In The Matter Of: 

CLELIA AYALA 

Respondent 

SERVED: AUGUST 28, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC ;,,~; t! _ c: ::;c~ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0910 

Case No. 2010S0290061 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION 

TO WITHHOLD OR REDACT INFORMATION FROM THE RECORD 

On June 12, 2013, an Order Setting Motion Deadlines Regarding Respondent's Motion 

for Non-Disclosure and Granting/Denying Other Relief was filed. 

On June 13,2013, the FAA filed the Complainant's (Administrator's) Response to 

Respondent's Oral Motion for Non-Disclosure of the Entire Record ("Response"). 

On July 26, 2013 a Notice of Return of Respondent's Discovery Materials was filed. 

On June 28, 2013, the Respondent, Ms. Clelia Ayala, e-mailed her Response to 

Opposition of Complainant ("Reply") to both the Office of Hearings and the FAA, but she did 

not serve the Hearing Docket or provide any certificate of service. 

On July 1, 2013, the FAA filed the Complainant's (Administrator's) Motion to Strike to 

Respondent's 'Response to Opposition of Complainant' as Untimely. 

On July 30, 2013 an Order Denying the FAA's Motion to Strike and Accepting the 

Respondent's Late-Filed Reply was filed. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Respondent's Motion to Withhold or Redact Information 

On June 11, 2013, during a Telephone Motion Conference, the prose Respondent, Ms. 

Clelia Ayala, orally moved for non-disclosure of the entire record, or in the alternative, redaction 

of certain personal information from the record ("Motion"). This oral Motion was discussed by 

the parties, and accepted by this tribunal in lieu of a written motion. At the conclusion of the 

June 11, 2013 Motion Conference, the parties were provided a briefing schedule to file additional 

written materials regarding the Motion. This briefing schedule was codified in the June 12, 2013 

Order Setting Motion Deadlines Regarding Respondent's Motion for Non-Disclosure and 

Granting/Denying Other Relief 
In brief, the pro se Respondent first seeks to withhold 1 the entire record of the proceeding 

from public disclosure. (6/11/13 Tr. 19; Reply 1.) In the alternative, the Respondent seeks to 

redact (i.e., remove) all references to her identity from the public record. (6/11113 Tr. 9; Reply 

1.) The Respondent offers three primary arguments in support of her Motion to withhold or 

redact information pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 13 .226(b) - unfairness, personal embarrassment, and 

the potential negative impacts the record in this case might have in her job search. (6/11/13 Tr. 

7:3-4, 9:9-14.) 

Essentially, the Respondent argues that it is unfair to disclose the facts of this case and/or 

her personal information. In support of this assertion, the Respondent states that she has always 

been a law-abiding citizen and disclosure of the record negatively impacts this reputation. The 

Respondent also notes that she has been cooperative with the FAA in settling the matter, even 

though she did not agree with all the facts alleged by the FAA. (6/11/13 Tr. 6:19-7:7.) It was 

undisputed that the Respondent voluntarily signed a settlement agreement with the FAA on May 

22, 2013, by which she waived her opportunity to challenge the facts at a hearing? 

The Respondent also argues that disclosure ofher identity in this case creates personal 

embarrassment because of inquiries from family and friends, as well as potential negative 

questions posed by future employers, and negative reactions from such future employers, as she 

seeks employment. She does not want family or friends to know about this case (6/11/13 Tr. 

6 :9-19), nor does she want to have to explain to potential employers why she was involved in 

this proceeding (6/11/13 Tr. 7:3-4, 9:9-14). 

II. The FAA's Response to the Motion 

In response to the Motion, the FAA objected to withholding the entire record from 

publication on the grounds that the Respondent had failed to meet the criteria required for such 

reliefunder 14 C.F.R. § 13.226(b). (Response 2-3.) The FAA argued that disclosure ofthe 

complaint, transcripts, orders, and names of the parties was in the public interest, since disclosure 

served as an educational tool and as a deterrent. (!d. at 2.) 

The FAA did not object, however, to the Respondent's alternative Motion to redact the 

Respondent's address, telephone number, and/or e-mail. The FAA asserted that continued 

publication of such information was an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," based on an 

order issued by a U.S. Administrative Law Judge in In re Husky Corp., F AA-2007-0120, Order 

Sealing Portions of the Docket (June 9, 2008). (Response, 2-3.) 

