# u.s. DEPARTMENT OF**TRANSPORTATIO~**

# ECEIVE
.. D OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

# n FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant,
vs. AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, Respondent. 

## DEC 24 2014 HEARING DOCKET

DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 FAA CaseNo. 2011S0290032
Judge Sullivan

RESPONSE TORENEWED MOTION FORSANCTIONS AND MOTION TO COMPELAND EXCLUDE On December 2, 2014, Respondent moved the Judge to impose sanctions on the FAA on the basis that the FAA had untimely made certain expert witness disclosures without any reason
or explanation. 1

### The FAAresponded, noting that the cause ofthe delay was that the undersigned had been out ofthe office due to a death in the family, and provided evidence that immediately upon the undersigned's return to the office, opposing counsel hadbeen informed ofthis absence and the reason for it. The Judge reserved ruling on the motion on the basis that the Respondent had failed to engage in any Rule 3 7 discussions prior to filing its motion. Although it is now undisputed that there was good cause for the delay, Respondent now renews its motion, now arguing that an FAA witness should be precluded from testifying solely on the basis that the undersigned did not properly communicate with opposing counsel and the court with regards to the untimeliness. That motion is meritless, and shouldbe denied.

1Respondent alternatively argued in thatmotion thatthe expert disclosures were substantively deficient. Respondent does notrenew its motion in thatregard, and so itwill notbefurther addressedhere. 1

### Further, while the Respondent seeks sanctions against the FAA for failing to make a phone call, Respondent has itselfrepeatedlyviolated its own discovery obligations withregard to witness disclosures. As a result, the FAA now moves the Judge to compel Respondent to complete certain discovery disclosures, and to preclude Respondent from being permitted to use certain witnesses.2 Respondent's Renewed Motionfor Sanctions In

### its renewed motion for sanctions, Respondent's sole allegation is that the undersigned has failed to show good cause for (1) nothaving another attorney in the undersigned's office call opposing counsel to let him know about the undersigned's availability; (2) not having another attorney in the undersigned's office file with the Judge a motion for leave to file the expert disclosures when the undersigned returned to the office; or (3) not asking opposing counsel to accept the untimely expert disclosure. As an initial matter, the actions asserted by Respondent
are neitherreasonablenornecessary. With regards to atelephone call to opposing counsel while the undersignedwas out ofthe office, there would not appear to be any function to such a call except as a matter ofcourtesy. While maximum courtesy is, of course, an ideal for which any attorney should strive, it is unreasonable to expect that, when an attorney must leave the office (and the state) for an extended period oftime, with no notice, that it will be possible for the attorney to make sure that opposing parties are givenpersonal callsto letthe parties knowthatthe attorney is unavailable. With regards to requesting leave from the court to make the untimely discovery disclosure, this action was also unnecessary. While filings with the court itself, such as an Answer or a Motion for Summary Judgment, may require leave in order to be accepted by the

2 The FAA'sresponse andmotion are combinedbecause they share a factual nexus inthatRespondent's own violations concerning expertwitness disclosures leave Respondentwithuncleanhands, which is an independent basis to deny Respondent's RenewedMotion for Sanctions. 

### 2

### court, leave is notrequired from the courtbefore making an untimely discovery disclosure. Inthe undersigned's experience, no attorney (friendly or opposing) orjudge has ever sought leave of court to make an out-of-time discovery disclosure, or suggested that such a request should have been made. Given the good cause reason for the delay, the FAA'sobligation, which it fulfilled,
was to deliverthe disclosure to the Respondent as soon as possible uponthe undersigned's return to the office. Finally, Respondent asserts that the undersigned should have, upon returning to the office, asked opposing counsel to accept the expert disclosures. As an initial matter, it is noteworthy that opposing counsel already stated in one ofhis e-mails that, had the FAA made such a request, he would have refused it (Motion Attachment at 2). Respondent is here asserting thatthe FAA shouldhave been sanctioned for not making aphone call that Respondent itselfhas acknowledged would have been pointless. Further, it is unclear what function such a request could have served. The FAA provided the expert disclosures to Respondent on December l, 2014. Had the undersigned asked opposing counsel whether opposing counsel would "accept" the disclosures on December 1, 2014, and opposing counselhad agreed, thenthe FAAwould still have made the expert disclosures exactly as it did. Had opposing counsel refused, then the FAA would have

- despite the refusal

- made the expert disclosures exactly as it did, because Respondent saying it didn'twant to "accept"the disclosures would not have relievedthe FAA of its obligationto make them. Further, it is noteworthy that, while Respondent's renewed motion does not (and cannot) argue that there was not good cause for the delay in the FAA's expert disclosures, the Respondent still requests the same sanction with respect to Specialist Christensen/ without any

3 Respondent only renewed its motion with respectto SpecialistChristensen, notthe FAA's other expertwitoesses. See Renewed Motion for Sanctions at 2 n.2 

### 3

### connection between the FAA's supposed misconduct and the sanction sought. In particular, Respondent seeks the total exclusion of Specialist Christensen as a witness. The details ofthe noticed depositionofSpecialist Christensen are discussedbelow, butthe most significantissue is that there is no relationship whatsoever between Respondent's request to exclude this witness and the supposed misconduct ofthe FAA. Respondent argues that it has beenprejudicedbecause it will be unable to depose Specialist Christensen, because he was not disclosed until December 1, 2014. However, as noted above, Respondent no longer argues that there was anything inappropriate about that delay

- presumably because the facts ofthis situation make it readily apparent that there was ample good cause for the delay. The basis for Respondent's renewed motion for sanctions is, rather, whether or not some sort of additional communication should have beenmade while the undersigned was out ofthe office, or after the undersigned returned to the office. But even ifthere was some obligation on the part ofthe FAAto make such a contact,
none ofthe proposed contacts would have in any way, shape, or form affected when the FAA's expert disclosure was made. Regardless ofthe results ofthose contacts, the undersigned could not have madethe FAA's expert disclosures until December 1, 2014, the day on whichthey were made. Regardless, even if there was misconduct, and there was some relation between the misconduct and the sanction sought, the sanction sought is wholly out ofproportion with the supposedly inappropriate actions identified byRespondent. Specifics Concerning the Deposition of Specialist Christensen 

