Joint Submission of the Parties Concerning Mediation, In Response to Paragraph 4.G of the Court's April 13, 2000 Revised Scheduling Order, and Concerning Proposed Status Conference : U.S. v. AMR Corporation, American Airlines, Inc., and American Eagle Holding Corporation

This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

__________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

         Plaintiff,

                  v.

AMR CORPORATION,
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and
AMR EAGLE HOLDING
CORPORATION

         Defendants.
__________________________________________

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Civil Action No. 99-1180-JTM

JOINT SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES
CONCERNING MEDIATION, IN RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 4.G OF
THE COURT'S APRIL 13, 2000 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER,
AND CONCERNING PROPOSED STATUS CONFERENCE DATES

Mediation

Pursuant to Paragraph 4.G of the Court's April 13, 2000, Revised Scheduling Order: (1) the parties exchanged names of possible mediators on May 1, 2000; (2) the parties have conferred concerning the proposed mediators; and (3) the parties hereby submit their recommendation:

When the parties exchanged names of possible mediators, both recommended one individual:

Hon. Michael Boudin
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

The parties have, of course, not contacted Judge Boudin as to his availability or willingness to act in this capacity, but both believe that he would be capable in this role. For the Court's convenience, the parties attach an excerpt on Judge Boudin from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary.

Status Conference

In our last status conference, the Court discussed with the parties the desirability of periodic status conferences for the purpose of keeping the Court informed of developments in the case. Pursuant to this discussion, the parties propose the following dates for such a status conference:

Thursday, June 15, 2000
Thursday, June 22, 2000
Monday, June 26, 2000
Tuesday, June 27, 2000

Dated this 15^th day of May, 2000

Respectfully submitted, jointly, by

_______________/s/________________
Craig W. Conrath
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
325 7^th Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: (202)307-5779
Fax: (202)353-8856
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Jackie N. Williams
United States Attorney
District of Kansas
301 North Main
Wichita, KS 67202-4812

_______________/s/________________
Helene D. Jaffe
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, L.L.P.
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Tel:(212)310-8000

Steve E. Robison
Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, L.L.C.
125 North Market, Suite 1600
Wichita, KS 67201
Tel: (316)267-7361
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Robert E. Cooper
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P.
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213)229-7000

William R. Sampson
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P.
84 Corporate Woods
10801 Mastin, Suite 1000
Overland Park, KS 66210-1669
Tel: (913)451-6060