Shocking Southwest Plane Fight Ends in Zip Ties, Arrest, and a Lawsuit

Can anybody do something? Please get the. >> A viral airplane brawl has now morphed. into a massive lawsuit against Southwest. Airlines. Hair pulling, slurs, screaming, all caught on tape. Now we. got these legal filings. And here's the. question. Who's going to end up paying. the price in all of this? Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber.

If you're scrolling through social. media, you're reading articles, it feels. like what? Every other day there is a. fight that breaks out. Either a physical. fight, a verbal altercation, all. happening at an airport, or on an. airplane, right? Don't you see this all. the time? And what we have right now is. one that was not only caught on tape, this cell phone video, but it is now. evolved into a fullblown lawsuit, including against the airline. And that. is what we're going to talk about. We go.

to June 16th, 2025. Livia Rambola was a. passenger on Southwest Airlines flight. that was leaving from New York's. LaGuardia Airport headed for Kansas. City. It's flight number 779. And that. is when all hell breaks loose. In a cell. phone video that captures the chaos of. this moment, the video appears to show a. woman reportedly identified as Lyanna. Perry verbally berating and pulling the. hair of Rumbola. And what ensues is.

disturbing. It is disgusting. We aren't. even able to show you most of it because. of YouTube's policies. But this cell. phone video starts with Perry allegedly. leaning over in the seat, either. touching or attempting to touch Rumbola. when you hear someone say, "Don't touch. her." Rumbola then appears to push. Perry's hand away. Perry then appears to. slap Rumbola, grabs her hair. It's at. this point that Southwest staff and a. passenger try to pull her off. This.

leads to Perry allegedly making a series. of derogatory, even racist comments. profanity lace comments, by the way. Even making fun of Rumbola's weight. >> I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I. can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't. breathe. I can't breathe. I can't. breathe. >> Okay, >> let me go. I can't breathe. I can't. breathe. Shut the up. I can't breathe. You. Nobody's touching you. You not letting.

me go, mother. You're corny as. >> now. They're able to restrain her, put. her to the ground. They appear to zip. tie her. She is seen on tape trying to. kick Rambola multiple times and. eventually Perry is put on a gurnie and. taken off the plane by first responders. It's insane. It's insane. There's no. other way to look at it. And what. precipitated all of this is not entirely. clear. Although although in this lawsuit. there might be a little bit more of an. explanation. And there has been an.

allegation, by the way, that Perry was. intoxicated. So, we're going to get into. what the lawsuit says. We're going to. get into this because there's two. things. While we might not know exactly. what started all this, there are two. things that are clear. One is that Perry. is facing criminal charges. Yeah. Resisting arrest, obstructing. governmental administration, disorderly. conduct, three counts of harassment, and. three counts of attempted assault. She. pleaded not guilty. She's expected back. in court on September 3rd. and two, she. and Southwest Airlines are being sued by.

Rumbola. And the question you now have. to ask is, is this just a slam dunk. case? Is this a huge problem for the. airline? Let's talk about it. So, first. I'm going to go through the main parts. of the lawsuit, what she's suing for, and we're going to go through all of. this right now with an expert. I'm. bringing on attorney Eric Fattis, who's. not only a former prosecutor, but a. personal injury lawyer and trial. attorney. Eric, thank you so much for. coming on. Let's first start off because. we're going to go piece by piece into. this lawsuit. First, how what do you.

think about the criminal charges? And. two, how does a criminal case affect the. civil case? >> Sure, Jesse. So, um yeah, things are. getting pretty spicy on Southwest. It. seems like uh when looking at the. criminal charges, those seem pretty darn. solid. You got it on video. Um the. asalent is is being hostile. She's being. physical. She's being verbally. threatening. uh and and then um there is. an altercation that she initiates that. that ensues. So um you know that part.

seems pretty well established. It's. going to be hard to defend against those. charges on the criminal side. And often. times Jesse there is an overlap between. the criminal law and the civil law here. Um the plaintiff has brought allegations. in the civil realm not only against the. asalent as you mentioned but also. against the airline. And the airline is. of course not implicated on the criminal. side, but they come into play on the. civil side. >> Hey, real quick. I want to give a shout. out to Morgan and Morgan for sponsoring. today's Law and Crime YouTube takeover.