### Respondent correctly does not seek enforcement of its invalid notice of deposition to Specialist Christensen. However, as Respondent spends some time on the subject, further observations appear to be appropriate. As Respondent acknowledges, its Notice seeks a deposition afterthe close ofdiscovery -butRespondentprovides no explanation ofwhyitwould



### 4Unclean Hands 

### An additional basis for denying Respondent's Motion for Sanctions is that Respondent has acted with unclean hands in this matter. Respondent complains that the FAA failed to make appropriate contacts concerning an untimely filing, and seeks sanctions on that basis. At the
same time, however, some ofRespondent's own expert disclosures were themselves untimely, without any basis apparent or any explanation provided. Respondent, having knowingly failed in its own expert disclosure obligations, cannot seek equitable relieffrom the Judge concerning the FAA's expert disclosures. In particular, Respondent's "rebuttal" expert testimony discloses for the first time two individuals as "expert" witnesses- John Becker and Jim Savastano5• See 

### Exhibit B. However, the substance ofthe disclosed testimony for these witnesses is not any sort of"rebuttal"

- it is, rather, nottiedto the FAA'sexpert disclosures and is substantivelythe same as the Respondent's initial expert disclosures regarding Mr. Hancher. See 

### Exhibit C (Hancher's expert report). When the undersigned contacted opposing counsel about (among other things) the appearance that Becker and Savastano should have been disclosed in Respondent's initial disclosure, opposing counsel simply ignored that part of the undersigned's e-mail, providing no explanation for Respondent's failure to disclose Becker and Savastano as experts on or before November 19, 2014. See 

### ExhibitD (e-mail exchange). This filing will discuss below the appropriate direct consequences for Respondent's violation ofRespondent's discovery obligations. But with regards to Respondent's Motion for Sanctions, the doctrine of unclean hands precludes the application of sanctions, even ifthose sanctions would otherwise be appropriate. Respondent asserts that, because the FAA failed to notify Respondent and the Court that the undersigned would be unable to timely file the FAA's
5 Mr. Savastano had never previously been disclosed as a witness in any capacity. 

### 7

### initial expert disclosures, the FAA should be precluded for using a witness who was not disclosed until December 1, 2014. At the same time, Respondent itselffailed to disclose two of its own expert witnesses until December 12, 2014, without any reason or explanation. Under these circumstances, Respondent cannot obtain any relieffor the FAA's supposed failures with regards to the FAA's initial expert disclosures. Motion to Compel and Motion To Exclude 

### Related to the above discussion, the FAA hereby moves that Respondent be required to complete its discovery obligations, and in otherregards that Respondent be precluded from using witnesses that have never been disclosed to the FAA. In support ofthis motion, the FAA states
as follows: 

### Facts During discovery in this case, the FAA asked two pertinent interrogatories of Respondent, one with regards to witnesses generally, and one with regards to expert witnesses. Exhibit E (Interrogatories 13, 14). Respondent's answer to these interrogatories indicated that Respondent had no knowledge as to who it might call as a witness in this case. Exhibit F. Respondent subsequently disclosed a partial expert witness report for Mr. Hancher6 

### Exhibit C. Hancher's report is not complete because it does not address two required elements ofan expert witness report under Ru1e 26

- prior publications, if any, and Hancher's compensation arrangements. Compare 

### Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(a)(2)(B)(v), (vi) with 

### Exhibit C. As time passed, Respondent's failure to supplement its answer to Interrogatory 13 seemed less and less plausible. Accordingly, at the deposition ofJohn Becker, the undersigned simply asked Mr. Becker whether he expected to be a witness. Exhibit G at 186-87. Opposing

6 Becausethe Hancherreportwas submittedmonths before initial expertwitness disclosures, andRespondenthad ample opportunityto supplement itbefore it was due, the undersigned didnotatthattime complainto Respondent aboutthe missing elements ofthereport. 8

### counsel, answering for Mr. Becker, stated that Mr. 

### Becker would be a witness at hearing. 

### !d. at 186-87. Opposing counsel asserted that "the witness list isn't required to be provided." 

### !d. Respondent reserved the right to read and sign Mr. Becker's deposition, but did not submit any erratawithregards to these questions. When the undersigned returned from his period out of the office (and after g1vmg Respondent ample time to supplementits response to Interrogatory 13, either directly or through errata to Mr. 

### Becker's deposition), he followed up with opposing counsel regarding Respondent's failure to answer Interrogatory 13. See 

### Exhibit D at 3. Opposing counsel asserted that "In fact the list ofwitnesses and exchange ofexhibits is not due until April 9, 2014," but provided no other explanation for its failure to respond accurately to Interrogatory #13, with regards to Mr. Becker or any other witness. 

### !d. at 2. Respondent indicated that it would supplement this response shortly. 

### !d. Respondent also indicated that Becker would be an expert witness, butprovided no further information onthat subject. 

### !d. On December 12, 2014, Respondent submitted its "rebuttal" expert witness disclosure, identifying John Becker and Jim Savastano (both employees ofRespondent) for the first time as "expert" witnesses. See 

### Exhibit B. As to both Savastano and Becker, Respondent disclosed that they would testify "regarding the minor nature of the discrepancies claimed by the FAA, the extent of the corrective action and the cause of the discrepancies, namely wear and tear and intervening third-party maintenance and not the result of the alleged improper installation or rigging ofthe flying doors
... the likely cause ofthe N287SC air return was vibration caused by the aircraft's rudder assembly bushings and not AMES's installation or rigging ofthe aircraft's flying doors
... thatthe flying doors were installed and rigged byRespondent inaccordance with

9the applicable AircraftMaintenanceManual provisions." ExhibitB. Every single opinion offered bythe "rebuttal" experts is simplytaken from Hancher's report: Savastano and Becker are identified as testifying that the discrepancies are "minor" and that they were caused by wear and tear and/or intervening maintenance, not by any improper installation/rigging ofthe flying doors, as expressed in paragraph 5 of Hancher's report; Savastano and Becker are identified as testifying that the air return ofN287SC was caused by an issue with the rudder assembly bushings, and not the rigging of the flying doors, as expressedinthe first paragraph 6 ofHancher's report; and Savastano and Becker are identified as testifying that the installation andrigging were performed in accordance with the AMM, as expressed in paragraph 7 ofHancher's report. Compare Exhibit C at**~~** 5-7 with ExhibitB at**~** 1. Additionally, Respondentnoted in a footnote ofits expert "rebuttal" disclosure that it will also call Becker and Savastano as fact andnon-expert opinionwitnesses. 

