LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

US v AMR CORP AMERICAN AIRLINES INC and AMR EAGLE HOLDING CORPORATION Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 67, CourtName: US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Plaintiff: US, State: KS Kansas, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>67, United States, American, Declaration, Nw/co, Motion, Craig, Conrath, Support, Compel Documents, Airlines, Monopolization, Protective Order, United States District, Exhibit, Predatory, Northwest, Opp, Hub, Investigations, Matter, States District Court, Violations, Sherman Act, Relating, Judge, Meet-and-confer Process, Complaint, Allegations, Participation , ContentID: 120245987

Case Documents
1 1998-10-23 US OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS CRAIG CONRATH
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113020
4 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 4 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . US OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS CRAIG CONRATH

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
AMERICAN
DECLARATION
NW/CO
MOTION
CRAIG
CONRATH
SUPPORT
COMPEL DOCUMENTS
AIRLINES
MONOPOLIZATION
PROTECTIVE ORDER
COUNSEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
EXHIBIT
PREDATORY
NORTHWEST
OPP
HUB
INVESTIGATIONS
MATTER
STATES DISTRICT COURT
VIOLATIONS
SHERMAN ACT
RELATING
JUDGE
MEET-AND-CONFER PROCESS
COMPLAINT
ALLEGATIONS
PARTICIPATION
                           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS


                                                 )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        ))
                           Plaintiff,            ))    Civil Action No.: 99-1180-JTM
                  v.                             ))
AMR CORPORATION,                                 )
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and                     )
AMR EAGLE HOLDING                                )
CORPORATION,                                     ))
                           Defendants.           )
--------------------------------------------     )

                   DECLARATION OF CRAIG W. CONRATH IN SUPPORT
                OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION
                TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO AMERICAN'S
                        FIRST AND SECOND REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS


I, Craig W. Conrath, declare as follows:

1.       I am the lead lawyer for the United States in the above-captioned litigation.  I submit

declaration in support of the United States' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel.

2.       On October 23, 1998, the United States filed suit against Northwest Airlines Corp.

("Northwest") and Continental Airlines, Inc. ("Continental") in the United States District Court

Eastern District of Michigan.  In its suit, the United States seeks to enjoin Northwest's purchase

controlling interest in Continental.  A true and correct copy of the Complaint filed in United

Northwest Airlines, Corp., et al ("NW/CO") is attached as Exhibit 1.  This complaint does not

DECLARATION OF CRAIG W. CONRATH IN SUPPORT
OF OPP. TO MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS - 1



any claims alleging violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (relating to

monopolization); rather, NW/CO involves alleged violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act (15

§ 18) (relating to mergers and acquisitions) and Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1)

to anticompetitive agreements).  NW/CO does not involve any allegations of predatory conduct by
SNIPPETS:
  • DECLARATION OF CRAIG W. CONRATH IN SUPPORT
  • OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION
  • TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO AMERICAN'S
  • I am the lead lawyer for the United States in the above-captioned litigation.
  • declaration in support of the United States' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel.
  • On October 23, 1998, the United States filed suit against Northwest Airlines Corp.
  • Inc. in the United States District Court for the
  • A true and correct copy of the Complaint filed in United States v.
  • Northwest Airlines, Corp., et al is attached as Exhibit 1.
  • DECLARATION OF CRAIG W. CONRATH IN SUPPORT OF OPP.
  • monopolization); rather, NW/CO involves alleged violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act
  • § 18) (relating to mergers and acquisitions) and Section 1 of the Sherman Act (relating
  • NW/CO does not involve any allegations of predatory conduct by
  • monopolization of a hub by either Northwest or Continental.
  • On June 7, 1999, Judge Denise Page Hood of the United States District Court for the Eastern
  • District of Michigan entered a Protective Order pursuant to Fed.
  • American received a subpoena in NW/CO.
  • American's participation is set forth
  • American made clear in the meet-and-confer process that it expected the United States to
  • In our discussion of the NW/CO documents with American's counsel,
  • The United States initially opened an investigation into allegations that American monopolized
  • When these other investigations were begun,
  • obtained under the same matter number, as detailed in the Declaration of John M. Nannes, ¶8.
  •    |