Snell & Wilmer 

L.L.P. LAW OFFICES 

Hughes Center 

3883 Howard Hughes Parkway 

Suite 1100 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5958 

702.784.5200 

702.784.5252 (Fax) 

www .swlaw .com 

Justin A. Shiroff 

702-784-5281 

jshiroff@swlaw.com 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2Wl 000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

RECEIVED 

JUL -2 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

July 1, 2015 

Re: FAA v. Webgistix Corporation; FAA Docket No. 2015-0208 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

DENVER 

LAS VEGAS 

LOS ANGELES 

LOSCABoS 

ORANGE COUNTY 

PHOENIX 

RENO 

SALTLAKECITY 

TUCSON 

On July 1, 2015 we sent a Motion to Extend Discovery for filing. We inadvertently 

omitted our Exhibit 1. Enclosed please find two copies of that motion, along with Exhibit 1. 

Thank you for your courtesies in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Snell & Wilmer 

('~;?;;~/ .lrlsfin K.!Shiroff 

cc: Ron. Richard C. Goodwin (via email and Federal Express with enclosure) 

Rashawn Rich George, Esq. (via fax with enclosure) 

Snell & Wilmer is a member of lEX MUNDT, The Leading Association of Independent Law Firms. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

WEBGISTIX CORPORATION, 

Respondent. 

HONORABLE RICHARD GOODWIN 

FAA Docket No. 2015-0208 

RECEIVED 

JUL - 2 20!5 

HEARING DOCKET 

EMERGENCY MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (FIRST REQUEST) 

Webgistix Corporation ("Webgistix"), by counsel Patrick G. Byrne, Esq. and Justin A. 

Shiroff, Esq., hereby files its Motion to Extend Discovery in this action no less than sixty (60) 

days. This motion is based on the pleadings and papers on file, the following Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities and supporting exhibits, including the Declaration. 

Dated: June 30,2015 

21973821.1 

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 

By: ~P~m~n~·~a~.~B~ .. n_e ______________________ _ 

N ada BarNo. 7636 

Justin A. Shiroff 

Nevada Bar No. 12869 

3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 

Las Vegas, NV 89169 

Attorneys for Webgistix Corporation 
AFFIDAVIT OF JUSTIN A. SHIROFF, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF 

ORDER SHORTENING TIME 

STATE OF NEVADA ) 

) ss. 

COUNTY OF CLARK ) 

I, Justin A. Shiroff, declare and certify as follows: 

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada, at the law firm of 

Snell & Wihner L.L.P., counsel of record for Defendant Webgistix Corporation ("Webgistix") in 

the above-captioned matter. 

2. I have personal knowledge of the matters herein, am competent to make this 

Declaration, and make these statements under penalty of peljury. 

3. This Affidavit is submitted in support ofWebgistix's Motion to Extend Discovery. 

4. In its Responses to the FAA's discovery requests, Webgistix identified Paul Gantt 

as its expert witness. 

5. Mr. Gantt's preliminary opinion, disclosed to the FAA in Webgistix's response to 

the FAA's discovery requests on June 5, 2015, indicated that the substance allegedly shipped in 

this action is not a corrosive within the operative hazardous materials regulations. 

6. In support of that opinion, Mr. Gantt set up comprehensive chemical testing to 

determine the actual chemical nature of the substance at issue. 

7. The tests are ongoing. 

8. Mr. Gantt is unable to properly supplement his expert opinion or generate a final 

report until the tests are complete. 

9. Webgistix estimates that the testing will be complete and results will be available 

within sixty days. 

10. On May 14, 2015, Webgistix served Complainant FAA with its Requests for 

Discovery. 

11. On June 15, 2015, the FAA responded to Webgistix's Requests. 

- 2-

21973821.1 
12. The FAA's responses asserted numerous objections based on investigative 

privilege. 

13. On June 23, 2015, in an attempt to amicably resolve any dispute over the FAA's 

responses and their assertion of privilege, I wrote a letter to counsel for the FAA requesting that 

they supplement their answers accordingly. 