### See Exhibit B at 1n.l On December 16, 2014, the undersigned again contacted opposing counsel about the failure to answer Interrogatory 

### #13. Exhibit D at 2. Opposing counsel provided no explanation for Respondent's continued failure to comply with Interrogatory #13, but asserted that it would supplement its responses by December 23, 2014

- 

### 11 days after the close of discovery. 

### See Exhibit D at 2. In that e-mail the undersigned also indicated to opposing counsel that the December 12, 2014, expert "rebuttal" disclosure was notinfact a rebuttal disclosure, but "simply
an identification ofwitnesses who should have been, butwere not, included in the initial expert disclosure." !d. at 2. Inhis responsive e-mail, opposing counsel ignores this issue. Id. at 1.

10

### As of this date, Respondent has complied with neither Interrogatory #13 nor Interrogatory #14. Its only identification ofBecker as a non-expert witness was its admission at Becker'sdepositionthathe would be awitness. Its only identification ofSavastano as a The facts discussed above demonstrate that Respondent has known for an unknown, but significant, period oftime that it would call Becker and Savastano as witnesses. Despite this knowledge, Respondent failed to identify these (or any other witnesses) in its interrogatory responses, even when this problem was brought to its attention by the undersigned. As nonexpert witnesses, Becker and Savastano should have been identified in response to Interrogatory #13, butnever have been. As expertwitnesses, Becker and Savastano should have been disclosed
no later than November 19, 2014, the due date for initial expert disclosures, and Respondent should have also atthat time updated its response to Interrogatory#14 to address these identified . 7 

### expertWitnesses. Respondent's only explanation for not having identified a single potential witness in response to Interrogatory 

### #13 has been that it is not yet required to provide a witness list. However, as noted by the undersigned in his e-mail, this is irrelevant to the issue of Respondent's need to answer Interrogatory 

### #13 accurately

- the fact that a prehearing submission will be due at some point inthe future does not relieve a litigant ofthe obligation to respondto discovery requests about potential witnesses and theirpossible testimony. Respondent provided no explanation for why Becker and Savastano were not identified as experts prior to Respondent's expert "rebuttal" disclosure. In sum, the evidence now available, including the statements of opposing counsel, indicate that Respondent (1) has known an extended period oftime who its potential witnesses

7 AlthoughRespondent didnotupdate its responseto Interrogatory #14 with regardsto Hancher, the Hancherreport sufficiently addressedthetopics ofthatinterrogatory.
11

### compel and exclude testimony with regards to Respondent's repeated and to all appearances intentional refusal to complywithits discovery obligations withregards to witness identification,
as described above.



## ~ Respectfully submittedthis\

# S day ofDecember, 2014.

CHRISTOPHER STEVENSON 

### Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel

14CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that the foregoing Response to Renewed Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Compel andExclude was sent: original and one copyviacertifiedmailto: FederalAviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing DocketClerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000
one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536 RobertP. Silverberg, Esq. 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Facsimile: (202) 944-3306

# ~AN~;xQeg1 LegalAssistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

### DEC 1 9 Dated

15Stevenson, Chris (FAA) From: Sent: To: Subject: Robert Silverberg <rsilverberg@sgbdc.com> Monday, December 01, 2014 2:34 PM Stevenson, Chris (FAA) RE: Lipinski Deposition
Best option is Dec, 9, 10 or 11 for the Lipinski deposition. That will allow time to determine ifthe contingent Steffey deposition will be necessary to be completed by the end ofthe month. I need to avoid from Mondays and Fridays Bob From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:29 PM To: Robert Silverberg Subject: RE: Lipinski Deposition Bob, Yes, I understand thatyou indicated thatyou preferred the 18'h. But as I indicated in my prior e-mail, I do not have information back from Inspector Lipinski atthe moment. It would be helpful ifyou could simply let me know what dates you are available to take the deposition so that, when I hear back from Inspector Lipinski, I am able to determine what overlap there is between your availability and his, and then we can, as you say, discuss logistics. I am not asking about one particular date, but rather the remainder ofthe extended deposition period, consisting ofthe month of December. Christopher Stevenson Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel (404) 305-5200

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberq@sqbdc.com] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:18 PM To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) Subject: RE: Lipinski Deposition Chris, I indicated that ofthe dates you gave me, Dec. 18th was my choice. Are you asking what dates other than those you initially proposed? Please advise. Bob From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:15 PM To: Robert Silverberg Subject: RE: Lipinski Deposition Bob, Please advise on what dates you are available to take Inspector Lipinski's deposition. 1Bob

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information transmitted is intended only forthe person or entity to which itis addressed and is (1) subject to attorneyclient privilege; (2) attorney work product; or (3) confidential. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking ofany action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. Ifyou received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Robert P. Silverberg Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P. 1101 30th Street N.W Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 rsilverberq@sqbdc.com directline 202-944-3304 fax 202-944-3306 mobile 301-922-8895

3DEC-12-2014 15:04

Inthe matter of SILVERBERG,GOLDMAN&BIKOFF

BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 202 944 3308

DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 FAA CaseNo. 2011S0290032 AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Respondent Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan RESPONDENT'S EXPERT REBUTTAL DISCLOSURES P.02

