SILVERBERG 

GOLDMAN& 

B IKO FF, t.t.P. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

VIAFEDEX 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W!OOO 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

GEORGETOWN PLACE • SUITE 120 • II OJ 30TH STREET, NW • '07ASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 

VmcE(202) 944-3300 • fACSIMILE (202) 944-3306 

September 26, 2014 

RECEIVED 

SEP 2f 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Re: In the Matter of Airhorne Maintenance and Engineering Services 

Docket: FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No.: 2011S0290032 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case please find an original and one copy of 

Respondent's Answer to FAA's Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery. 

Also enclosed is an additional copy of the Answer and a pre-addressed, postage paid 

envelope. Please date-stamp the additional copy and return it to our office in the enclosed 

envelope. 

Thank you for your assistance. Please call me at the telephone number listed above if 

you have any questions regarding this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, LLP 

Attomeys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

"'~!,~~ 
In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. F AA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

Administrative Law Judge 

J .E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO FAA'S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DISCOVERY 

Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby answers 

the Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery filed by the Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA") in the above-referenced proceeding on September 25,2014. 

In its motion, the FAA requests an extension of at least 30 days of the current September 

30, 2014 deadline for conducting fact witness depositions. (Motion at 2.) The FAA also 

requests that the parties be instructed to jointly submit a new proposed litigation schedule for this 

case. (!d.) Complainant states that there "remain multiple depositions to be taken by both sides, 

and it is not possible for those depositions to be completed by the end of the fact witness 

deposition period." (Id at 1.) The FAA further claims that "Respondent has declined to agree to 

join in a request for an extension of time, and Respondent and the FAA have been unable to 

reach agreement on a schedule such that some of the remaining depositions could be conducted 

by the end of September 2014, with the remainder already scheduled, such that the parties could 

suggest particular adjustments to the existing litigation schedule." (Jd.) 

There is, however, a significant amount of background information that the FAA fails to 

disclose in its motion which makes it evident that the reason it is now impossible to complete the 

I 
depositions in this case before the September 30th deadline is because FAA counsel having 

provided dates in September that he was available (Exhibit 1) subsequently stated he was 

unavailable to travel to Orlando, the city where he previously indicated two of the FAA 

witnesses would sit for their depositions. (Exhibit 2.) Had FAA counsel made himself available, 

the two FAA witnesses would have been deposed last week (September 23) and the AMES fact 

and 30(b)(6) witness would have had his deposition taken on September 30th. In other words, the 

inability to complete fact witness depositions by the deadline set by Your Honor's Order Setting 

New Litigation Dates and Procedures was not the result of any failure on the part of the 

undersigned to attempt to schedule AMES' depositions of the FAA Inspectors or to make the 

AMES representatives available for the FAA to take their depositions before the September 30th 

deadline. 

As early as September 10,2014, the undersigned counsel for AMES wrote to the FAA's 

counsel to coordinate the scheduling of AMES' depositions ofF AA Inspectors Frank Lipinski 

and Richard D' Arcy and noted the deposition deadline of September 30th. (Exhibit l.) At the 

same time, counsel for AMES asked the FAA attorney to advise him regarding Inspector Billy 

Steffey's availability for deposition purposes

1 (Id.) In the morning of September 17, 2014, the 

undersigned again wrote to counsel for the FAA asking if he had been able to confirm the dates 

for the depositions of Inspectors Lipinski and D' Arcy so as to coordinate them with the dates 

FAA counsel was available, and noted the need to make fmal arrangements for a court reporter 

and a conference room in which to take the depositions. (Exhibit 3, p. 6.) Later that same day, 

having not heard back from the FAA attorney regarding the scheduling of the depositions and 

1 To date, FAA counsel has still not provided the undersigned with any dates on which Inspector 

Steffey is available to be deposed. (Exhibit 3, p. 1.) 

