Judge: Airlines can't question FBI agents in 9/11 lawsuits

ByABC News
July 16, 2009, 8:38 PM

ATLANTA -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that airlines and other companies in the industry that are being sued by families of terrorism victims can't question FBI agents about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The defendants wanted to depose the agents and sought access to other evidence related to the investigation of the attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people in order to show at trial that the government's failure to catch the terrorists and prevent the attacks mitigates and excuses any alleged fault on the aviation companies' part.

The government objected.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the defendants have also argued that the terrorists likely would have succeeded even if the defendants had exercised due care.

"The issues to be tried relate to the acts and omissions of the aviation defendants, not the government," Hellerstein wrote in his ruling. "The government's failures to detect and abort the terrorists' plots would not affect the aviation defendants' potential liability."

There was no immediate comment from the defendants or their lawyers. Spokespersons for AMR Corp.'s American Airlines and US Airways Group declined to comment. Lawyers for several airlines did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Other defendants include UAL Corp.'s United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Continental Airlines, AirTran Airways, Boeing and several airport authorities and security companies.

The judge said he plans to set a trial date for the lawsuits involving three wrongful death cases and 19 property damage cases on July 28.

The government urged the judge to block the aviation companies from interviewing six current and former FBI employees who the companies say would be able to testify as to what intelligence the FBI, CIA, Federal Aviation Administration and airlines had before the attacks regarding the terrorists' plans and capabilities, as well as how the entities shared and exploited the intelligence.

The government argued that it would be impossible to interview the employees without disclosing classified or privileged material that could cause serious damage to national security and interfere with pending law enforcement proceedings.