1 The Respondent has also used the term "expunge" to describe the action. (Reply 1.) Because the Rules of Practice 

specifically provide for withholding information from the record, the term "withhold" is used. 

2 On June 3, 2013, after signing the settlement but prior to the FAA's filing of the same, the Respondent contacted 

the Office of Hearings requesting non-publication of her identity in this case. Later that same day the FAA filed the 

parties' Notice of Settlement, which the Respondent had signed on May 22,2013. In this Settlement Agreement, the 

Respondent had agreed to dismiss her appeal with prejudice. The Office of Hearings immediately notified the FAA 

of the Respondent's June 3, 2013 oral request. The parties agreed to address the Respondent's Motion prior to 

dismissal of the proceeding from the Office of Hearings. See, June 6, 2013 Order Converting Third Litigation 

Scheduling Conference to a Telephone Motion Conference; 6/11113 Tr. 3-6, 12. 

Page 2 of8 
III. Legal Standard 

Section 13.210(e)(l) ofthe Rules of Practice, 14 C.P.R. part 13, subpart G, provides 

notice to the public that "[u]nless protected from public disclosure by an order of the ALJ under 

13.226, all documents filed in the Hearing Docket are accessible through the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS): http://www.regulations.gov." 14 C.P.R. § 13.210(e)(1). 

Section 13.226(a) ofthe Rules ofPractice, provides: 

Any person may object to disclosure of information in the record by filing a 

written motion to withhold specific information ... The party shall state the specific 

grounds for non-disclosure in the record. 

14 C.P.R. § 13.226(a) (2012). 

Section 13.226(b) ofthe Rules of Practice, provides: 

The administrative law judge shall grant the motion to withhold information in the 

record if, based on the motion and any response to the motion, the administrative 

law judge determines that disclosure would be detrimental to aviation safety, 

disclosure would not be in the public interest, or that the information is not 

otherwise required to be made available to the public. 

14 C.P.R. § 13.226(b) (2012). 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.224(b), the Respondent, as the moving party, bears the burden 

of proof. Thus, in the Motion herein, the Respondent must demonstrate that information be 

withheld from public disclosure or redacted on one of the following grounds: 1) the information 

would be detrimental to aviation safety if disclosed, or 2) the disclosure of the information would 

not be in the public interest, or 3) disclosure of the information is not otherwise required to be 

made available to the public. 

IV. Analysis 

A. Motion to Withhold the Entire Record From Public Disclosure 

In deciding whether to grant the Respondent's motion to withhold the entire record, the 

information to be withheld must be viewed according to each of the factors in14 C.P.R. § 

13.226(b). 

1. Information Detrimental to Aviation Safety 

Historically, the vast majority of cases in which litigation information has been ordered 

withheld, either in full or in part from public disclosure under 14 C.P.R. § 13.226(b), have 

involved the protection of aviation safety or security information. See e.g., In re Drex L. 

Hansen, F AA-2008-1187, Order Dismissing Appeal (Aug. 18, 201 0); In re Frost ad Atelier, Inc., 

Page 3 of 8 
FAA-2011-0294, Order ofALJ Sealing Docket (Aug. 10, 2012). However, the Respondent has 

not argued that the continued public availability of the record in this case would be detrimental to 

aviation safety. Thus, there are no grounds to withhold information in the record based on the 

aviation safety factor identified in 14 C.F.R. § 13.226(b). 

2. Disclosure Not in the Public Interest 

Section 13.226 has also been used to protect sensitive personal medical information, In re 

Stebbins Aviation, Inc., FAA Order 2006-3, Decision and Order at 5 n. 14 (Feb. 7, 2006), and 

commercial and financial information, In re D & M Custom Injection Molding Corp., FAA2011-0679, Order Sealing Exhibits (Sept. 14, 2012). 

In her July 1, 2013 Reply, the Respondent generally referenced the public interest ground 

by stating, "[i]t is not in the public interest that this matter be left open for all to see." (Reply 1.) 

However, the prose Respondent did not further expand on this argument. Instead, she argued 

about some of the allegations contained in the Complaint, despite having recently entered into a 

Settlement Agreement. (Id.) 

