion as to topic 5 to the extent it sought testimony about all procedures, investigations, audits, reviews, and communications concerning fraud or exploitative practices connected with AAdvantage account closures.

Regarding information allegedly available from American Airlines, the court held that Nachison’s failure to diligently seek or obtain discovery from American Airlines did not justify shifting the burden to non-party Citibank. Unless Nachison showed that American Airlines did not possess responsive information, Citibank was entitled to have the subpoena quashed as to information likely in American Airlines’ possession.

The court construed topic 2 more narrowly. Citibank must be prepared to identify a corporate representative who can testify about Citibank’s own role in bonus-mile accrual associated with Citi-AAdvantage cards, fraud detection involving those cards, and AAdvantage account terminations or suspensions related to those cards. The representative need not testify about American Airlines’ role. The court also found no justification for requiring Citibank to testify about American Airlines’ own policies, practices, procedures, investigations, audits, reviews, or communications concerning fraud or exploitative practices involving Citi-AAdvantage cards.

The court denied Citibank’s motion to quash based on alleged duplication because Citibank had not shown that its document production was, or would be, sufficient to address any relevant deposition topic. The court also denied the motion based on confidential or protected information. Citibank could rely on the protective order for confidential information within the scope of a relevant topic. Objections to questions seeking attorney-client privileged or work-product material could be made during the deposition, and Citibank could end the deposition to seek a protective order if necessary.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Citibank’s motion to quash. The court granted the motion except as to topic 2, which it construed narrowly as described above, and required Nachison to identify the relevant time period. Citibank had to identify a prepared corporate representative by March 4, 2025, unless Citibank and Nachison agreed otherwise and Nachison obtained the presiding judge’s approval for a deposition after fact discovery closed.

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi issued the order as a United States magistrate judge.