2 
given the approaching September 301h deposition deadline,2 the undersigned noticed the 

depositions of Inspectors Lipinski and D' Arcy for September 23'd in Orlando, Florida- this 

being one of the dates FAA counsel indicated he was available. (Exhibits 1 and 2.) Counsel for 

AMES had also arranged for a court reporter and a conference room to be used for the deposition 

of the two FAA Inspectors on September 23'd. Nevertheless, the undersigned noted in his 

correspondence by which he served the deposition notices that he would be willing to discuss 

alternative dates for taking the depositions before the September 30'h deadline. (Exhibit 2.) Two 

days later on September 19, 2014, counsel for the FAA informed the undersigned that he would 

not be able to attend the depositions in Orlando on September 23'd contrary to his earlier advice 

that he would be available on that day. (Id.) FAA counsel also suggested in a separate email on 

September 19'h making a joint request to extend the deposition period. (Exhibit 3, p. 5.) The 

undersigned indicated that ifF AA counsel would draft such a motion that he would be willing to 

look at the specifics of what the FAA was proposing. (Id.) Thereafter on September 23, 2014, 

the undersigned inquired if counsel for the FAA was prepared to go forward with the depositions 

of Inspectors Lipinski and D' Arcy on September 301h (Exhibit 3, p. 4) since the FAA attorney 

had previously stated that he was also available for depositions on that date. Counsel for the 

FAA wrote back on the same day indicating that he was still available to engage in depositions 

on September 301h, but disputed whether the date should be used for the undersigned to take the 

depositions of Inspectors Lipinski and D' Arcy or for the FAA to take the depositions of AMES 

and Jeff Becker, the AMES Director, Quality Assurance & Training. (Exhibit 3, p. 3.) The 

undersigned responded in a subsequent email to the FAA by noting, among other things: that 

FAA counsel had given him dates within the deposition period when he would be available (i.e., 

2 The undersigned received an "Automatic reply" to his first email to the FAA on September l7'h 

indicating that FAA counsel was out of the office until September 19'h. 

3 
September 23-24 and September 29-30); that AMES' counsel was prepared to conduct the 

depositions of the FAA Inspectors during this time;3 that AMES had been prepared to have its 

witnesses deposed by the established deadline; and that it was because FAA counsel did not hold 

the dates that he said he would be available or made other commitments on these dates that the 

depositions could not be completed before the end of September. (Exhibit 3, p. 2.) 

Nevertheless, the undersigned stated to FAA counsel that he would "consider" entering into a 

joint request for modification of the litigation schedule depending on the specifics of the 

alternative schedule the FAA intended to propose. (Exhibit 3, pp. 2 and 3.) Hawver, on further 

reflection Respondent's counsel did not wish to imply by making a joint request that the inability 

to meet the fact witness deposition deadline was the result of his actions or inactions. 

In short, the need for an extension of the deadline for fact witness depositions is the result 

of FAA counsel's failme to pmsue the scheduling of the witnesses and his availability in good 

faith. The FAA's lackadaisical approach to the scheduling order should not redound to the 

detriment of the Respondent. Respondent's counsel has attempted to schedule the depositions to 

meet the deadline using the dates FAA counsel indicated he was available but later retracted. 

Section 13.217(f) of the Rules of Practice prescribes the sanctions available when a party 

fails to comply with the Judge's scheduling order, including the preclusion of the testimony of 

the party's witness at the hearing, among other altematives.4 Respondent leaves it to the sound 

3 On September 25, 2014, Respondent issued new Notices of Deposition for Inspectors Lipinski 

and D' Arcy to be deposed on September 30, 2014 in Orlando, Florida. 

4 13.217(f) Sanctions for fail me to comply with joint schedule. If a party fails to comply with the 

administrative law judge's order establishing a joint schedule, the administrative law judge may 

direct that party to comply with a motion to discovery request or, limited to the extent of the 

party's failure to comply with a motion or discovery request, the administrative law judge may: 

(1) Strike that portion of a party's pleadings; 

(2) Preclude prehearing or discovery motions by the party; 

(3) Preclude admission of that portion of a party's evidence at the hearing, or 

4 
discretion ofY our Honor to fashion the proper sanction in this case. One such sanction could be 

to prohibit the Complainant from taking the deposition of the AMES witness after the September 

30th deadline. This sanction would be appropriate given the insurmountable scheduling issues 

created by FAA counsel's inability to make himself available when he previously advised he 

would be.5 However, if the deadline is extended, then Respondent would ask that the remainder 

of the procedural dates be modified so as not to impinge upon the time now provided for the 

filing of dispositive motions after the fact witness deposition deadline-- which currently is 49 

days -- and not to shrink the 14 days between the end of expert rebuttal disclosures and the 

dispositive motion deadline. To the extent required, other procedural dates may need to be reset 

in order to retain the current intervals between procedural dates. 