14. On Friday, June 26, 2015, I contacted counsel for the FAA by telephone, in an 

attempt to resolve this issue by agreement of the parties. After no one answered, I left a message 

on their answering machine/voice mail system. 

15. On Monday, June 29, 2015, I again called counsel for the FAA to resolve this 

issue. Despite leaving a message on Ms. George's personal voice mail, I received no return phone 

call. 

16. If Your Honor does not consider this Motion on an emergency basis, discovery 

deadlines will expire and information critical to both sides' positions in this litigation will be 

unavailable for consideration at the ultimate hearing on this matter. 

17. To date, counsel has been unable to obtain a signature to the Stipulation from Ms. 

George. 

18. This request is made in good faith and not for the purposes of harassment or delay. 

I declare and certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated this day of June 2015. 

//' 

Justirl'A. Shiroff 

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before 

me this 30th day of June, 2015. 

I Y PUBLfC-in and for COUNTY 

Of CLARK, STATE OF NEVADA 

21973821.1 

- 3 -

N. JEANNE FORREST 

Notary Public State of Nevada 

No. 05-94033-1 

My Appt. Exp. Sept. 24,2016 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

This case involves the alleged shipment of a corrosive substance without proper 

labeling/packaging/notification/etc. A central, if not dispositive, issue on liability is whether the 

substance shipped actually qualifies as a corrosive within the meaning of the Department of 

Transportation's regulations. The FAA contends that the MMS Original Water Purification Drops 

that Webgistix allegedly shipped are a Sodium Chlorite Solution, designated a Hazard Class 8 

Corrosive substance. See Agency's Response to Webgistix Corporation Request for Discovery, 

Response to Interrogatory 5, at p.5, attached here as Exhibit 1. But other than the Material Safety 

Data Sheet it obtained from the original supplier ("MSDS"), the Agency produced no evidence 

supporting that contention. 

Webgistix's expert witness, Paul Gantt, preliminarily opined that the MSDS is internally 

inconsistent and unreliable. In Mr. Gantt's preliminary opinion, the actual clean-up measures 

undertaken and the immediate response to the spill are further support that the substance was not 

a hazardous corrosive. To confirm his preliminary opinion, Mr. Gantt began the process to have 

the substance chemically tested, in accordance with Department of Transportation standards, in 

an attempt to establish that the dilute form of sodium chlorite allegedly shipped in this case is 

nothing more than an irritant- well short of a Class 8 Corrosive. However, the testing is still on 

going and will not be completed by July I, 2015 -the close of discovery in this case. Webgistix 

requests that this Court extend discovery in this matter by no less than sixty days to allow the 

testing to complete and for ultimate disclosure of those results. No party is prejudiced by this 

extension; the chemical makeup and nature of the drops at issue is relevant to both parties' 

positions and having accurate information would afford both parties a better platform to litigate 

this matter. Additionally, as the Court has not yet set a hearing date in this matter, there should be 

minimal interruption ofthe Court's schedule. 

Additionally, there is evidence that Webgistix sought from the FAA which has not been 

produced. The FAA objected to a number of discovery requests, arguing that there is an 

investigative privilege that protects against disclosure. The FAA did not produce a privilege log 

with its objections, so Webgistix is unable to evaluate the propriety of such a privilege. However, 

-4-

21973821.1 
this Motion is not intended to address those responses at this time. Though Webgistix did not 

receive any return communication from the FAA concerning either the proposed extension or the 

potential dispute over the allegedly privileged documents, Webgistix does not contend that this 

was anything other than a failure to connect between counsel for the parties. Webgistix remains 

hopeful that the parties can resolve the potential dispute over the production of evidence and the 

potential existence of any privilege. A sixty day extension in the discovery period would only 

assist the parties in working through these potential disputes and ensuring that all relevant 

evidence could be considered by the Court in its ultimate ruling. 

If granted, Webgistix's request to extend discovery creates no prejudice against any of the 

parties. Further, the substantive discovery that will come about through the extension is highly 

relevant to this action and is necessary for this Court to render a complete and accurate ruling. 

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, the Court should grant Webgistix's Emergency Motion to Extend Discovery. 