Now, Morgan and Morgan is a firm with. over a thousand attorneys. You know why. they're so big? You know why they have. so many? Because they win a lot. They. have recovered over $25 billion for more. than 500,000 clients. Think about that. In the past few months, a client in. Florida received $12 million after the. insurance company offered just $350,000. Out in Pennsylvania, a client was. awarded $26 million. That is 40 times. the insured $650,000 offer. Another. client in Pennsylvania received $29. million after being offered only.

$500,000. And even if you think your. case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not just start a claim and fight for. what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan. makes it so simple. You can start a. claim from your phone in just eight. clicks. So, if you're injured, you can. easily start a claim at. forthepeople.com/youtube. takeover by clicking the link below or. scanning the QR code on screen. And you might have a guilty verdict. Uh. let me put it this way. We have seen.

cases before where somebody's found not. guilty, but they have been found liable. civily, right? if she's found guilty or. pleads guilty in the criminal case, does. that automatically mean she's liable in. the civil case? And again, we're going. to go through what it is. And two, can. evidence from the criminal case be used. in the civil case? So, I' I've thrown a. lot at you, but I'm just trying to. understand the connections. >> No, I'm with you, Jesse. So, um, on the. criminal side, if she pleads guilty or. is found guilty, um, that is not always.

transferable to the civil realm. there. are different elements that need to be. proven on the civil side that don't need. to be proven on the criminal side. And. so, um, simply a conviction on the. criminal side does not make it a slam. dunk on the civil side, but the. evidence, uh, is going to overlap. significantly. There is video evidence, witness testimony, uh, photographs. I'm. sure all of that is going to come into. play in both cases. >> Okay, so let's talk about this.

complaint. Okay, so this was filed in. New York State Court. It is against both. Southwest Airlines and Perry. And. Rambola argues that Southwest, hey, you. know what? This was your plane. You were. quote under a duty to own, operate, manage, maintain, control, supervise, and inspect the afored aircraft and. flight operation. Keep that in mind. Here's what it says. that on or about. June 16, 2025, the plaintiff Olivia. Rambo was a lawful passenger on the. aircraft in the flight number 779. operated by codefendant Southwest.

departing from LaGuardia to Kansas City. That while on board of the afor. preparing to depart from LaGuardia. airport, plainif was violently assaulted. and battered by codefendant Lyanna. Perry. They're two different things, assault and battery. We'll get to that. including physical assault, battery, spitting, use of profanities and slurs, and required restraint by flight staff. employing zip ties. The aforce said. assault, battery, and verbal abuse. directed at the plainif by defendant. Lyanna Perry was captured by video. recording and disseminated to the public.

at large via social media and other. media platforms to the extreme. embarrassment and ridicule of the. plaintiff herein. Okay, Eric, what. stands out to you about that paragraph? Is it just setting up the stage here. before they go into the specifics of. what the causes of action are? >> Yes, Jesse. So, this sort of lays the. foundation for the civil lawsuit. Um, the requirements of Southwest, the uh uh. alleged misconduct of defendant Perry. Uh, and on top of that, one thing that.

