nkedel

never mind, somehow misread an ancient post as latest

aafreq

I was somewhat surprised to see the AE E 75 as the chosen metal
Previously flown by the Mad Dogs ORD > MSY...

spin88

The labor contracts were done before the merger, Parker promised raises over them. If the merger does not happen, no renegotiation needs to occur, the current contracts are court approved.

Spot on, and I might add (1) the legislative process takes a while, no bill could get passed before the trial is over, (2) that any bill would need to be signed by Obama. Zero change of that. Plus, I might add, Congress is rather busy being dysfunctional trying to extort concessions on the budget/debt limit by holding the economy hostage. They are too busy being crazy to punk for Parker, no matter how much money he tries to toss at them (and I don't see any so far )

This is just so funny. What a tool. Bunch of guys who know zero about the decision being made (a legal one) get considered more than people who know about the decision. If you read the c**p put out by Hunter Keay, its just as stupid and perhaps less well informed, he does not even bother to talk to people who understand anti-trust law.

As I have noted, so far there is not a single actual legal person (professor, litigator, etc) familiar with antitrust law - who is not connected to AA/US - who has been quoted as saying DOJ has a weak case, let alone that AA/US is likely to win.

People like Baker and Keay are sort of like promoters of quack medical cures. Your doctor says your chance of survival is 30%, there is always some quack willing to take your money with a promise of a 99% change of a cure through eating iguana dung in Chad. [PS in fairness to Baker, he was one of the few analysts to see how badly UAL was going to perform, so was ahead of that curve at least].


US filed a Rule 37 motion to compel the production of documents today, asking for all documents on the analysis and decisions of prior airline mergers. http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-mergers.html/

This goes to the special master, and I don't know if there are accelerated time lines for the motion to be heard (such a motion usually takes 21 days to get decided). But the decision will be a very interesting one.

Under the Federal Rules discovery is freely given, and you can get discovery of things that are not admissible evidence. As I, and others, have noted unless what is sought is statistical, et al evidence that might be relevant today (showing the validity or non-validity of a technique or method of analysis), what DOJ decided, or the legal analysis they used in the past is not relevant (or admissible).

As such it will be interesting to see how the special master limits or restricts what appears to me to be rather massive discovery requests that AA/US has made. And given how broad they are, there may be discussion along the lines of "well these are quite a broad set of requests, since they will all need to be reviewed document by document, I don't see how DOJ can be expected to provide these in under 30 days, so I am prepared to grant some of these but Judge Kollar may need to reconsider the trial date."

As I noted earlier, there is a big difference between litigating knowing you need to get to trial, and being prepared to focus on what you need/ask for to get there vs carpet bombing the other side to try to bog them down. The Rule 37 motion that US filed says to me that they are trying to carpet bomb, and that will not go over well with the Court, and may impact their ability to keep a trial date. As I noted, big firms like US hired can't litigate fast or efficiently, and this motion shows that this may be happening here.

But watch the order on the Motion to Compel...

cbn42

I find it surprising that US is requesting discovery of these documents. They are almost certainly not admissible at trial, and requesting them will simply cause delays when they barely have a few days between the scheduled end of trial and their self-imposed deadline.

Can anyone comment on what their motivation might be?

richarddd

Perhaps it's the "Certainty of death, small chance of success- what are we waiting for?" mindset.

ckendall

My sources indicate that all the internal stuff not prepared for trials would be considered something like "internal deliberations" and not be discoverable. Hard to see this getting much at all.

ihdihd

I know nothing about anti-trust litigation. From a strategy perspective this could be be good prep for what they see as the true expected outcome of a settlement.

Maybe the notion is that though they know they've lost the schedule battle, they might as well go out with a bang by requesting this documentation, derailing the actual trial, but setting up for a more likely settlement armed with the internal dealings of what DOJ may or may not be amenable to.

The most concerning ulterior motive though may be that with access to this information, US and AA would actually emerge out of a failed merger armed with information about the other mergers that they may not have had. Can they legally use that information in their running the business? Of course not.

But a trial is not the clean room environment of a merger as far as I can tell.

spin88

there is a narrow group of documents that likely ARE admissible at trial, which would be those that DOJ's expert (if they are using the same experts in this case) did in the prior trial [So you could CX them on methodology, prior conclusions].

There is then a broader group of documents that might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. But I find it hard to believe that more than 5-10% of what they requested is in these categories, and the pulling and review before production is a big task.

By not targeting the requests at only those things that can be easily found and produced and over which they are likely to win, they put the special master/Kollar in a bad place to keep their trial date.

I don't think they have any motivation, they want the trial date, I just think its incompetence. Big law firms litigate like big law firms, and are unable to get beyond the turn over every rock, look (and bill) for looking at every scrap of paper you can get your hands on way they always do things.

This is generally correct. Stuff the lawyers did (unless they somehow waived the privilege, which US is trying to argue, but is a big big stretch) and was not then put into documents given to a court remain absolutely privileged. The problem is that what is discoverable is often inbedded into and part of lawyer work, and it takes a LONG TIME to untangle them to produce stuff. This is the delay argument US has walked into.

No way they get confidential information from competitors, which poses another problem on DOJ producing stuff. I can't see having a fight over very broad and not at all tailored document requests can help out US on a trial date that they just barely got, but on the condition (implied at least to me, and other lawyers here have agreed) that discovery be expedite.

And no way this helps a settlement. DOJ will just dig in, and either use this against US re the trial date, or pull in the people to review stuff re production if the judge (not the special master, they can appeal the special master's decision to Judge Kollar) gives US what it wants.

jspira

It doesn't make US look very good before the court and certainly, as you point out, will not help push the parties towards a settlement.

If anything, Judge Kollar will do one of two things IMO: step in and not give US what it wants (although I would guess the special master won't find in US' favor) or delay the trial start date.

US' actions appear to be somewhat in opposition to its request for an expedited trial and trial date.

Sant

How would a potential government shutdown of a few days affect the trial? Would DOJ get an extension? Would the trial get moved from Nov 25 date?

uxb

DOJ is going to bury US in paperwork. Maybe I should grab some popcorn for this.

DOJ and the Courts do not entirely shutdown as they are essential services. Will this case be important enough to go on during a shutdown? That's anyone's guess. That being said, a government shutdown will not last til 25 Nov. The American people will not stand for it.

25milesfromhome

The head of the agency has to designate employees essential or non-essential. I have a vague recollection that in the last shutdown civil division employees were deemed non-essential.

I'm also not sure if DOJ can use its non-appropriated funds, e.g., asset forfeiture, to fund the civil division during a shutdown.

sonit

For someone who doesn't know too much about anti-trust law, what are the possible outcomes for the November 25 trial? Also what is the most likely outcome based on all the information and facts that we currently have?

FWAAA

The parties may settle at any time. If they don't reach a settlement, then following the trial, the judge may grant the government's request for an injunction that would prohibit the merger (US loses). Or the judge may deny the injunction (US wins).

Unless the parties settle (which would likely require massive concessions by Parker), my opinion is that the judge rules in favor of the government, and thus AA ultimately emerges from Ch 11 as an independent airline. Others will likely disagree.

LETTERBOY

I may be wrong (no one can really know what these idiots in Congress are going to do), but I don't expect there to be a government shutdown. A deal won't come until the last minute, but I would expect there to be a deal.