This Court extend discovery in this action no less than sixty ( 60) days. 

Dated: June 30,2015 

Attorneys for Webgistix Corporation 

21973821.1 

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 

i / f 

/// ,./ By: (_//' / 

Pat_rjc1<)1.rByrne 

Ne'vadaBar No. 7636 

Justin A. Shiroff 

Nevada Bar No. 12869 

3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 

Las Vegas, NV 89169 

- 5-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer has been mailed this date by Federal Express 

to the following: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2Wl 000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransporation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews) 

Rashawn Rich George 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern 

Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

DATED June 30,2015. 

21973821.1 

(Original and One Copy) 

(Sent via Federal Express and Email: 

Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov and 

Patricia.Matthews@dot.gov) 

-6-

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

:BGISTIX CORPORATION_, ___ jl Respondent. 

-----~---------

FAA Docket No. 2015-0208 

WEBGISTIX CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION'S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY 

Pursuant to Rule 26(b) and 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the discovery 

guidelines set forth in case precedent, and Section 13.220 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil 

Penalty Actions [14 C.F.R. §13.220], Webgistix Corporation ("Webgistix"), by counsel Patrick 

G. Byrne, Esq. and Justin A. Shiroff, Esq., hereby submit this Response to Federal Aviation 

Administration's ("FAA") Request for Discovery. 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 

The following general objections apply to every Request for Admission, Interrogatory, 

and Request for Production (collectively "Requests"). 

1. Webgistix objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information and/or 

admission of materials protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or 

any other legally recognized privilege, immunity, or exemption from discovery. Webgistix 

hereby claims such privileges and protections and objects to the admission of any information or 

materials subject thereto. This general objection is intended to prevent m1y waiver of these 

privileges or protections as to any specific document request. If any privileged or protected 

infonnation or materials are inadvertently produced, Webgistix does not waive or intend to waive 

any privilege, protection, or claw-back right pertaining to such information or materials. 

2. Webgistix objects to the Requests to the extent they seek to impose discovery 
obligations broader than, or inconsistent with, the Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to this 

matter. 

3. In providing these responses, Webgistix does not waive or intend to waive: (a) 

objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, or admissibility; (b) objections on any 

ground to the use of these responses in any proceeding, including any hearing in this action or any 

other action; (c) objections as to burden, vagueness, overbreadth, or ambiguity; or (d) further 

objections on any ground to this or any other discovery request in this proceeding. 

4. Webgistix's decision to provide information or material, notwithstanding the 

objectionable nature of the Requests, should not be construed as: (a) an admission or stipulation 

that the material is relevant, admissible in evidence, or reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence; (b) a waiver of these General Objections or the objections 

asserted in response to specific document requests; or (c) an agreement that requests for similar 

information will be treated in a similar manner. 

5. Any production in response to FAA's Requests is subject to Webgistix's right to 

object to the admission into evidence of any and all such productions on the grounds that they, or 

any of them, are irrelevant to the issues in this action or otherwise inadmissible. These 

productions and objections are based upon Webgistix's' present knowledge, information, and 

belief. 

6. Webgistix reserves the right to use all documents, electronically stored 

information, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of any party. 

Webgistix also reserves the right to supplement these responses if more information becomes 

available. 

Without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follow: 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

REQUEST NO. 1: 

Admit Exhibit 1, photograph Sa- Sm truly and accurately depicts the shipment described 

in paragraph II.2 of the Complaint. 

- 2-
RESPONSE: 

Admit 

Request No.2: 

Admit Exhibit 2, is a true and accurate copy of the MSDS Respondent submitted to UPS 

on or about October 12, 2012. 

RESPONSE: 

Admit 

Request No.3: 

Admit Exhibit 3, is a true and accurate copy of the MSDS for the product shipped on or 

about October 12, 2012, effective March 1, 2013. 

RESPONSE: 

Admit 

Request No. 4: 

Admit Respondent did not prepare a Shipper's Certification or Declaration of Dangerous 

Goods for the fiberboard box described in paragraph II.2 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Admit only that Webgistix did not prepare a Shipper's Certification or Declaration of 

Dangerous Goods for the fiberboard box described in paragraph II.2 of the Complaint; denied as 

to any requirement to do so. 