In contrast, the FAA argued that continued disclosure of the general contents of the 

record- i.e. the complaint, transcripts, orders, etc.- is within the public interest. (Response 2.) 

The FAA is correct. Public policy favors public access to both court and administrative 

proceedings. National Association of Waterfront Employers v. Chao, 587 F.Supp.2d 90, 99 

(D.D.C. 2008). The courts have recognized the public's general right of access, in order to 

inspect and copy public records and documents, including litigation records. !d. (citing Phoenix 

Newspapers, Inc. v. US. District Court, 156 F.3d 940,946 (9th Cir. 1998)). Access to public 

records also serves as an educational tool both for the general public, as well as for future 

respondents and their counsel. National Association ofWaterfront Employers, 587 F.Supp.2d at 

99.3 

The Respondent failed to meet her burden of proof to show that disclosure of the record 

was not in the public interest pursuant to the second factor identified in 14 C.F.R. § 13.226(b). 

3. Disclosure Not Otherwise Required 

The third ground identified in 14 C.F .R. § 13 .226(b) allows for withholding information 

whenever disclosure "is not otherwise required." Thus, this third prong of Section 13 .226(b) 

may be used to allege a situation that is not specifically addressed by either the prongs of 

aviation safety or sensitive personal information. 

Under this third factor of Section 13 .226(b ), the Respondent asserts that withholding 

information is a just solution, given her cooperation in settling the case. The Respondent also 

3 "[W]ithout free access to the record, future respondents would find it difficult to prepare a defense, and attorneys 

would not be able to adequately advise clients." National Association of Waterfront Employers v. Chao, 587 

F.Supp.2d 90,99 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Graber Mfg. Co. v. Dixon, 223 F.Supp. 1020, 1222 (D.D.C. 1963). 

Page 4 of 8 
asserts a personal privacy interest. She wants to maintain her history as a law abiding citizen, 

and to avoid unwanted contacts or questions about this matter by friends and family members. 

She seeks to avoid potential criticism about the incident, as well as the possibility of answering 

questions by future employers as she searches for ajob. (6111113 Tr. 6:9-17, 7:3-4, 9:9-14.) As 

a result, the Respondent argues that the disclosure of the record is not necessary in her case, and 

therefore the entire record should be withheld. 

While there is no doubt that the Respondent has chosen to settle the case with the FAA, 

this is a litigation choice. Settling a case does not generate a "reward" of withholding the case . 

record from public review. If that were the case, no litigant would ever know about prior case 

settlements, or be able to gauge whether his case facts were ripe for settlement discussions. 

The Respondent's desire to retain her history as a law-abiding citizen is understandable. 

We all wish to present our best face to the public. However, having a history of no prior 

incidents does not create an automatic presumption in favor of withholding information. 

As noted above, there is a strong public policy presumption in favor of disclosure. See 

generally, US. v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C.Cir. 1980); National Association ofWater.front 

Employers, 587 F.Supp. 2d 90. Public policy favors public access to administrative proceedings. 

In the case herein, the public has already had access to the full record for several months. 

Although the Respondent objects to continued disclosure of the litigation record; she has 

provided no evidence to demonstrate that redacting the entire record is either necessary or that 

withholding the entire record is the most narrowly tailored solution to a potential personal 

privacy interest. Neither has the Respondent shown that any serious injury or danger has 

occurred or is likely to occur that would override the public policy favoring continued public 

disclosure of the record. 

Based on the foregoing, the Respondent's Motion to withhold the entire record from 

public disclosure is denied. 

B. Alternate Motion to Withhold the Respondent's Address, Telephone Number, and Email Address from Public Disclosure 

The Respondent's alternate Motion to withhold from public disclosure her address, 

telephone number, and e-mail address must also be viewed according to each of the factors in 14 

C.F.R. § 13.226(b). 

The Respondent relied on the same arguments made in her primary Motion to support the 

relief she requested in her alternate Motion. As noted supra, the Respondent did not present 

proof on the first ground of 14 C.F.R. § 13.226(b) (aviation safety), and failed to meet her burden 

of proof on the second ground of 14 C.F.R. § 13.226(b) (public interest). Therefore, the analysis 

of the Respondent's alternative Motion will be under the third ground identified in 14 C.F.R. § 

13.226(b), which allows for withholding information whenever disclosure "is not otherwise 

required." 