stands out is the damages piece. So, the. plaintiff has to prove that she was. harmed by this. >> Can we talk about that? That was the. next thing I was going to talk about. Let's let's talk about that. What is the. harm? What is the injury? This is what. it says. The plainif has sustained. severe emotional distress, public. humiliation, reputational harm, and. continuing psychological injury. aggravated and prolonged by the viral. dissemination of the incident through. global media and social networks. The. plainifola. was caused to sustain serious, severe,

and painful personal injuries, some of. which are permanent and lasting in their. nature. was caused to suffer great pain. and anguish and may in the future. continue to so suffer and has been. damaged in a sum that exceeds the. jurisdictional limits of all other. courts of the state of New York which is. why I guess it's not in a lower court. but in this court. Um Eric, okay, talk. about it. H what is that harm and how do. you prove all that? >> So that harm we're talking about Jesse. in the law is referred to as damages. So. what were the losses sustained by this.

plaintiff? You know, if this case. happened 20 years ago, it would be a a. totally different case with with the. emergence of social media with viral. videos. Uh that changes the game. entirely. You know, 20 years ago, her. harm would have been I was embarrassed. in front of these 50 people on the. plane. Now, her harm is potentially I. was embarrassed in front of millions uh. throughout the country, throughout the. world. And so, it really ups the Annie. in terms of the damages she's claiming. and what she might be able to brew. And. let me ask you because the video is.

pretty horrifying, right? You have Perry. who's allegedly holding on to her hair, holding on to MBA's hair, calling her. names, right? Calling her fat, uh, allegedly attacking her. I haven't seen. what the comments were on any of these. videos that went viral, but does it does. an attorney go through the record, look. at all those comments that may have. actually been targeted against Rumbola. in some way? Not sure they exist. Maybe. they don't. Maybe they're all aimed at. Perry. Maybe they're not. But how do you.

prove that you have suffered. humiliation? Is it the video itself? Is. it her taking the stand? Is it uh a. mental health expert? Is it looking at. comments online? How do you prove it? >> So the video itself is critical without. question. I think it would be prudent. for the plaintiff to get a mental health. evaluation to detail exactly how this. humiliation has affected her. On top of. that, Jesse, absolutely. You look at. these social media comments, I'd be. going through those with a fine tooth.

comb. Anything that is disparaging of my. client, the plaintiff, if I was. representing her, um that is going to be. a primary exhibit in this case. And I. imagine they're going to be able to find. numerous such comments. You put that in. front of a jury and say, "Hey, you know, these 30 strangers are talking mess. about my clients, about her uh physical. body, about the incident itself. how how. humiliating and and that is compensible. under the law. Um the amount for which. it's compensible will be debated by the.

jury. >> And okay, so real quick before we move. forward, how much could she be looking. at? Or you know what? Tell you what, tell you what, I'm going to save that. question. Let me save that question for. the end because I don't think when. you're looking at deep pockets, you're. looking at Perry so much. I mean, I. don't really know her financial. situation looking at Southwest. Let's. put it to the side. Put that question to. the side. Okay, let's get into what. she's suing for. the causes of action, the claims. So, the first cause of. action, this one's against Southwest. Airlines, and it's that the airline and.

its quote employees, agents, and staff. failed to act in a timely manner or. prevent what was foreseeable misconduct. That they should have denied Perry from. coming on board because she was quote. visibly impaired and intoxicated. The. argument is that this is negligence. under New York tort law, duty, breach of. that duty, causation, harm, and that. Southwest violated FAA regulation, safety standards, federal law that by. its failure, it resulted in Perry.

allegedly carrying out this attack, Eric. Okay. Have they met at this point. without looking at any evidence or. discovery? Have they met the elements of. negligence here on the part of. Southwest? Let's start with this cause. of action. >> You know, I think the plaintiff has a. darn good shot. What we're talking about. here is essentially that an airline. carrier knows it's going to have all of. these people on its plane. It's got to. create a reasonably safe environment. Uh. and and we've all been to the airport.

and have seen intoxicated people. Sometimes we've seen those folks not. being allowed to board planes. Look, the. Southwest likely has a duty, a legal. duty to make sure that that is a safe. plane and that there is no one on there. who is foreseeably going to cause some. kind of assault and battery and huge. altercation like this. Pliff is saying. Southwest failed to screen those folks. and and to screen Perry and to remove. her or or not let her board the plane. So, um I think pliff's in a pretty good.