Request No.5 

Admit Respondent did not prepare shipping papers for the fiberboard box described in 

paragraph Il.2 of the Complaint as required by 49 C.F.R. §§172.200(a). and 172.202(a). 

RESPONSE: 

Admit only that Webgistix did not prepare shipping papers for the fiberboard box 

described in paragraph ll.2 ofthe Complaint; denied as to any requirement to do so. 

Request No.6: 

Admit Respondent did not mark the fiberboard box described in paragraph 11.2 of the 

- 3-
Complaint "Corrosive". 

RESPONSE: 

Admit only that Webgistix did not mark the fiberboard box described in paragraph 11.2 of 

the Complaint "Conosive"; denied as to any requirement to do so. 

Request No.7: 

Admit Respondent did not affix a "Corrosive" label to the fiberboard box described in 

paragraph 11.2 of the Complaint 

RESPONSE: 

Admit only that Webgistix did not affix a "Corrosive" label to the fiberboard box 

described in paragraph 11.2 of the Complaint "Corrosive"; denied as to any requirement to do so. 

Request No.8: 

Admit Respondent did not provide emergency response information with the fiberboard 

box described in paragraph 11.2 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Admit only that Webgistix did not provide emergency response information with the 

fiberboard box described in paragraph 11.2 of the Complaint; denied as to any requirement to do 

so. 

Request No.9: 

Admit Respondent did not provide an emergency response telephone number with the 

fiberboard box described in paragraph 11.2 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Admit only that Webgistix did not provide an emergency response telephone number with 

the fiberboard box described in paragraph 11.2 of the Complaint; denied as to any requirement to 

do so. 

lL'iTERROGATOIUES 

Interrogatory No. 1: 

The name, occupation, and business address of each person Respondent intends to call as 

- 4-
a witness in this proceeding. 

RESPONSE: 

Webgistix's prospective witnesses include Joe DiSorbo, CEO ofWebgistix; Becky Wood, 

CMO of Webgistix; Gary Low, Customer Support Manager of Webgistix; Angel Gomez, 

Warehouse Manager ofWebgistix; and Mike Manzione, Chief Operating Officer ofWebgistix. 

Interrogatory No.2: 

The subject matter upon which each intended witness is expected to testify, the facts and 

opinions as to which each intended witness is expected to testify, and a summary of the .grounds 

for each opinion. 

RESPONSE: 

Each of the witnesses identified in Response to Interrogatory I is expected to testify as to 

the facts and circumstances conceming the allegations set forth in the Complaint. Additionaily, 

Joe DiSorbo will testify on the details on volume of shipments Webgistix handles, the 

percentages of Webgistix shipments that go by air, Webgistix's general policy concerning 

refusing to knowingly ship hazardous products, as well as related testimony. Becky wood will 

testify on Webgistix's immediate response to the aileged incident, including those actions taken 

against Future Health Today, Ltd. d/b/a Keavy's Korner ("Keavy's Korner"), the client 

responsible for the shipment, as well as related testimony. Gary Low will testify on the nature of 

Webgistix's relationship with Keavy's Korner and their affirmative denial ofthe hazardous nature 

of the product, as well as related testimony. Angel Gomez will testify on Webgistix's inspection 

process in receiving goods from clients and Webgistix's packaging and shipping process. Mike 

Manzione will testify as to the current state ofWebgistix's training, policies, and other aspects of 

the business. 

Interrogatory No.3: 

Identify each expert witness you may cail to testify at a hearing on this matter. For each 

expert witness identified, slate the subject matter upon which each is expected to testify, 

summarize the substance of such expected testimony (including, without limitation, the subject of 

- 5 -
expected opinion testimony) and state the grounds for each such opinion (including, without 

limitation, identification of all facts, treatises, reports, records, documents or tangible evidence 

that form the basis for such opinion). 