Pursuant to the Order Granting/DenyingRelief, and ModifyingtheLitigation Dates and Procedures, served September 30, 2014, and Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (a)(2)(C), Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Service ("AMES")hereby provides the following expertrebuttal disclosures: 1) Jeffrey Beckerand James Savastano: 

### Mr. Becker,the AMES Director, Quality Assurance & Training, and 

### Mr. Savastano, the AMES Vice President ofTechnical Operations andformer Vice President ofMaintenance at Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc., will provide experttestimony as necessary to rebut any expert and opiniontestimonyprovided by Complainant'switnesses.' Mr. Becker's and Mr. Savastano'sexpertrebuttal testimonymay include testimonyregardingtheminor nature ofthe discrepancies claimedby the FAA, the extentofthe corrective actiontaken and the cause ofthe discrepancies, namely wearandtear and intervening third-party maintenance andnotthe result ofthe alleged improperinstallationor rigging ofthe flying doors by AMES. Messrs. Becker and Savastano may also testify thatthe likely cause ofthe N287SC air return was vibration caused by the aircraft'srudderassembly

1Messrs. Beckerand Savastano willalso testify as a fact witnesses and mayprovide opinion testimony under Rule 701 ofthe Federal Rules ofEvidence.
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 

# (?DEC-12-2014 15=04 SILVERBERG,GOLDMAN&B!KOFF 202 944 3308 P.03
bushings and notAMES's installationorrigging ofthe aircraft's flying doors. Messrs. Becker and Savastano may further testify thatthe flying doors were initially installed andrigged by Respondent inaccordance with the applicableAircraft MaintenanceManuel provisions. 2) Daniel J. Hancher: Respondent incorporatesby referencethe expertreport of DanielJ. Hancher, dated April30, 2014. Mr. Hancher may testify as described 

### inhis expert report as necessary to rebut expertand opiniontestimony provided byComplainant's witness. Respectfully submitted, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. Attorneys for AIRBORNE MAINTENANCEAND ENGINEERING

Dated: December 12,2014 

### SER ES By:

**--~~~~~~~=-~~~---­** RobertP. Silverberg, Esq. 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306 Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

2DEC-12-2014 15:05 SILVERBERG,GOLDMAN&BIKOFF 202 944 3308

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certifythat onthis 121 h day ofDecember 2014, I caused the foregoing Respondent's Expert Rebuttal Disclosures to be served uponthe following: ChristopherR. Stevenson, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 SouthernRegion Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 Tel: (404) 305-5200 Fax: (404) 305-5223 (one copyby facsimile andFirst ClassMail) P.04

TOTAL P.04REPORT OF DANIEL 

### J. HANCHER
1. My name is Daniel 

### J. Hancher. Since 2010 I have been a consultant to major air carriers, maintenance repair organizations, and aircraft manufacturers on aircraft maintenance shop processes, quality control principles, and aircraft maintenance inductions. Since 1964 and in various capacities I have been engaged in aircraft maintenance organizations, including air carrier maintenance departments and major repair station organizations. My resume is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 2. In my capacity as a line mechanic, as a supervisor ofline mechanics and in senior management positions at repair stations. ancj at air carriers, I estimate that I have had control or responsibility for the proper remol(l:)J and replacement of B727 main landing gear assemblies on well over 700 aircraft. This figure does not include changes of main landing gear assemblies, overwhich I had some aspect ofcontrol or responsibility, on other than B-727 aircraft. I consider myselfan expert in the field ofaircraft maintenance in general, and main aircraft landing gear removal, replacementand routine maintenance, in particular. In addition I consider myself as expert ih the matter ofroutine aircraftmaintenance, daily service checks, and more in-depth checks such as "A" checks. I am expert in categorizing minor aircraft discrepancies, resulting from inevitable wear and tear resulting from normal line operations as distinguished from either minor or major damage. 2. Iwas contacted by counsel forAMES with a requestto review maintenance records associated with the AMES-accomplished three main landing gear changes performed on N898AA, N899AAand N287SC. The records consisted • ofthose created by AMES when itfirst changed out, at the request ofits customer, Capital Cargo International Airlines ("CCIA"), the main landing gear ("MLG") in connection with a "C" check ofthe three aircraft. I also reviewed the records created by AMES in connection with the work performed by AMES after the aircraftwere flown to the AMES facility to address any ofthe FAAs alleged deficiencies in connection with the condition ofthe MLG doors, often referred to as "flying doors"
.. I also reviewed the FAA-compiled Statement ofthe Case in this matter. 3. As a result ofa FAA-conducted ramp inspection ofthe three aircraft, FAA Inspector Lipinski claimed the flying doors were damaged and improperly rigged by AMES when the repair station had previously peformedMLG removals and replacements. Significantly, the ramp inspection was performed anywhere from 2 to 9 months afterAMES completed the "C" checks on each ofthe aircraft and the interval betweenthe completion ofthe "C" checks and the May 2010 ramp inspection is as follows: Aircraft N287SC N898AA Date ofMLG RIR Cycles Movements March 201 0 172 344 October 2009 628 1256 **~GOVERNMENT**

