US Airways v. Sabre Holdings Corporation
US Airways, Inc., for American Airlines, Inc. as Successor and Real Party in Interest v. Sabre Holdings Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:11-cv-02725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
US Airways v. Sabre Holdings: Judge Schofield granted Sabre’s sealing application, keeping specified materials under seal and limiting access to listed parties and counsel.
The ruling limits public access to specified summary judgment and expert-evidence materials, protects Sabre’s identified confidential business information, and permits access only to the parties and counsel listed in Appendix C.
What happened
In US Airways v. Sabre Holdings, Sabre asked the court to keep certain materials from the parties’ summary judgment and expert-evidence proceedings under seal. US Airways did not oppose the request.
The materials included information about Sabre’s prices, contracts, negotiating strategies, costs, revenues, and technology spending. Sabre argued that disclosure could harm its competitive position, including in negotiations with airlines and travel agencies.
Judge Schofield granted the sealing application. The specified materials will remain under seal, with access limited to the parties listed in the order’s Appendix C, and the clerk was directed to close two related motions.
The detailed version
- US Airways v. Sabre Holdings Corporation · No. 1:11-cv-02725
- Lorna Schofield
- June 3, 2022
Background
Defendants Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre GLBL Inc., and Sabre Travel International Ltd. (collectively, “Sabre”) sought to keep portions of materials related to pending summary judgment and expert-evidence motions under seal. The request concerned targeted redactions or complete sealing of materials containing competitively sensitive information. US Airways, Inc. did not oppose the motion. The order also refers to letters from nonparty CWT.
Sabre identified three categories of information: nonpublic pricing information, including airline booking fees and travel-agency incentives; contract terms and related negotiating strategies or evaluations; and other competitively sensitive information, including details about costs, revenue, and technology spending. Sabre argued that disclosure could harm its ability to negotiate future contracts and could give counterparties or competitors an unfair advantage.
Court’s ruling
Judge Schofield granted the defendants’ sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in Sabre’s and CWT’s letters. Materials at Dkt. Nos. 1039 to 1041, 1043 to 1045, 1047 to 1052, 1056 to 1061, and 1068 shall remain under seal, with access limited to the parties listed in Appendix C of the order. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 1067 and 1069. The order addressed sealing only; it did not rule on the underlying summary judgment or expert-evidence motions.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.