Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 9, 2023

Sabre Global Technologies Limited v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:22-cv-07395
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
32
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Sabre Global Technologies v. Hawaiian Airlines, Judge Broderick ordered more complete sealing submissions, but the text does not clearly state whether sealing was granted.

Who this affects

Sabre Global Technologies Limited and Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., as well as public access to the motion-to-dismiss materials and the parties' agreement.

What happened

Sabre Global Technologies Limited v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. is a contract case involving a request to keep parts of a motion to dismiss and an operative agreement confidential. Sabre said the agreement contained sensitive, heavily negotiated terms about airline flights, fares, and pricing.

Sabre argued that public disclosure could hurt its negotiations with other airlines and its competition with other flight-distribution companies. Hawaiian had filed materials seeking sealing or redactions, and Sabre asked the court to maintain those protections.

Judge Broderick ordered the parties to file an unredacted copy showing the proposed redactions and reminded them to follow his sealing procedures in future filings. The text provided does not clearly state whether the request to keep the materials sealed was granted or denied.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sabre Global Technologies Limited v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07395
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Jan. 9, 2023

Nature of the ruling

The provided text concerns a request to seal or redact court filings in a breach-of-contract action. It includes a December 9, 2022 letter from Sabre's counsel and a directive from Judge Broderick. The visible directive orders the parties to file an unredacted copy of the document with proposed redactions highlighted and instructs them to follow Rule 5(B) of the judge's individual rules for future sealing or redaction requests.

The text does not expressly say that the motion to seal was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, the precise disposition of the sealing request cannot be determined from the provided text.

Sabre's request

Sabre asked the court to maintain redactions in Hawaiian's memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss and to keep under seal Exhibit F to a declaration, which contained the parties' operative Distribution Services Agreement. Sabre argued that the agreement's terms were confidential business information and that disclosure could harm its competitive position.

Sabre specifically identified provisions concerning which flights and fares Hawaiian was required to provide to Sabre, as well as pricing and other negotiated terms. Sabre argued that airlines and competing flight-distribution companies could use those terms in future negotiations or competition against Sabre.

Sabre also cited earlier proceedings in which courts had redacted terms from briefing and sealed airline-distribution contracts. The letter stated that the agreement with Hawaiian was operative and recently signed, making it especially sensitive in Sabre's view.

Court directive and limits of the record

Judge Broderick's visible order directs the parties to provide an unredacted copy showing the proposed redactions and states that future requests must comply with Rule 5(B) of his individual rules. The order does not, in the text provided, make a clear final ruling on whether the memorandum or agreement will remain sealed.

The text also contains an attached Texas appellate memorandum concerning a different dispute involving American Airlines and Sabre. That attached decision is cited as supporting material and is not a ruling by Judge Broderick in Sabre Global Technologies Limited v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Disposition

The court issued a filing and sealing-procedure directive. No express grant, denial, dismissal, or other final disposition of the sealing request appears in the provided text.

The authoritative version

Read the full 32-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.