position on that one. Couldn't Southwest. say, "Hey, listen. We where is the. policy that we don't that we stop. serving alcohol on planes or we don't. allow intoxicated people on the planes?". She may have been loud, right? She may. be intoxicated. People fly. They need to. sometimes drink to calm their nerves. Could we predict? Was it foreseeable. that she was going to grab someone's. hair and call, you know, another. individual racist name and, you know, do. all this stuff? I mean, allegedly call. someone these names. I mean, maybe,

maybe not. I mean, is that if Southwest. wants to fight it, are they gonna say, is it foreseeable? >> You know, Southwest is going to argue, hey, look, um, we have all of these. flights on a daily basis, dozens and. dozens of dozens throughout the world, we're going to do our best here. But if. a person gets on that plane and, you. know, they've had a few drinks, that's. not some kind of absolute bar to air. travel. Uh, and and I think Southwest is. going to say, "Hey, we did our best. We.

didn't see any overt signs during. boarding um you know in observing this. passenger as she got onto the plane and. so um what else were we supposed to do? We didn't know she was going to freak. out and attack somebody. That'll be. Southwest's argument. >> Let's talk about the second cause of. action. Okay, this is also against. Southwest and this kind of provides a. little bit more detail about what may. have started all this. Remember I. mentioned that. It says that codefendant. Lyanna Perry initially caused a. disruption by rejecting an available. seat near a different individual and. this behavior was observed by flight.

crew and could reasonably be interpreted. as erratic or confrontational. That. despite the early red flag, no. supervisory intervention was made by. Southwest employees to reassign Lyanna. Perry to a safe location, evaluate her. fitness to travel, and or deny boarding. Instead, Lyanna Perry proceeded through. the cabin and ultimately chose to sit. near the plainif where she then. initiated a violent and unprovoked. confrontation involving physical. assault, battery, spitting, and the use.

of slurs. And the argument is is that. Southwest should have tried to mitigate. this. They had a duty to act before the. fight broke out to monitor passenger. misconduct. And the way that they are. holding Southwest liable and the way. they're holding Southwest liable is. interesting too. That defendant. Southwest flight crew who are Southwest. agents employees directly contributed to. the plaintiff's damages and thus the. airline is vicariously liable under the. Respondi superior doctrine. Eric that.

doctrine is a way that you say okay a. company is responsible for the actions. or inactions of its employees for what. they do within the scope of their. employment. Right? I mean, would that. fit here? What do you make of this. argument that, hey, she was showing red. signs? She was throwing red flags. The. the staff didn't do enough. Southwest, you're responsible. >> You know, um, certainly vicarious. liability is going to come into play.

Like you said, Jesse, that is where the. airline in this case is responsible for. the actions of its employees. Really the. rationale behind that is uh when this. happens, you can't just sue the. employees. They're not going to have. enough money to compensate these types. of damages. Um it's really the employer. uh who is is ultimately responsible for. the conduct of their staff. But this. argument, Jesse, I think is a little. shaky. You know, just the fact that she. wanted to switch seats in the beginning. and um you know, uh Southwest didn't.

intervene in that moment. so sure that. they had a duty to do so. I'm not so. sure there were any overt red flags that. would signal to a reasonable person, hey, we got to get this lady off the. plane immediately at that juncture. >> What about the third cause of action? It's also against Southwest. This is. interesting, too. That defendant. Southwest maintained and implemented a. corporate policy of unassigned seating, allowing passengers to freely choose. their own seats on a first come, first. serve basis during boarding. that this.

policy was was designed, maintained, and. enforced primarily for the operational. and financial benefit of the defendant. Southwest, including faster turnaround. times, reduced staffing burdens, and the. promotion of paid early boarding. services. That defendant Southwest's. policy of unassigned seating was a clear. departure from the industry standards of. other airlines within the same industry. that defendants southwest open seating. structure as boarding an airplane in the. confined space of an aircraft with.