**~** 

### EXHIBIT 

# i G i!N899AA August2009 3. The FAAs complaint alleges that as ofthe dates AMES completed the MLG changes and reinstallation ofthe flying doors that it improperly did so based on the condition observed by the FAAinspector on May 25-26, 2010, which as noted above, is anywhere from 2to 9 months before the FAA inspected the aircraft. I have not seen any records produced by the FAA in this matter which details the condition ofthe MLG and flying doors on the dates AMES performed the MLG changes. I question howthe FAA can allege the three aircraftwere in discrepant condition on a dates certain when it never inspected the aircraft on said dates. 4. Apart from this obvious issue of proof of a violation, and based on my review ofthe discrepancies noted atthe time ofthe ramp inspection coupled with my review ofthe corrective action taken by AMES based on the discrepancies, it is my opinion that none ofthe items noted as a result ofthe FAAs ramp inspection were ofa serious airworthiness nature that required an immediate attention or repair in my opinion and could have. continued in operation until the nextA or C check. 5. Based on my review ofthe corrective actions as documented by AMES, I have no difficulty concluding thatthe issues requiring attention were ofa "wear and tear" variety and notthe result of improper reinstallation of the MLGs and flying doors. The Inspector's ramp inspection noted minor imperfections offlying, door hinge fairing wear, migrating hinge pins, chafing ofthe wing doors, wearof flying door bushings and misrouting ofthe anti skid harness. Where the Inspector documented more serious findings, they were not born out based on the types of corrective actions required by AMES to clear the noted discrepancies. Also, the FAA noted the absence ofa required bushing on N287SC, although the missing bushing is not necessarily attributable to AMES because the aircraft in question had two tire changes and a landing gear cylinder replacement afterAMES performed its MLG change in March 2010. My experience with the landing gear ofthe B-727 aircraft is that the FAAgenerated ramp inspection findings could be generated on any in-service B-727 after months offlying and it is too simplisticto assume that the noted items were the result ofimproper maintenance by AMES.
6. Based on my experience, were the flying doors not properly rigged by AMES at the time it performed the "C" checks as alleged by the FAA, the aircraft operator would have immediately noticed the discrepancies when the aircraft returned to performing line service. There is no evidence this was the case as each aircraft flew for months without any indication ofaerodynamic flight issues resulting from misfitted flying doors until N287SC returned to the departure airport due to a pilot report ofairbornebuffeting. Although the FAA Inspector attributed this event to a flying doorthatwas not properly faired, it seems more likely that the air return was the result ofrudder vibration caused by ceased rudder assembly bushings. As noted, were the need for the air return attributable to AMES' mis-installation ofthe flying doors, the issues would have manifested themselves immediately upon the aircraft being returned to service and not months later.6. Afterthe ramp check the three subject aircraftwere repositioned to AMES' facility to address the Inspector's findings. The wing doors cited by the Inspector were removed and bushing's replaced (due to wear) and in two instances the doors replaced as a precaution and to satisfy CCIAand the FAA. However, the replacement ofthe doors does not necessarily mean they were damaged by the actions ofAMES as alleged by the FAA. In my experience it is typical of operators to exceed the work required to address wear and tear issues when FAA inspectors are questioning some aspect of carrier or repair station practices. The hallmark of being a good operator is being responsive to FAA inspector requests even ifthere are asking work be performed that is not mandatory based on applicable aircraft maintenance programs. 7. In reviewing the relevant documents including the applicable aircraft maintenance manual provisions, I note that the Inspector Lipinski claimed that AMES failed to follow the applicable AMM provisions when performing the gear change and reinstalling the flying doors. From the maintenance records I observed that AMES cited Section 32-11-00. The FAA contends thatAMES should have referenced AMM section 32-11-12 for the purpose of installing and rigging the flying doors. The FAA erred in reaching its conclusion. Not citing the wing doorwing installation section 32-11-12 does not mean that improper maintenance was performed. Reference to section 32-11-00 encompasses the instructions for installing the main gearwing (flying) doors. This is shown on page 423 of 32-11-00, Step AL. Step 19 of Step AL states: "Adjust (rig) wing door (AMM 32-12-11/501). The FAA allegation that the lack ofa reference to section 32-11-12 means the correct maintenance was not performed is based on an incorrect reading ofAMM section 32-11-00. I reserve the right to modify, revise orenlarge my opinions as information is made available to me. Executed on April 30, 2014



## - 1 -Stevenson, Chris (FAA) From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Chris: Robert Silverberg <rsilverberg@sgbdc.com> Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:28 PM Stevenson, Chris (FAA) RE: Outstanding Discovery Matters Service Check doc.pdf

This email responds to your December 161" email to me regarding certain outstanding discovery matters. First, regarding the document forthe service check on N287SC, attached is a vertically scanned version ofthe document. Also, with respect to the three screen shots, we will request from our client additional screen shots ofthe other tabs and provide them to you as soon as we are able. Second, regarding Respondent's list of potential witnesses, we will provide you with a supplemental response to your interrogatory no. 13 by December23'd Finally, regarding Respondent's expert rebuttal disclosure, as indicated therein, Messrs. Becker and Savastano may give expert rebuttal testimony in response to the experttestimony offered by the FAAwitnesses, the disclosure for which was provided to Respondent 13 days after the deadline for doing so. FRCP 26(a)(2)(C) requires only a "summary ofthe facts and opinions" to which Messrs. Becker and Savastano may testify as experts and Respondent's summary disclosure is consistent with the summary nature ofthe FAA's initial expert disclosure served on December 1''- Regarding your statement that "Neither Mr. Becker nor Mr. Savastano is identified as rebutting any particular aspect ofthe FAA's expert disclosure," it is not possible to provide (and the Rules do not require Respondent to provide) a more detailed rebuttal given the summary nature ofthe FAA's initial disclosure. Moreover, unlike the FAA's initial expert disclosure, Respondent's rebuttal expert disclosure was served within the time established by Judge Sullivan's September 301" scheduling order. In any event, Respondentwill supplement its response to the FAA's interrogatory no. 14 at the same time as it supplements its response to your interrogatory no. 13. Bob

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 8:40 AM To: Robert Silverberg Subject: RE: Outstanding Discovery Matters Bob, GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 

# D
The documentforthe service check was scanned horizontally ratherthan vertically, and it appears that the bottom of the page was cut off. Could you get me the full page? Additionally, with regards to the three screen prints, I note that there are multiple tabs of information, but only one was provided. Please provide the complete record, including the contents of all tabs.