Page 5 of 8 
The FAA did not oppose redacting the Respondent's address, telephone number and email address on the basis that continued publication of the information was an "unwarranted 

invasion of [the Respondent's] personal privacy." (Response 1-2.) As supportive authority, the 

FAA cited to the order issued in In re Husky Corp., FAA-2007-0120, Docket. No. CP07S00017 

(June 9, 2008). (Response 2-3.) 

In Husky Corp., the order began by stating that "[t]hese proceedings contain information 

identified ... as sensitive security information." Jd. at 1. The U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

ordered the sensitive security information (not further described) withheld on the grounds that it 

would be "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and/or would reveal a trade secret or 

privileged or confidential commercial or financial information; and/or would be detrimental to 

transportation safety." Id. at 2. The Husky Corp. order appears to have withheld information 

under the first ground of 14 C.P.R. § 13.226(b) (aviation safety). Thus, the Husky Corp. decision 

to withhold security information is oflittle assistance in evaluating the Respondent's alternate 

request to redact her identifying information on the grounds of personal privacy. 

The FAA is incorrect that the disclosure of the Respondent's contact information 

contained in the record is per sean unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (Response 1.) In 

fact, the Rules of Practice and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure both provide for publication 

of contact information in the public record.4 Although the Rules of Practice do not directly 

speak to the obligation of a named party to provide contact information, section 13 .204(b) 

requires that an attorney or other representative filing a notice of appearance in the action on 

behalf of a named party should include the name, address, and telephone number of the attorney 

or representative in the notice. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.204(b). 

In this case, the Respondent (i.e., the named party in this action) appeared as her own 

representative. As such, her contact information, serving as her own representative, is included 

in the record. It should also be noted that the Respondent voluntarily provided her e-mail 

address to the FAA and this administrative court as an alternative method of service for litigation 

documents. (5/14/13 Tr. 16:14-19; 17:2-18.) 

Thus, the Rules of Practice establish that a pro se respondent's contact information 

should usually become part of the record and available to the public. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.204(b). In 

addition, other requirements contained in the Rules of Practice, while not creating a legal 

requirement that the information be available to the public, create a practical requirement of 

disclosure. When serving documents, the Office of Hearings, the FAA, and the respondent(s) all 

use a certificate of service or service list to provide proof of service. 14 C.F .R. § 13.211 (c). 

These documents are important to show when, where, and upon whom a document was served. 

In the instant case, the Respondent's contact information appears on all the service lists filed, and 

occasionally is also contained in the transcripts when clarification of service information was 

requested. 

4 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not binding in FAA civil penalty proceedings, they may be used 

as guidance. Rule ll(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[e]very pleading, written motion, and 

other paper must be signed by ... a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's 

address, e-mail address, and telephone number." Fed. R. Civ. P. ll(a). 

Page 6 of 8 
The practical efiect of finding that disclosure of any named respondent's contact 

information is per se an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy would be to require that each 

document filed in any civil penalty proceedings be accompanied by a substitute filing, with each 

named respondent's contact information redacted. This would not only be contrary to the 

published regulations, but it would also impose a substantial burden for compliance on all parties 

and the Hearing Docket staff, especially when a named respondent chose to appear prose. 

In the case herein, the Respondent has alleged privacy interests, but has not presented any 

information to show that withholding her contact information from the public is necessary to 

preserve privacy in a sensitive or highly personal matter. 5 In addition, the Respondent has not 

alleged experiencing harm, other than her experience of a former classmate asking her about the 

matter. (6/11113 Tr. 6:9-15; Reply 1.) Although the Respondent has also alleged potential future 

harm in her job search, her fears are speculative, and not supported by any specifically plead 

fact. While it is understandable that the Respondent does not want to be identified with a civil 

penalty proceeding, the reality is that she has been involved, and that such involvement is a 

matter of public record unless special circumstances are proven to override public access to the 

proceeding. In this case, the Respondent has failed to meet her burden in proving that special 

circumstances of personal privacy override the public's right of access to information. 