issues of baggage storage and physical. congestion together with the passengers. thereof not accustomed to defendant. Southwest departure from industry. standard created a foreseeable hazard of. passenger conflict that defendant. Southwest's lack of proactive seat. assignment directly contributed to the. confrontation and Southwest seating. policy was approximate and substant. stantial cause of the altercation. And. by the way, it was announced last month. that Southwest is going to be dropping.

this seating system, trying to phase it. out completely by January 2026 because. it seems like a majority of the. customers actually prefer they like. assigned seating more. Eric, two points. about that. That's interesting, right? Blaming it on the seating seating. policy. Is it foreseeable? Did it cause. the alleged interaction? And B, the. timing of that's interesting, that. announcement that they don't want to go. forward with any more random seating. >> Uh, hey, sure is. And and you know, I.

think the plaintiff has some traction on. this claim. Look, we've all been like on. a school bus as kiddos, a really um. crowded school bus, and you know, you. might want to sit somewhere, but then. someone else kind of butts in and and. there's bound to be a conflict. If you. are um at a concert and it's general. admission and you might be standing at a. place and then some big old dude comes. and bumps you out of the way or stands. right in front of you, conflict abounds. uh uh under those circumstances. So I. think it was foreseeable. Um and then. also uh the causation piece, you know,

Southwest is going to say, "Hey, this is. Perry's bad. This is not um something. due to our seating." Lastly, with with. respect to the announcement that. interestingly that the jury likely would. not hear that Southwest changed their. policy because it's called what's uh. what's referred to as a subsequent. remedial measure and and and we want to. encourage uh people to make things. better and have that not held against. them at trial. So, the jury likely won't. hear about the change in policy.

>> You mentioned something before that. caught my attention. Could Southwest. say, "Hey, listen. Look how many flights. we have a year. This happens. There's. unassigned seating all the time. Look at. buses. Look at subways. There's no. assigned seating there. So, how are we. supposed to know that unassigned seating. is going to be the catalyst for a. massive fight and tie raid? Fair. And by. the way, I'm not defending Southwest. I'm just trying to come up with other. arguments that they might come up with. What do you think about that? >> Uh, always two sides of the coin. And. that is the other side. you know,

Southwest is is going to say exactly. that, that, hey, um, we provide services. to our patrons at a lower cost than. other airlines. And one way we're able. to do that is by this seating. arrangement where you you pick your own. seat. Um, that in and of itself, Southwest will claim, uh, is not what. gave rise to this conflict. What gave. rise to the conflict was some henry. hostile passenger who acted erratically. and and freaked out and and she is the. one who should be responsible not.

Southwest. I think that's the horse. they're going to ride. >> Okay, so let's talk about Lyanna Perry. because she's also being sued. The next. cause of action is against her, not. Southwest. It is for assault that she. quote engaged in a course of conduct. that was an intentional act which. resulted in the apprehension of. immediate physical contact with the. plainif. The fifth cause of action is. also against uh Perry. That is for. battery. So that's different. That she. engaged in a course of conduct that was. an intentional act, unauthorized.

physical contact with the plaintiff. So. two different things there, assault and. battery, right? There is a slight. difference there. How strong is it when. you think about, you know, you think. about what you've seen. I guess the the. counterargument could be and tell me if. I'm entirely wrong. Um, you remember in. the video there is a moment where it. appears Rumbola grabs or pushes away uh. Perry's hand, right? Knocks the hand, allegedly knocks the hand away with the. phone and that is when Perry allegedly. attacks. Is it a clear-cut case of.