RESPONSE: 

Paul W. Gantt, M.Eng., CSP, CET. The tentative opinions he is expected to testify to are 

as follows: 1) the sodium chlorite solution was an irritant and not a corrosive within the meaning 

of the hazardous materials definitions; and 2) Webgistix's remedial efforts and response to the 

alleged incident are not sufficient to justify more than the minimum fine within the context of the 

Sanction Guidance Matrix. Though Mr. Gantt's opinions are in a preliminary stage (pending 

further research and possible testing), he intends to opine that the 4x dilution of the sodium 

chlorite solution is an indicator that it was sufficiently dilute as to no longer be technically 

corrosive. He also opined that the MSDS for the solution contained glaring inconsistencies, at 

times treating the solution as 100% sodium chlorite while simultaneously proscribing clean-up 

and treatment directives that were only sufficient if the substance was an irritant. He also opined 

that the ground response to the alleged spill likely supports the contention that the substance was 

an irritant, not a corrosive, as there is no indication that neutralizing agents or other specialized 

equipment was used to clean up the alleged spill. Webgistix reserves its right to supplement this 

response as additional information comes to light. 

Interrogatorv No.4: 

Please describe evidence of any corrective or remedial action taken as a result of this 

matter including the date such action was implemented. 

RESPONSE: 

Webgistix audited all inventory at each of its warehouses to identify any product that 

could potentially fall into a Hazmat category and immediately stop shipping any such product. 

Additionally, Webgistix asks all clients for a Material Safety Data Sheet ("MSDS") for any liquid 

product or product that otherwise could be considered Hazmat. Webgistix will review new 

products with UPS to confirm that such products do not qualify as Hazmat Materials and do not 

- 6-
have any special shipping requirements. Additionally, Webgistix's air shipping is less than .1% of 

its Las Vegas shipments (and approximately 2% of the company's shipments altogether). 

Each of Webgistix's warehouse manages received official Hazmat training. Vihile not 

formal Hazmat certification training, Webgistix's Warehouse Managers also conduct monthly 

safety and training meetings for all warehouse employees, including those responsible for product 

intake and handling. While the safety topics vary, Hazmat training is one of the topics 

addressed. I have attached at Tab 3 the sign-in sheet for the January 2014 training meeting, 

which was dedicated exclusively to Hazmat issues. Webgistix remains open to require additional 

employees to secure such training. The facilities in question, however, are small in size, allowing 

the Warehouse Manager to have a solid handle on all operations. At the time of the incident, the 

Las Vegas facility was only 25,000 square feet. It has since expanded to 50,000 square feet. 

As a result of this incident - and before the FAA provided its notice of proposed civil 

penalty (August 6, 2013)- Webgistix made several changes to improve its operating procedures 

to prevent the inadvertent shipping of Hazmat materials. While no process is perfect, Webgistix 

has appropriate checks and balances to enforce its policy. 

Interrogatorv No.5: 

For each request for admission not admitted or denied, please state in detail the reason for 

the denial or non-admission. 

RESPONSE: 

As Webgistix contends that the substance may not actually be a Corrosive within the 

meaning of the Hazardous Materials rules, Webgistix does not admit that it was obligated to act in 

accordance with any of the hazmat guidelines upon which the FAA bases the Complaint and its 

Requests for Admission. 

Interrogatory No.6: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are \Vithout 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph IL6 of your Answer and Affim1ative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

- 7 -
RESPONSE: 

No witness from Webgistix was present in Louisville, KY on the date of the alleged 

incident at the moment the purportedly leaking package was identified; as a result Webgistix is 

without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the identity of who discovered any potential leak 

in the shipment. 

Interl'ogatory No. 7: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph ll.7 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

It is unknown if the contents were exactly as described in this paragraph or if the shipment 

contained additional products. As a result, Webgistix is without sufficient knowledge to admit or 

deny the allegation. 

Interrogatory No. 8: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.8 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Webgistix, by and through its employees, did not conduct any investigation into the 

alleged leak; as a result, Webgistix is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the 

approximate ammmt of liquid that may or may not have leaked. 