Dated: September 26, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

By: ~~~~~~~--~~~-------

Robert P. Silverberg, E 

1101 30th Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 

( 4) Preclude that portion of the testimony of that party's witnesses at the hearing. 

5 FAA counsel was notified that the designated AMES witness is available on October 7, 2014. 

Subsequently, FAA counsel noted his unavailability on October 7th. (Exhibit 3, pp. 1-2.) 

However, the AMES witness will not be available after October ?'h until the week of October 

20th due to the schedule of his ongoing medical treatment. 

5 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 26th day of September 2014, I caused a true copy ofthe 

foregoing Respondent's Answer to FAA's Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery to be 

served upon the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Tel: (202) 385-8229 

(original and one copy by FedEx) 

The Hon. J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

· Fax: (202) 366-7536 

(one copy by First Class Mail and facsimile) 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Fax: ( 404) 305-5223 

(one copy by First Class Mail and facsimile) 
Exhibit 1 
Robert Silverberg 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov 

Sent: 

To: 

Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:14 AM 

Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE:AMES 

Bob, 

The blocks I currently have available are the 23-24'h and the 29-30th I will check with my witnesses as to their 

availability. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:26 PM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: AMES 

Chris, 

1 am writing to coordinate the scheduling of dates for depositions of Inspectors Lipinski and D'Arcy in Orlando Florida prior 

to the deposition deadline of September 30th. I recall you indicated you have an anniversary on Sept. 19th and my 

anniversary is Sept. 18th so I think we can agree not to schedule the depositions on either of these two days. I will only 

need one day to take the depositions of both inspectors. Also please let me know about Inspector Steffey's availability. 

I am waiting to obtain information necessary to get back to you on the availability of the AMES company and fact witness 

but it will likely be near the very end of the month. 

Regards. 

BoiJ 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is 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 of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 

unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from 

any computer. 

Robert~ Silverberg 

Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P. 

1101 30th Street N. W 

Suite 120 

Washington, D. C. 20007 

rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 

direct line 202-944-3304 

fax 202-944-3306 

mobile 301-922-8895 

1 
Exhibit 2 
Robert Silverberg 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov 

Sent: 

To: 

Friday, September 19,2014 8:36AM 

Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Bob, 

You did not even respond to my e-mail and indicate whether or not you were available on the days I noted that I was 

available. This is the first indication I have had from you that you are available on any particular day. You also still have 

not informed me when your client is available to be deposed. 

I am getting these Notices of Deposition on Friday the 19th, trying to arrange depositions for the following Tuesday. As 

we have discussed previously in this case, I cannot simply travel at the drop of a hat, and I am not able to attend a 

deposition on September 23 (even if you had followed up immediately after I gave you my availability, I would not have 

been able to do a deposition on the morning of the 23'd- the 23'd was the first time I had available, which means I would 

have had to travel that morning). 

Are you available during the week of the zgth for depositions? 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:32 PM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Chris, 

Since I did not hear from you regarding the scheduling of the Lipinski and D'Arcy depositions and given the deadline for 

completing depositions, I have arranged for a conference room and court reporter in order to depose these two FAA 

deponents on Tuesday, September 23 in Orlando. We can, of course, discuss alternative days but there are few available 

before the end of the deposition discovery period. 

Please contact me as soon as possible to discuss the scheduling of these depositions. 

Regards. 

Bob Silverberg 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is 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 of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 

unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from 

any computer. 

1 
In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 

Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby notifies the 

Federal Aviation Administration and its counsel that it will take deposition testimony on oral examination 

of the individual listed below at the follow time and place: 

Deponent: 

Date: 

Time: 

Location: 

Frank Lipinski 

September 23, 2014 

9:00AM EDT 

Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. 

215 No1ih Eola Drive 

Orlando, FL 3280 I 

or such other time and place as the parties may mutually agree. The deposition will continue from day to 

day until completed. The deponent is required to be present at the noticed time, date and location. The 

deposition will be taken before a notary public or some other person duly authorized by law to administer 

oaths and will be recorded stenographically. 