1note that, despite your assurances thatyou would "shortly" be supplementing your discovery responses concerning potential witnesses, afull week has passed since that e-mail and I have yet to receive any supplement on the subject. At the same time, you have further identified Savastano as afact and opinion witness in your "rebuttal" expert disclosure, further evidencing the inaccuracy ofthe response to Interrogatory #13. With regards to that "rebuttal" expert disclosure, it creates several new problems. First, I note that Interrogatory #14 asked for information on expert witnesses, and Respondent will need to immediately supplement its answer to 1Interrogatory #14 in orderto comply with this discovery request. Second, itappears thatthe "rebuttal" disclosure is not a rebuttal at all, but simply an identification ofwitnesses that should have been, butwere not, included in the initial expert disclosure, which was (as you are well aware) due on November 19, 2014. Neither Mr. Becker nor Mr. Savastano is identified as rebutting any particular aspect ofthe FAA's expert disclosures. Your identification ofthem, rather, simply parrots the opinions expressed in the expert report that was Respondent's initial disclosure. Please explain why Becker and Savastano were not timely disclosed in Respondent's initial expert disclosures. Christopher Stevenson Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel (404) 305-5200

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:06 AM To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) Subject: FW: Outstanding Discovery Matters Attached are the documents referenced in the first paragraph of my e-mail below. From: Robert Silverberg Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:55 AM To: 'Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov' Cc: JeffJohnson Subject: RE: Outstanding Discovery Matters Chris, In response to your first point, Mr. Becker determined that as to N287SC, item no. 7 was a non-routine form documenting a service check performed on the aircraft on May 31,2010. With respect to N899AA, it was determined that items nos. 2, 5 and 6 were duplicates (noted as such or described as "created in error") and were cancelled. Copies ofthe relevant documents are enclosed. It is ofcourse, accurate, as you state that the witness list is not yet due to be exchanged. In fact the list ofwitnesses and exchange ofexhibits is not due until April 9, 2015. Demanding the witness list be produced now is not consistent with the litigation scheduling order. And the deadline can hardly be deemed "irrelevant" as you have stated it. Ifthe deadline is not "relevant" then why did the Judge specify it in her scheduling order? In any event, we will be supplementing our response to your interrogatory no. 13 shortly. As to your third point I note that your comments on the Hancher expert report are coming 7 months afterthe report was first made available to you. In any event Iwill undertake the supplement the report to include a list of prior expert testimony, if any, and his compensation arrangementwith AMES. You take issue with paragraph 5 ofthe expert report claiming he "appears to be discounting certain unspecified serious findings made by Inspector Lipinski". The expert, Mr. Hancher, did not discount the so-called "serious findings". What he said was that based on his review ofthe aircraft repair records that the more "serious findings" were not borne out by the types of corrective actions (i.e. minor repairs) required to clearthe noted discrepancies. You will be free to challenge his views at the hearing if you wish. Your deposition of Mr. Becker revealed the fact that each ofthe corrective actions taken by AMES when the aircraftwere flown to the AMES facility was ofa minor nature. Finally, with respect to the status of Mr. Becker as awitness, he testified atthe deposition as a fact witness with personal knowledge ofthe facts ofthe case and consistent with Rule 701 will be able to offer opinion testimony based on his perception and based on his knowledge his testimony will be helpful to clearly understanding the facts in issue. In addition, to the extent the Judge permits expert testimony from the identified FAA expert witnesses, Mr. Becker may testify in his capacity as an expert using his scientific, technical, or other specialized aeronautical engineering knowledge to rebut the testimony of any FAA expert and an appropriate rebuttal expert disclosure will be submitted by the litigation schedule deadline for doing so.
2Bob Silverberg

**-·-·---~--------** From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 8:57AM To: Robert Silverberg Subject: Outstanding Discovery Matters Bob, I wanted totouch base with you on three outstanding matters that Respondent needs to address to comply with discovery requirements. First, as we discussed atthe deposition of Mr. Becker, the maintenance packages provided by AMES for the work done on the three aircraft in May/June 2010 were missing a number of items. At the deposition, Mr. Becker indicated that he did not know whythese were missing, butthat he would be able to determine whatthe missing items were. We discussed the matter, and you agreed to get back to me with an explanation forthe missing documents. However, as of this time, I have received no additional information on what the missing tasks were, orwhy they are missing. Please advise on ifand when Respondent will be providing this information. Second, as we also discussed atthe deposition, there is the matter of Respondent's potential witnesses at hearing. We asked in discovery for a list of potential witnesses, and Respondent's response was that it was unable to identify any at the time. As ageneral matter, this answer is no longer plausible, as Ifind it difficultto believe thatthis far into the litigation you and Respondent have no idea who might be called as awitness, orwhat the subject oftheirtestimony might be. In particular, I note that at Mr. Becker's deposition, you were immediately able to identify him as a definite witness for hearing, in contradiction of Respondent's prior answer in discovery. It is also troubling that, as part ofour discussion on this subject, you insisted that witness lists are not due yet. This is, of course, accurate. However, it is also irrelevant. The fact that Respondent does not have to make a pre-hearing submission for some time does not excuse it from complying with discovery requests now. Please supplement the Respondent's existing discovery responses on the subject of potential witnesses. Third, there are a numberof require elements missing from Respondent's expert disclosures so far. The expert report provided does not include a list of prior instances ofexpert testimony (ifany) (required by 26(a)(2)(B)(v)). The expert report does not include astatement ofthe compensation arrangements forthe expert witness (required by 26(a)(2)(B)(vi)). I also note that, with regard tothe facts used by the expert in forming his opinion, your expert (in paragraph 5) appears to be discounting certain unspecified "serious findings" made by Inspector Lipinski, and not including those when reach his conclusions. However, the expert report does not identify which findings are being excluded from the expert's consideration. In orderto properly identifythe basis for the expert's opinions, as required by 26(a)(2)(B), this needs to be supplemented so thatthe FAA (and ultimatelythe Judge) can know what facts the expert is actually considering when reaching his conclusions. In an abundance ofcaution, I also note that there has been no expert witness disclosure made with regards to Mr. Becker. To the extentthatAMES intends to use Mr. Becker to provide any sort of expert or opinion testimony, a disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(C) (or Rule 26(a)(2)(B), in the eventthat Mr. Becker makes a habit ofappearing as an expert witness) is required. Thank you, Christopher Stevenson Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel (404) 305-5200