Interrogatory No.9: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you hase your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.9 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Webgistix, as only an intermediary shipper and not the product's manufacturer, is without 

- 8 -
sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the specific nature of the allegedly hazardous material at 

the center of the allegations in the Complaint. Additionally, the MSDS is internally inconsistent 

in labeling the product as a possibly corrosive substance while simullaneously describing 

symptoms, precautionary measures, treatment guidelines, and clean-up commensurate with an 

irritant substance, not a corrosive within the definition of the Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 10: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response tlwt you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.! 0 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Webgistix, as only an intermediary shipper and not the product's manufacturer, is without 

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the specific nature of the allegedly hazardous material at 

the center of the allegations in the Complaint. Additionally, the MSDS is internally inconsistent 

in labeling the product as a possibly corrosive substance while simultaneously describing 

symptoms, precautionary measures, treatment guidelines, and clean-up commensurate with an 

irritant substance, not a corrosive within the definition of the Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 11: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.!! of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Webgistix, as only an intermediary shipper and not the product's manufacturer, is without 

sufficient lmowledge to admit or deny the specific nature of the allegedly hazardous material at 

the center of the allegations in the Complaint. Webgistix also cannot admit or deny what papers 

might have been required for the shipment. 

Interrogatory No. 12: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

- 9-
knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.l2 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Webgistix, as only an intermediary shipper and not the product's manufacturer, is without 

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the specific nature of the allegedly hazardous material at 

the center of the allegations in the Complaint. Webgistix also cannot admit or deny what papers 

might have been required for the shipment. 

Interrogatory No. 13: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.13 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Webgistix, as only an intermediary shipper and not the product's manufacturer, is without 

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the specific nature of the allegedly hazardous material at 

the center of the allegations in the Complaint. Webgistix also cannot admit or deny what 

packaging might have been required for the shipment. 

Interrogatory No. 14: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

lmowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.14 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

There is evidence suggesting that the allegedly hazardous material at issue in the 

Complaint is not, in fact, corrosive within the meaning of the Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 15: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.15 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

- 10-
RESPONSE: 

There is evidence suggesting that the allegedly hazardous material at issue in the 

Complaint is not, in fact, corrosive within the meaning ofthe Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 16: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.16 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

There is evidence suggesting that the allegedly hazardous material at issue in the 

Complaint is not, in fact, corrosive within the meaning ofthe Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 17: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.17 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

There is evidence suggesting that the allegedly hazardous material at issue m the 

Complaint is not, in fact, corrosive within the meaning of the Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 18: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.12 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

There is evidence suggesting that the allegedly hazardous material at issue m the 

Complaint is not, in fact, corrosive within the meaning of the Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 19: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.19 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

- 11 -
Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

There is evidence suggesting that the allegedly hazardous material at issue in the 

Complaint is not, in fact, corrosive within the meaning of the Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 20: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph Il.20 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

There is evidence suggesting that the allegedly hazardous material at issue in the 

Complaint is not, in fact, corrosive within the meaning of the Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 22: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph JI.12 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

There is evidence suggesting that the allegedly hazardous material at issue in the 

Complaint is not, in fact, corrosive within the meaning of the Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 23: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.23 of your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

There is evidence suggesting that the allegedly hazardous material al issue m the 

Complaint is not, in fact, corrosive v,ithin the meaning of the Hazmat guidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 24: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your response that you are without 

- 12-
knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph II.24 (a) through (ff) of your Answer and Affirmative 

Defenses to Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

There is evidence suggesting that the allegedly hazardous material at issue m the 

Complaint is not, in fact, corrosive within the meaning of the Hazmatguidelines. 

Interrogatory No. 25: 

Please state the specific facts upon which you base your affirmative defense that 

"Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5123(c), the alleged circumstances of the incident do not warrant a 

monetary civil penalty" as stated in your Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Webgistix incorporates its Response to Interrogatory 4. As a foundational concern, 

Webgistix does not concede that the substance at issue in the Complaint is, in fact, a Corrosive 

substance. The MSDS is internally inconsistent in labeling the product as a possibly corrosive 

substance while simultaneously describing symptoms, precautionary measures, treatment 

guidelines, and clean-up commensurate with an irritant substance, not a corrosive within the 

definition of the Hazmat guidelines. 