Dated: September 17, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ::G'"Z:::rtL 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

II 01 30'" Street, N .W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this l?'h day of September 2014, I caused a true copy of the 

foregoing Notice of Deposition to be served by E-Mail and First Class Mail addressed to: 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 
In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 

Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby notifies the 

Federal Aviation Administration and its counsel that it will take deposition testimony on oral examination 

of the individual listed below at the foiJow time and place: 

Deponent: 

Date: 

Time: 

Location: 

Richard D' Arcy 

September 23, 2014 

3:00PM EDT 

Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P .A. 

215 North Eola Drive 

Orlando, FL 3280 I 

or such other time and place as the parties may mutuaiJy agree. The deposition wiiJ continue from day to 

day until completed. The deponent is required to be present at the noticed time, date and location. The 

deposition will be taken before a notary public or some other person duly authorized by law to administer 

oaths and will be recorded stenographically. 

Dated: September 1 7, 20 14 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

EN~G SERVI1E# ( / 

By:. ~j._~~~ Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

II OJ 301

h Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 17'11 day of September 2014, I caused a true copy of the 

foregoing Notice of Deposition to be served by E-Mail and First Class Mail addressed to: 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 
Exhibit 3 
Robert Silverberg 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Chris, 

Robert Silverberg 

Wednesday, September 24, 2014 4:27 PM 

Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov 

Jeff Johnson 

RE:AMES 

Ordering paragraph B.1 of the Judge's June 23 2014 Order Setting New Litigation Dates and Procedures states "June 23, 

2014: General Discovery Continues." The suspension in the procedural schedule related to !act witness depositions. I do 

not see anything in the Order supporting your position that written discovery was not appropriate to propound during the 

month of August and to expect timely responses. 

And if you were correct about the effect of the procedural date suspension (which is not the case), the responses are 

otherwise due on Monday, September 29th. 

Bob 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:51 PM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Bob, 

I would not be able to conduct a deposition in Ohio on October 7. As I have mentioned in this discussion and with 

regards to our Comair cases, I have a hearing on October 6 and I have a doctor's appointment I need to attend with my 

four year old son on October 8 (it was going to necessitate that we reschedule the Rule 16 conferences in the Comair 

cases). 

I do not, at present, know when Inspector Steffey will be available. I have contacted him but I am waiting for a response. 

With regards to your second set of discovery requests, those requests were propounded when discovery in this case was 

suspended as a result of your unavailability in July and my unavailability in August. The 30-day deadline to respond to 

those requests did not begin until discovery resumed near the end of August. I do anticipate those discovery responses 

being served this week. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberq@sqbdc.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:29 PM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Chris, 

My response to your comments is in contrasting color text below. 

1 
Bob, 

From my perspective, I see this as a joint issue because, no matter what, one of us will need to take a deposition or 

depositions and the other will have not met his obligation to make the deponent(s) available during the discovery 

period. If we do your depositions on the 30th, I need more time to take deposition and you need more time because you 

haven't been able to make the witness available during the deposition period. 

You gave me dates within the deposition period (September 23-24 and 29-30) and I was prepared to conduct my 

deposition and for you to conduct your deposition by the established deadline. But you apparently did not hold the dates 

and/or made other commitments. I did not. 

If we did my deposition on the 30'", then you would need time to conduct your depositions, and I would need more time 

because I wouldn't have been able to make my witnesses available during the discovery period. But, clearly, we see this 

matter differently. 

This is only correct if you made your witnesses available earlier this week (as I had scheduled them for Sept 24 as should 

have happened) and then I failed to take the deposition or to produce the AMES witness who was available to be 

deposed on Sept. 30th 

Regardless, I welcome your comments on the suggestions I have made concerning scheduling, and I will make a more 

detailed proposal once we've got a firm date on how long the extension would need to be in order to accomplish all of 

the depositions we both need to get done. I would like to think that if we can confirm dates for all of the depositions to 

take place that we would then be able to in some fashion submit a mutually agreeable modification to the schedule. 

The AMES witness will be available in Wilmington on October 7th. When would Steffey be made available? 

I am not committing to join you in the motion to modify the schedule but I said I will consider it. I will not agree to shrink 

the time we have to file our dispositive motion following depositions and all discovery 

Also we have propounded discovery (see attached) to which you have not yet responded and the date for the response 

was at the latest based on the date of mailing, September 10,2014. Please provide the requested answers and 

documents. The responses should be made available prior to the depositions of the FAA witnesses. If you cannot advise 

me you plan to respond this week, we will be compelled to file a motion to compel. 