34. For each allegation in the Complaintthat you deny, please state with specificitythe basis (whether factual and/or legal) for that denial. 5. Please state with specificity the basis (whetherfactual and/or legal) for your affirmative defense. 6. Ifyou assert that the penaltyproposed in this case is inappropriate even ifthe FAA proves the allegations in the Complaint, please state with specificity the basis for that assertion, whether factual and/or legal. 7. Ifyou assert that the March 21,2011 letter from Jeffrey Becker, the Director for Quality Assurance and Training at AMES, contains any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations. or othererrors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, describe what you believe to be the actual situation, and describe why Mr. Becker made the erroneous statement. 8. Ifyou assert that the June 8, 20I0 letter from Benjamin Buck contains any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, describe what you believe to he the actual situation, and describe why Mr. Buck made the erroneous statement. 9. Ifyou assert that the October 25, 20I0 from Benjamin Buck contains any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, describe what you believe to be the actual situation, describe why Mr. Buck made the erroneous statement, and describe why Mr. Becker referred the FAA to this letter despite these errors. 10. Ifyou assert any inaccuracy or incompleteness in any ofthe maintenance records related to this case and/or included in the EIR, please identify with specificity any such inaccuracy or incompleteness, your basis for believing that the record is inaccurate or incomplete, and what the record should have stated. 11. Ifyou assert that any ofthe Boeing, AMES, or CCIA manuals included in the EIRwere not applicable to the installations at issue in this matter, identify those documents and describe in detail why they are not applicable. !2. Describe in detail the physical condition ofthe landing gear and flying door assemblies at issue in this matter, including but not limited to the status ofthe following components: bushings, shims, doors, door attach fittings, flap track fairing, flap fairing, door attach fitting covers, hinges, hingepins, wheel well fairings, hinge washers, cotterpins, anti-skid wiring conduits,hydraulic lines, trunions, and any othermounting handware. --"-.

**---------~ -------~----------------·----**  

### --·-- ----·- !3. Identify each person you may call as a witness at hearing in this matter, identifY the subject oftheir testimony, and summarize the substance oftheir expectedtestimony. You do not need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, butyou must expand on those answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory. 

### GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT14. Identifyeachperson you may call as an expert witness in this matter, identifythe subject oftheir testimony, summarize the substance oftheir expected testimony, and describe in detail your basis for believing thatthe witness is an expert. 15. For each interrogatory, request for production and request to admit, identify the individuals aiding in responding to that request. 16. For each document identified in your initial disclosures, describe howthat document supports yourposition in this matter. 17. Ifyou assert that the flying doors at issue in this matter were not out ofrig at the time they were returned to service by AMES, describe in detail the basis for that assertion. 18. Ifyou deny any request for admission, state with specificity the basis for that denial. Reguests for Production With respect to each ofthe request for production below, you need to produce an additional copy ofany document that was contained in the EIR in this matter. I. Please produce each and every document referred to in your initial disclosures. 2. Pleaseproduce any document referenced in your interrogatory responses. 3. Please produce any document you may use as evidence in this matter. 4. Please produce any document used, relied upon, or referred to in answering the interrogatories or requests to admit. Request to Admit 1. Admit that in performing the installations at issue in this matter, you were required to use the AMM sections for both the landing gear and flying doors (AMM Chapters 32-11-00 and 32- 12-1 I). 2. Admit that when AMES re-installed the main landing gear doors on N287SC in March 2010, the bearing for the right-hand main landing gear outboard door attach fitting was not installed. 3. Admitthat

## on cirariiund Ma)/25,20TO,tiierewas damage to the right hand inboard flap fairing midsection onN899AA. 4. Admit that AMES.did notproperly install the hinge assemblies for the right-hand main landing gearon N899AA
.

..,....-

**~----** 

# I

### BEFORETHE U.S. 

### DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICEOFHEARINGS r



### WASIDNGTON,D.C. . ' ; 

### ,-: .,



### Inthematterof DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 CaseNo. 2011S0290032 AIRBORNEMAINTENANCEAND ENGINEERINGSERVICES Respondent AdministrativeLawJudge J.E. Sullivan RESPONDENT'SRESPONSESTO FAA'S FIRSTDISCOVERYREQUESTS Pursuantto Rule220 oftheFederalAviationAdministration'sRules ofPractice, 14 C.F.R. § 13.220, RespondentAirborneMaintenance andEngineering Services ("AMES")hereby
answers and objectsto ComplainantFederalAviationAdministration("FAA") FirstDiscovery Requests. INTERROGATORIES
1. Foreachpersonlistedinyourinitialdisclosures, describeindetailthatperson's knowledgeofand involvementwiththis matter, including [sic]

### notlimitedto whatmaintenance thatpersonperformed, whatknowledgeofthe situationthatpersonhas, and anycommunications
that personhadwithothers aboutthe situation. ANSWER: Theknowledge and involvementofeachpersonlistedinthe Respondent's InitialDisclosures, includingthemaintenancethat eachperformed, is as showninAttachment 1 enclosedherewith. Attachment2 also enclosedherewithincludes alistofadditional individuals who were notincludedinAMES'sInitialDisclosures, dated January 14, 2014,butwhoAMES
has subsequentlyidentifiedasrelatingto thereworkperformedonthe three aircraft. AMES is herebysupplementingits InitialDisclosureswiththisinfonnation. AMES isnot aware ofanyinformalcommunicationsbetweenany ofthe listed maintenancetechnicians concerningthismatter. ThoseAMES employeeslisted ashaving generalknowledge ofthismatterhavediscussed amongthemselvesthe FAA'sallegations againstAMES andAMES defenses thereto. In addition, eitherindividuallyorasa group some oftheAMES employeeswithgeneralknowledgeofthis matterhave discussedand consulted withAMES counselregardingAMES' defense andresponse tothe FAA's allegations. These discussions andconsultations are privileged. 2. Ifyouassertthatthe inspector's statementinthismatter(inclusiveofrecordsof conversation [sic], e-mails, memoranda, orotherdocuments), as containedinthe EIR, contain
anyinaccuracies,falsehoods, mischaracterizations, orothererrors,please specificallyidentify

