u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION E I v ED 

OFFICEOFHEARINGS REG 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES, 

Respondent. 

NOV 2 1 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

Judge Sullivan 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF LITIGATION DATES 

Respondent and the FAA were set to take several depositions in Orlando, Florida during 

the week of October 27, 2014. Due to severe medical issues and complications experienced by 

the wife of Inspector Lipinski, one of the deponents, he was unable to attend a deposition that 

week, or the week after, 1 which was the deadline for concluding depositions. Further, as 

indicated in the e-mails attached by Respondent to its Motion, the undersigned is unavailable for 

an out-of-town deposition until early January? Accordingly, the Respondent's Motion for the 

Suspension of Litigation Deadlines is well-taken, and the FAA concurs with that request. 

1 During the week after, the FAA had agreed to make another FAA Inspector available for deposition, but 

Respondent had never indicated whether it actually wanted to take this deposition. During discussions in Orlando, 

opposing counsel indicated that he did not know yet, because he wanted to take Inspector Lipinski's deposition 

before 

2 Opposing counsel has not provided any information as to his availability for the remainder of this year, or in 

January 2015. 

I 
However, Respondent's motion is also replete with a number of inaccurate and seemingly 

irrelevant commentaries on the prior and future course of this litigation. For example, it appears 

that more than once Respondent issued deposition notices when the undersigned attorney was 

out of the office and then issued them without having coordinated prior availability, see, e.g., 

Motion at 3, n.2. More importantly, Respondent's argument is irrelevant to whether a 

continuance is appropriate. Also, Respondent's accompanying assertion that the FAA has been 

"lackadaisical" in meeting deadlines or is "slow walking" the case is without foundation3 Other 

than responding to the above, the FAA will not clutter the record by responding in detail to other 

inaccurate and irrelevant comment made by Respondent. Suffice it to say that Respondent has 

"unclean hands" regarding the processing of this matter. Respondent's counsel has cordoned off 

entire months of the litigation calendar because he may have a trial in another case, and has 

attempted to force a witness to travel for a deposition when the reason for missing a scheduled 

deposition was a medical emergency. Therefore this particular part of Respondent's argument is 

not made in good faith. 

Finally, the FAA must address Respondent's request that the suspension of litigation 

dates be partial. In particular, Respondent requests that it have the opportunity to file a motion 

for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for insufficiency while litigation is otherwise 

suspended. Respondent is, of course, entitled to abandon its desire to depose Inspector Lipinski 

and request that this case proceed to judgment motions, but Respondent cam1ot have it both 

ways. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §13.218(£)(5): 

"Motion for decision. A party may make a motion for decision, regarding all or 

any part of the proceedings, at any time before the administrative law judge has 

issued an initial decision in the proceedings. The administrative law judge shall 

3 It is unclear what motive the Respondent ascribes to this alleged "slow walk" of the litigation, and Respondent 

does not explain how believes that the FAA is simultaneously both pursuing a case against Respondent as a matter 

of bias and yet also apparently not pursuing it hard enough. 

2 
grant a party's motion for decision if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law judge has 

officially noticed, or evidence introduced during the hearing show that there is no 

genuine issue of material fact and that the party making the motion is entitled to a 

decision as a matter of law. The party making the motion for decision has the 

burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact disputed by the 

parties." 

At this stage in this proceeding, with discovery incomplete, and with general issues of material 

fact being disputed by Respondent, it would be inappropriate to grant any dispositive motion in 

Respondent's favor. 4 

WHEREFORE, the FAA respectfully requests that the Judge grant an extension of the 

fact witness deposition period, and instruct the parties to jointly submit a new proposed litigation 

schedule for this case. 

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of November, 2014. 

~UJ{ 

?2-

CHRJSTOPHER STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

4 Because Respondent already filed an Answer (on July 18, 2013), a Motion to Dismiss for Insufficiency should be 

dismissed on procedural grounds. See 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(1)(1) ("A respondent may file a motion to dismiss the 

complaint for insufficiency instead of filing an answer.") 

3 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for 

Suspension of Litigation Dates was sent: 

Original and 1 copy via Federal Express & Certified Mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

I copy via Federal Express, Certified Mail and Facsimile to: 

The Honorable I.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Facsimile: (202) 944-3306 

~A~ Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

NOV 2 0 

Dated 

4