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 application to keep specified litigation materials sealed because they contained competitively sensitive business information.
Sabre and the other parties and attorneys listed in Appendix B are affected by the restricted access to the specified materials; the general public cannot access those materials in the ordinary public docket.
What happened
In US Airways, Inc. v. Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre asked to keep certain expert-evidence and pretrial materials under seal. US Airways did not oppose the request.
Sabre said the materials contained nonpublic pricing information, contract terms, negotiating strategies, costs, revenue, and technology-spending information. It argued that disclosure could harm its ability to negotiate and compete, while much of the information was not important to deciding the parties’ claims.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application. The specified materials must remain sealed, with access limited to the parties and attorneys listed in the order’s appendix, and the clerk was directed to close the sealing motion.
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. jointly sought to maintain certain expert-evidence and pretrial materials under seal. The application concerned materials filed in connection with expert-witness and pretrial motions. US Airways, Inc. did not oppose the application.
Sabre sought to seal or redact targeted portions containing three types 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. The filing stated that some of the materials had been provisionally filed under seal under an earlier court order.
Court’s Reasoning
The court applied the general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. It also recognized that sealing can be appropriate when proposed redactions are narrowly tailored and necessary to protect important interests, including confidential business information. The court accepted Sabre’s explanation that disclosure of older pricing information could still harm future negotiations because Sabre’s contracts with airlines and travel agencies typically lasted several years. The court also accepted that disclosure of contract terms and negotiating strategies could harm Sabre’s competitive position, and that other financial and business information was competitively sensitive and not critical to resolving the pending motions.
Ruling
The application was granted. Materials at Dkt. Nos. 1097 to 1098, 1100 to 1101, 1112 to 1120, 1123 to 1128, and 1162 must remain under seal, with access limited to the parties listed in Appendix B of the order. Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Dkt. No. 1161.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.