assault and battery? >> Well, uh, you know, it it's not a slam. dunk either way, I think. You know, assault, like you mentioned, uh, in the. civil context, is just making someone. think you're about to hit them, and then. the battery is actually hitting them. What the defense is going to claim is. that the plaintiff was comparatively. negligent. She was comparatively. responsible. She was the one who. initiated physical contact and and that. is what really sort of set off this this.

entire debacle. And so, um, you know, there are outs on on the defense side, but the video is pretty damning. And I. think a jury is going to look at that. and say, "H, that sure looks like a. solid battery.". >> Let's talk about the sixth cause of. action. So, this is against Southwest. and Perry. And basically, it argues that. as a consequence of this wrongful. conduct. This whole episode, and this is. what we talked about before, this whole. episode was recorded. It was publicized. for everyone to see that that that in. and of itself resulted in emotional.

injury. quote that the repeated exposure. to online videos, headlines, commentary, and social ridicule retraumatizes. Plainif and prolonged her recovery, including invasion of privacy, involuntary exposure, reputational harm, professional embarrassment, and social. stigma. That defendant's intentional. conduct and chosen corporate policies. were willful, wantant, and reckless with. pliff entitled to punitive damages under. the laws of the state of New York. It.

almost feels Eric like an intentional. infliction of emotional distress claim, right? Almost. I I guess. >> uh that's how I see it. Certainly. tantamount to that. And and look, you. know, uh like I said, with the emergence. of social media, if if an incident like. this happens, it's not 50 people on the. plane who see it. It could be millions. across the country. So So that increases. the damages for the plaintiff. On the. flip side, defense, I think Perry is. gonna argue, hey, the only person who. looks bad in this video is Perry. The.

only person who looks like an idiot and. who is, um, you know, acting a fool is. the the defendant Perry. And so, um, she. is the one who's going to be humiliated. or ridiculed, not this unsuspecting. victim who is just sitting in her seat. And what that means is the suspecting. victim uh might be it might be more. difficult for her to prove her damages. because she doesn't look, you know, horribly out of line in any sense. Uh. and so that would not result in in such. ridicule. At least the defense is going. to argue that. >> Now, we don't believe that Southwest has.

filed an answer as of yet. Maybe not. surprising, right? Too soon. They. haven't responded. I I don't think I've. even seen them make a public comment at. the time of this recording. Maybe you. have, but is it just too soon? Like you. wouldn't expect that. >> Exactly. Um as as the court deadlines. go, they're going to give Southwest some. time to review all of this, to um do. some very preliminary investigation and. to respond to the legal claims that are. contained within this complaint. Not. uncommon at all. In fact, very standard.

uh for Southwest to have, you know, a. thoughtful, contemplative response to. this. Um or is their response going to. be a settlement offer to make it go. away? That's possible, too. Do you think. they're going to settle this Southwest? And and if so, what does that say? >> I think that Southwest is incentivized. to settle this. Um the the more momentum. this gains, the more it is in the public. consciousness, the higher the. plaintiff's damages for humiliation.

could be. And so Southwest would be well. advised to say, "Hey, we'll throw some. money at this and and we're we've. changed our policy. This isn't going to. happen again. Let's just kind of sweep. this under the rug and be done with it. and move on. I think um Southwest. Council should should consider that. >> Okay, because now I want to ask what. could they be looking at in terms of. damages, right? Let's go back to that. question. And then by the way, Lyanna. Perry actually filed an answer. I'll get. to that real quick. But um what do what. do you what could she Rumbola be looking.

at in terms of potentially receiving in. damages either if a successful lawsuit. or at a settlement? you know, um I think. the plaintiff is at least in the. neighborhood potentially of seven. figures here. And the reason I say that. is because there have been um uh. hundreds of thousands of of views uh. perhaps in the millions at this point. I'm not sure, but it could get there. And and this is of a very personal. incident, an attack where where an.