In addition, although neither party addressed this issue, the timing of the Respondent's 

Motion also creates practical difficulties. Under normal circumstances the request to withhold 

information from the record is made at the time ofthe filing of the complaint. In addition, in the 

case of a motion to redact, the moving party is responsible for providing a redacted version of the 

documents. As previously noted herein, the full record of this proceeding has been published on 

the Internet for several months. It is unclear whether any practical method exists for effectively 

substituting redacted versions of previously filed and published documents. See Delta Airlines, 

Inc., FAA Docket CP93WP0109, 1993 WL 13119069 at *2, Order of ALJ (May 13, 1993). In 

any event, the Respondent has not provided a sufficient justification for undertaking such an 

endeavor. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

Pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 13.205, § 13.218, and § 13 .226(b ), and after reviewing all 

pleadings and documents, as well as all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory 

authority, and being fully advised; 

1. The Respondent's Motion for Non-Disclosure of the Entire Record is denied. 

2. The Respondent's alternate Motion to withhold her address, telephone number, and email from the record is denied. 

5 For example, the courts have held that withholding a party's identification from the public record- i.e., allowing 

full or partial anonymity in a case - is a remedy that should be rarely authorized, and usually only in exceptional 

cases involving matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature, or where real danger or injury could result from 

the disclosure of the party's identity. National Association of Waterfront Employees, 587 F.Supp.2 d at 99-1 00; See 

also, Yam an v. United States Department of State, 786 F. Supp. 2nd 148 (20 11). 

Page 7 of 8 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. William P. Vines, Esq. 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Ms. Clelia Ayala 

Respondent 

11175 Georgia Avenue, Apt. 603 

Wheaton, MD 20902 

TEL: 305-588-9397 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0910 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 For service in person or by expedited courier, use the follawing address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing 

Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 
I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

ij 

INTHEMAITEROF: 

CLELIAAYALA 

Respondent 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

201050290061 

• • --; '' I<'."'-' •,• 

Z~ 13 JUL - I A q: 2 o 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2012-091 0 

FMCASENO. 

Judge ).E. Sullivan 

RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION OF COMPLAINANT 

1. I'm glad that Complainant agrees that my address, phone number and email address 

should not be made public and should be sealed. That is an unwarranted invasion of my 

privacy. Unfortunately, that information has already been published. It must be removed 

immediately and not displayed or stored anywhere. 

What can be done about the damage publishing it has already caused? 

2. It is not in the public interest that this matter be left open for all to see. Although I agreed 

to pay the fine and not contest this, the facts were not as Complainant has argued. I did 

not do what was alleged. In fact, 1 was injured by the crew member when he grabbed my 

phone from me and then threw it back at me .. (This after assisting the airline by agreeing 

to board a different flight to help with their overcrowding.) However, I recognized that 

fighting the charges was useless. 

3. As the Complainant has pointed out in his opposition, the regulations allow the Judge to 

decide that the matter should be sealed if ... the information is not otherwise required to 

be made available to the public. Under the circumstances, given that I was injured by 

the airline after doing them a favor, and that I paid the fme regardless, I do not believe 

that the record of this incident is required to be made available to the public. If the record 

is made public, I request that my name be withheld. 

4. I also request that this matter be expunged immediately from all data bases. 

Please excuse the lateness of this response but it takes me awhile to read, research, and then 

formulate a response since English is my second language and I did not know how to write a response to 

opposition of complaint. 

Thank you, 

·~ ~iaAyala Defendant 
Smith, Cody (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Dear all, 

Clelia Ayala <ayalaclelia@gmail.com> 

Friday, June 28, 2013 6:29 PM 

Donna.Stanley@faa.gov; Smith, Cody (OST) 

Re: Notice of Settlement 

Please find attached my response to opposition of complainant letter. The original was sent to Judge Sullivan by 

regular mail. 

Thank you very much for all your help. 

Respectfully, 

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:27PM, Clelia Ayala <ayalaclelia@gmail.com> wrote: 

Dear all, 

Please find attached my response to opposition of complainant letter. The original was sent to Judge Sullivan by 

regular mail. 

Thank you very much for all your help. 

Respectfully, 

On Tlm, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:57PM, <Doru1a.Stanley@faa.gov> wrote: 

Good Afternoon, 

Please find the attached document. 

Clelia Ayala 

Cell: 305-588-9397 

Clelia Ayala 

Cell: 305-588-9397 

1