Also, Webgistix fits within the description of a category B business entity- a business 

entity, which does not use or handle Hazmat in the course of its regular business. The incident in 

question was not a result of a conscious decision to ship Hazmat materials; it was an unintentional 

oversight because of the customer's misrepresentation (whether negligent or intentional) coupled 

with the nature of the consumer product, which was intended to be consumed in drinking water. 

Webgistix did not intend to ship Hazmat materials. 

Webgistix assumes the FAA's position is a result of a misunderstanding in the language in 

Webgistix Customer Manual. The manual contains the following language: "Further, additional 

handling charges may be applied to the account for any hazardous material." This language is 

intended to justify charges Webgistix will levy if it discovers, after the fact, that a customer has 

placed products with Webgistix that classify as Hazmat materials, and Webgistix is then forced to 

- 13 -
remove/dispose of such products. Webgistix subsequently amended this language to clarify that 

it does not, under any circumstances, aeccpt Hazmat materials. 

The Matrix also addresses a number of factors the FAA should consider when assessing 

the penalty range. Most of these appear to favor a minimum penalty. For example, the product 

type (Class 8 PGII liquid (sodium chlorite diluted to 22.4%) with a small quantity (4 ounces) 

("Mitigating factors may also exist that have not been adequately considered. For example, a 

shipment containing a de minims quantity of material. ... "). 

Another mitigating factor is whether Webgistix reasonably relied on incorrect information 

from another source. Here, Webgistix relied on the representations of the Keavy's Korner as well 

as the product labeling which included no Hazmat warnings. Webgistix's procedures were not 

perfect - and that this incident would likely have been prevented with the redundancy of the 

amended procedures - but the product type and overall misleading labeling resulted in the 

Webgistix employee not checking the actual product ingredients. 

Another factor that should be given serious consideration is the corrective steps that 

Webgistix has taken to prevent future incidents- steps that were taken before the notice of a civil 

penalty, including Hazmat training, amending the contract language with its customers, closer 

product inspection at intake (including demanding MSDS when appropriate) and utilizing the 

expettise of its shipping partner UPS to screen new products. As the Guidelines state: "Systemic 

change intended to prevent future violations should be given greater consideration. Similarly, 

corrective action that commences upon the violator's first notice of the violation ordinarily is 

given greater credit than corrective action that commences only after the Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty has been issued." 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Request for Production No. 1: 

To the extent that any expert 'Witness is expected to testiJY, reports and records that form 

the basis for this testimony. 

- 14-
RESPONSE: 

Mr. Gantt only reviewed documents produced by the FAA in its Discovery Requests. 

Webgistix reserves the right to supplement this response in the event that Mr. Gantt reviews 

additional reports or records. 

Request for Production No.2: 

Copies of any documents which Respondent intends to introduce into evidence and which 

have not already been submitted to the Agency. Please identifY those documents which have 

already been submitted to the Agency. 

RESPONSE: 

None at this time; Webgistix reserves the right to supplement this response. 

Request for Production No.3: 

Please provide evidence of any corrective or remedial action taken as a result of this 

matter. 

RESPONSE: 

Webgistix previously submitted such evidence as atachments to conespondence. To the 

extent that any additional documentary evidence comes within Webgistix's possession or control, 

Webgistix reserves the right to supplement this response. 

Dated: June 5, 2015 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 

/7// 

,f--;~/1 By: L~4'/l / 

Patt:i61<.<!5/Byrne 

Ne{,"ada Bar No. 7636 

Justin A. Shiroff 

Nevada Bar No. 12869 

3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 

Las Vegas, NV 89169 

Attorneys for Webgistix Corporation 

- 15-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Webgistix Corporation's Responses to Federal 

Aviation Administration's Request for Discovery has been mailed this date by First Class Mail to 

the following: 

(Sent via First Class Mail Original and One Copy) 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2Wl000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

(Sent via First Class Mail) 

Rashawn Rich George 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern 

Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

Suite 530 

College Park, GA 30337 

DATED June 5, 2015. 

21699697.1 

- 16-