individual is victimized in public in. front of people. She is having uh uh um. slurs and and and you know toxic. language and insults hurled at her about. her body and other embarrassing matters. Um and I think that she is going to. press this hard. We could be looking at. something in the seven figures. >> Wow. Okay. So Perry filed an answer. Okay. And this is what it says. Defendant Lyanna Perry appearing prosay. without an attorney answers the verified.

complaint as follows. Okay, Eric, before. we go any further, prosay, no attorney. So, that's shocking. >> Yikes. Yeah, that that is always um. perilous uh for anybody in the civil. realm. Look, that that complaint, I read. through it. It is professional. It is. polished. Uh and it is not something a. lay person is prepared to respond to. >> Well, let's hear what her response was. Quote, "General denial. Defendant denies. each and every allegation contained in. the complaint except as may be expressly.

admitted herein. Two specific denials. Defendant denies that she assaulted, battered, or otherwise harm plainif and. denies that plainif suffered the damages. alleged as a result of defendants's. conduct. Affirmative defenses. The. complaint fails to state a cause of. action upon which relief may be granted. Any alleged injuries or damages were. caused in whole or in part by other. parties, including codefendant Southwest. Airlines. Plaintiff's alleged injuries. and damages were the result of her own. conduct or contributo negligence. Defendant reserves the right to assert.

additional defenses as they become. known. Wherefore, defendant Lyanna Perry. respectfully requests that the complaint. be dismissed in its entirety, that. judgment be entered in her favor, and. that she be awarded such other and. further relief as the court deems just. and proper. Now, Eric, you and I both. know that a legal answer is not the. whole story. It doesn't lay out all of. the defenses. It's, you know, accepting. some an a statement. It is denying an. acce a statement. It may be putting up. saying there was an affirmative defense, but it doesn't, it's not like a motion.

to dismiss, right? This felt very. boilerplate. Um, but I don't know the. full story. You tell me what you took. away from that answer. >> Uh, it felt very chat GPT to me. I don't. know if that's what was used or anything. like that, but um you know, typically an. answer is uh can be voluminous like like. the complaint itself is is more than. five pages. Usually an answer would be. at least five pages or more. Um you. know, she does highlight some potential.

defenses like contributo negligence, saying it was the plaintiff who got. essentially arguing the plaintiff who. got physical first. She's also kind of. blaming Southwest for her own freakout. uh which uh is curious and uh I'm not. sure how far that's going to go, man. >> Yeah. I mean, do you think this goes to. discovery at least? Do you think in. whether through Southwest or Perry, it. just goes through discovery. We see. what's there. How much discovery do you. think matters here? I guess I wonder if.

if Rambola would love to get a hold of. corporate emails to see, hey, you know, we're we're seeing there's concerns. were seeing a rise in concerns with the. seating policy. Maybe there were. concerns with how staff was handling. inebriated passengers, maybe looking at. other instances. H what could discovery. show? And by the way, for anybody. doesn't know, discoveries with the. exchange of evidence in a case, right? You trying to get evidence from the. defendants and see what's there. >> Yeah, Jesse, it could be some fireworks. during that discovery. Uh, one is going.

to be the deposition of defendant Perry. She is going to have to be placed under. oath and that plaintiff's attorney is. going to play that video in painstaking. detail and say, "Hey, this is you, you. know, I'm grabbing my client by the hair. and shaking her head around, isn't it? This is you making fun of her weight, isn't it? This is you attacking her in. front of all these people, right? So, that's going to be something. And then. additionally, um, Discovery for. Southwest. If I'm pl if I'm pl attorney, I'm getting or at least requesting every.

prior incident of uh an intoxicated. passenger, every prior incident of a of. of an physical altercation on the plane, and also emails about those things where. Southwest is likely talking about the. cause of them and what could be done. differently and what should have been. done differently, but perhaps wasn't. >> Eric Fattis, what a case. We'll see. where it goes. Thank you so much for. taking the time. >> Good to be with you. And that is all we. have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining. us and as always, please subscribe on.

YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next. time. [Music].