1 ¥GOVERNM

**~** 

### EXHII'

**~**simply a statement offact and cannotbe read to infer AMES was making any substantive comment on AMES's original workmanship. 10. Ifyou assert any inaccuracies orincompleteness inany ofthe maintenance records related to this case and/or included in the EIR, please identity with specificity any such inaccuracy orincompleteness, your basis for believing thatthe record is inaccurate or incomplete, and whatthe record shouldhave stated. ANSWER: A thorough review ofthe maintenance records ofthe work performedby AMES has found no inaccuracies or incompleteness. 11. Ifyou assertthat any ofthe Boeing, AMES, or CCIA manuals includedinthe EIR were not applicable to the installations at issue inthis matter, identity those documents and describe in detail whythey are not applicable. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory no. 4 above regarding why AMES training documents did notfollow the logic ofAMM 32-11-00. 12. Describe in detail thephysical condition ofthe landing gear and flying door assemblies at issue inthis matter, including butnotlimited to the status ofthe following components: bushings, shims, doors, door attach fittings, flap track fairing, flap fairing, door attach fitting covers, hinges, hinge pins, wheel well fairings, hinge washers, cotterpins, anti-skid wiring conduits, hydraulic lines, trunions, and any other mounting hardware. ANSWER: This FAA interrogatory does not specifY the date ordates it seeks AMES to describe thephysical condition ofvarious components ofthe MLG and flying doors and therefore AMES cannotrespond to this interrogatory other thanto state that onthe dates the MLG changes were accomplishedbyAMES in connectionwith the three subject aircraft, that the MLG andflying doors were in serviceable and airworthy condition. 13. Identify eachperson you may call as a witness at hearing inthis matter, identity the subject oftheirtestimony, and summarizethe substance oftheir expectedtestimony. You do notneedto repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but you mustexpand onthose answers to the extentnecessary to answer this interrogatory. ANSWER: AMES has notyet determined eachperson it may call as a witness atthe hearing inthis matter. Whenthe decision is made as to those who AMES expectsto testifY, AMES will supplementits response to this interrogatory. 14. IdentifY eachperson you may call as an expert witness inthis matter, identitythe subject oftheirtestimony, summarize the substance oftheir expected testimony, and describe in detail yourbasis for believing thatthe witness is anexpert. ANSWER: AMES has not yet determined whether it will rely on an expertwitness in this matter. Ifa decision is madeto retain an expert, AMES will supplementits response to this interrogatory.
7

# In The Matter Of: AirborneMaintenance andEngineeringServices

JeffreyBecker October29, 2014

LegalRealtimeReporting 622 E. 

# CentralBlvd.

Orlando, FL 32801

Original File 102914 Becker final.txt

**~ ~** 

**~·** . .. . II EXHIBIT



# G--

# ,I - -
BEFORE THE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

### 10 11 

### 12 13 14 15 16 17 

### 18 19 20 21 22 

### 23 24 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the matter of AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Respondent


### * 

## * * 

## * * * * 

## * Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 Case No. 2011S0290032 Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan


### * 

## * * * 

## * * DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY BECKER DATE TAKEN: October 29, 2014 TIME: COMMENCED: 8:55 a.m. CONCLUDED: 2:55 p.m. PLACE: 215 North Eola Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 REPORTED BY: Rita G. Meyer, RDR, CRR, CBC, 

### * * * * * 

## * * * * 

## * * * * *

25 

# L_
__ _

**--~** --- ----- --------- 

### *

CCP 

### *1 2 3 4 5 

### to impact our business. I'm not sure. I don't

-- I can't answer that question. Q. A. Q. 

### Do you know what EASA certification is? Absolutely. We are EASA certified. Sure. And would losing an EASA certification 6 have an negative impact on AMES' business? 7 8 

### A. Q. Oh, absolutely. And can a finding that a repair station has 186

9 violated the federal aviation regulations, impact whether 10 or not they are able to maintain an EASA certification? 11 

### 12 13 

### MR. SILVERBERG: Objection. foundation for the question. A. 

### Quite honestly, I don't know. Lack of
The application 14 requires us to outline any sort of legal action that's 15 happened. The question is, I don't know. I've never 16 been down this path before, quite frankly. In my 28 17 years of experience working with the FAA, this is the 18 only time we've ever -- I've ever had to do this. 19 BY MR. STEVENSON: 20 21 22 23 24 25 

### Q. 

### Are you aware there's currently a hearing scheduled to take place in this case some time next year? A. Yes. Q. 

### And do you expect to testify at that hearing? MR. SILVERBERG: Objection. The witness list isn't required to be provided, but I think I can

### 187 safely say Mr. Becker would be testifying. 2 MR. STEVENSON: Okay. 3 BY MR. STEVENSON: 4 

### Q. Do you know of anyone else that you would 5 expect to testify at that hearing? 6 

### MR. SILVERBERG: Objection. That's not been a 7 

### matter that's been discussed with Mr. Becker and 8 

### counsel hasn't made that determination yet. 9 

### MR. STEVENSON: Okay. 10 

### A. So I don't know. 11 BY MR. STEVENSON: 12 

### Q. In addition to what we have talked about today, 13 is there any other matter that you feel that the FAA has 14 failed to take into account in this action that you think 15 we should consider? 16 

### A. You know, the only comments I have is a 17 reflective of Section B of the EIR. And I believe as 18 part of our interrogatories, we've provided comments. 19 After reading that EIR, again, I restate, I 20 don't believe Frank or Mr. Lipinski did a thorough 21 

### investigation. I think he has a number of misleading and 22 incorrect statements that tend to make the condition of 23 these three aircraft appear, based on the report, a lot 24 worse than what they actually are. 25 I also know that the redacted portions of the

**~~~~--~--~--~-~-.~-------_j**