Bob 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:19PM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Bob, 

From my perspective, I see this as a joint issue because, no matter what, one of us will need to take a deposition or 

depositions and the other will have not met his obligation to make the deponent(s) available during the discovery 

period. If we do your depositions on the 30'h, I need more time to take deposition and you need more time because you 

haven't been able to make the witness available during the deposition period. If we did my deposition on the 30'", then 

you would need time to conduct your depositions, and I would need more time because I wouldn't have been able to 

make my witnesses available during the discovery period. But, clearly, we see this matter differently. 

Regardless, I welcome your comments on the suggestions I have made concerning scheduling, and I will make a more 

detailed proposal once we've got a firm date on how long the extension would need to be in order to accomplish all of 

2 
the depositions we both need to get done. I would like to think that if we can confirm dates for all of the depositions to 

take place that we would then be able to in some fashion submit a mutually agreeable modification to the schedule. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 3:01 PM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Chris, 

Yes I believe that having used the dates you provided (September 29-30) for depositions and having noticed Lipinski and 

D'Arcy and made arrangements that these are the depositions that will be taken next week. You then begged off on the 

basis of your schedule, not the Inspectors. So I do not see this as a situation where I must join you in a request for an 

extension although I said I would consider it based on the alternative schedule you might propose. 

I will check on the availability of the AMES witness and get back to you. 

Bob 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:48 PM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Bob, 

I am available to engage in depositions on September 30. However, you seem to assume without discussion that if we 

can accomplish one deposition or set of depositions on that date, it should be your depositions of Inspector Lipinski and 

D' Arcy, rather than the FAA's depositions of AMES and Becker. As I noted before, this is not a situation where I need to 

request an extension of time, but rather a situation where we need to request an extension of time. Regardless, at 

whatever time the Lipinski and D'arcy depositions are conducted, we can use conference room space at the local FSDO 

or CMO (they are in the same building). Your client doesn't need to pay to rent space. 

I concur with you that extending the deposition time frame by even 2.5 weeks would require extending other deadlines. 

The summary judgment deadline does not seem problematic to me so much as the remaining two discovery deadlines 

that precede it, but if that deadline is of concern then we could request some compression in the schedule later. For 

example, we might be able to shorten by a week the time to file dispositive motion responses/answers. We might be 

able to ask the judge to push back by several weeks the date for the oral arguments on dispositive motions, which would 

allow the various dispositive motion deadlines to be moved back as well. I think that could be accomplished without 

requiring a disruption of the hearing date. 

Although I do think it would be helpful to have firm deposition dates for all potential depositions before we submit 

anything so that we don't end up having this conversation again in several weeks because it turns out some witness is 

out of the office from October 6 through October 24. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

3 
Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305'5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:20PM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Chris, 

Your suggestion compresses the time that each of us will have to prepare motions for summary judgment with the benefit 

of the transcripts from the depositions. How do you propose to maintain somewhat the same intervals if the fact witness 

depositions are not completed until about October 17'h as you are proposing? 

Also are you still prepared to go forward with our depositions of Inspectors Lipinski and D'Arcy on September 30th. I need 

to make final arrangements for the conference room and reporter. . 

Please advise. 

Bob 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.govl 

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:03PM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Bob, 

I wanted to follow up on the below to let you know that a hearing I have on Monday, October 6, 2014, that looked like it 

would settle is not going to, and so I would not be able to do both Orlando and Ohio depositions next week. Therefore, it 

would appear that an extension of at least 2.5 weeks would be necessary to permit both of us to conduct the 

depositions we have discussed. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:53PM 

To: 'Robert Silverberg' 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Bob, 

I think that the details of that would depend on how close together you want the depositions to be. For example, while 

it may be physically possible to do the Orlando and Ohio depositions in one week, I don't know if you'd prefer to do Ohio 

on Tuesday and then Orlando on Thursday, or if you would prefer that there be more of a gap, especially since there 

wouldn't be any way to do Orlando and Ohio and Michigan in one week. 

4 . 
Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404} 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 3:08PM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Chris, 

If you want to draft a motion we will be willing to look at what you are proposing. 

Bob 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:12 AM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Bob, 

I am sorry, but the fact that at one point in time I am in general available on a particular set of dates does not mean that 

I am perpetually in a state of readiness to travel on (or before) every one of those dates. My professional and personal 

life are generally not so arranged as to permit me to travel on short notice. You did not inform me on which, if any, of 

the dates I suggested you were available. Your e-mail below "prompting" me to advise you as to availability was sent on 

Wednesday morning, when I was out of the office (which you were made aware of by my out-of-office message). and 

your Notices of Deposition were sent that afternoon. And there is no reason that I would simply assume that you are 

available on any or all of the dates I suggested. For example, I note that you are now informing that you are not available 

on September 29, one of the dates I had suggested. 

Additionally, I note thatyour prior reference to your deponent being available at some unspecified point in time before 

the end of the month is unhelpful. One can't Notice or schedule a deposition to take place "by the end of the month." 

Further, it sounds like you're now telling me that your deponent will not actually be made available until after the end of 

the month, and then suggesting that I will need to request an extension to address this unavailability. 

The two of us could, and clearly should, have gotten together at some point before the discovery period resumed and 

arranged dates well in advance for these depositions. Obviously, that did not happen, leaving us in the mutual situation 

of having difficulty actually scheduling these depositions in the time period remaining. Since we can't go back and make 

our prior communications better-timed, or more clear, the question is left how we will address the situation going 

forward. Based on our respective e-mails, it now appears that we are not going to be able to get these done by the end 

of the month, and so I would suggest that a joint request to extend the deposition period (and anything else that needs 

to be extended as a result) is the appropriate method of handling the matter. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

5 
From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.coml 

Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:31 AM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: FW: AMES 

Chris, 

1 guess you overlooked the e-mail chain below in which I prompted you to confirm the dates that Lipinski and D'Arcy would 

be available after you indicated your availability on Sept 23-24 and 29-30th and that you were checking on the schedules 

of the witnesses. 

Using the dates you said you would be available I made arrangements to take the depositions of your Orlando based 

inspectors only to be told by you now that you were surprised by the scheduling of the Sept 23 deposition even though it 

was on a day that you said you were available. As you never advised me of the availability of your witnesses, I had no 

choice but to go ahead and schedule their depositions on the dates you provided in view of the deposition discovery 

deadline. There has been no indication on my part that I would not accommodate your schedule and that of your 

witnesses. Quite the opposite. I worked with the dates you gave me. 

Also I advised you that an AMES witness be available by the end of the. month but you never advised me when Mr. 

Steffey would be available. 

1 have a client in the office on Sept 29th but am available to take the depositions of your Orlando witnesses on Sept 30th 

starting in the morning. And I am available on the following Wednesday-Thursday (Oct 1-0ct 2) as is the AMES witness 

who will be deposed in Wilmington, Ohio. But as you know the deadline for depositions is Sept. 30th. Are you planning to 

ask for an extension? 

Please advise. 

Bob Silverberg 

From: Robert Silverberg 

Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 10:15 AM 

To: 'Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov' 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Chris, 

Have you been able to confirm dates for the depositions Inspectors Lipinski and D'Arcy. I need to make final 

arrangements for a reported and conference room. 

Please advise. 

Bob 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 1:23PM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Bob, 

While we are scheduling these, and before we expend further time and treasure, I thought it would be prudent to 

confirm whether your client remains unwilling to settle this matter unless there is no finding of violation (we remain 

unwilling to settle unless there is a finding of violation). 

6 
Thank you, 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.coml 

Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2.014 2.:2.6 PM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: AMES 

Chris, 

I am writing to coordinate the scheduling of dates for depositions of Inspectors Lipinski and D'Arcy in Orlando Florida prior 

to the deposition deadline of September 30th. I recall you indicated you have an anniversary on Sept. 19th and my 

anniversary is Sept. 18th so I think we can agree not to schedule the depositions on either of these two days. I will only 

need one day to take the depositions of both inspectors. Also please let me know about Inspector Steffey's availability. 

I am waiting to obtain information necessary to get back to you on the availability of the AMES company and fact witness 

but it will likely be near the very end of the month. 

Regards. 

Bob 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is 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 of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 

unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you 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 

rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 

direct line 202-944-3304 

fax 202-944-3306 

mobile 301-922-8895 

7