### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 

## H IN THE MATTEROF: DocketNo. FAA-2014-0867 BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. Respondent Case No. 2012S0090053 COMPLAINANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OFINTERLOCUTORYAPPEAL OF RIGHT 

### I. Jurisdiction: InterlocutoryAppeal ofRight The FAA Civil Penalty Rules ofPractice1 

### limit an ALJ's sanctioning power to sanctions expressly specified in the Rules of Practice. 14 C.P.R. § 13.205(b). A party may file an interlocutory appeal of right when an ALJ issues a sanction ruling or order that exceeds the ALJ's limited sanctioning authority. 14 C.P.R. §§ 13.205(b), 13.219(c)(3). This interlocutory appeal ofright is appropriate because the ALJ impermissibly sanctioned Complainantby striking portions of the Complaint based on (1) actions by an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) during his investigation ofRespondent before a request for hearing was filed, and (2) because Complainant's counsel below (hereinafter "the FAA attorney") contacted a non-party witness served with a subpoena duces tecum by Respondent to determine ifthere were grounds to move to quash the subpoena. The only issue considered by the Decisionmaker in an interlocutory

1 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart G. I

### appeal ofright is whether the ALI exceeded her authority in imposing a sanction? See In the Matter ofAlaskaAirlines, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 91-54 at 9 (November 6, 1991). II. ProceduralHistory This case arises from a December 5, 2014 Complaint alleging that Respondent violated seven FAA regulations3 

### when Respondent conducted a September 18, 2012 passenger-carrying flight for compensation or hire without (1) holding an air carrier or commercial operator certificate under 14 C.P.R. Part 119, (2) holding economic authority from the Department of Transportation, or (3) otherwise complying with the applicable requirements in 14 C.P.R. Parts 119 and 135 to conduct flights for compensation or hire. See Complaint. Complainant filed its Complaint after Respondent filed a request for hearing in this matter on November 26, 2014. Relevantto the ALI'sJune 3, 2016 Order imposing sanctions, the Complaint specifically alleges: "On or about September 18, 2012, you operated N525LP, a Cessna Citation Jet, as a passenger carrying flight from Birmingham, AL (KBHM) to Destin, FL (KDTS) (hereinafter "Flight")." See Complaint, 

### -,r II, § 2.4 

### Additionally, the Complaint alleges: "The Flight was operated for compensation orhire." See Complaint, 

### -,rII, § 3. On April 7, 2015, the ALI issued an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures that covered discovery inthis matter ("April 7th Initial Discovery Order"). See April 7, 2015 Order. The April 7th Initial Discovery Order established a July 19,2015 deadline for issuing subpoenas and an August 21, 2015 deadline for concluding discovery. Id. at Paragraphs 8, 9. On

2 This briefonly addresses the facts relevantto the basis for this interlocutory appeal ofright. The fact thatthis brief may not address aparticular fact found by the ALJ shouldnot be construed as indicating Complainant's agreement with the factual fmding, northat it is waiving its rightto contestthe factual finding following an initial decision issued by an ALJ atthe conclusion ofthis matter. 3 14 C.F.R. §§ 119.5(g), 119.5(i), 119.33(a)(2), 135.95(b), 135.293(a), 135.293(b), and 135.299(a). 4Forthe sake ofclarity, Complainantuses the citation format used by the ALlinthe Orderimposing sanctions. 2

### August20, 2015, Complainant filed a motion to extend discovery and set dispositive motion deadlines. See ComplainantAugust 20, 2015 Motion. On August 21, 2015, Complainant non-party witness Dr. Alan Long sent the FAA attorney an email regarding the attorney's mailing address5 

### See August 21, 2015 Email Chain. After the FAA attorney confirmed his address, Dr. Long asked when discovery ends in the case. Id. The FAA attorney responded, "[d]iscovery technically ends today. However, the Respondent did not actually get in touch with me about discovery until two days ago. So we are goingto be continuingto provide each other withinformationpastthe close ofdiscovery." Id. On September 1, 2015, the ALJ granted Complainant's motion to extend discovery ("September 1st Amended Discovery Order"). See September 1, 2015 Order. The ALJ found that both parties failed to timely comply with the discovery deadlines in the April 7th Initial Discovery Order and provided the parties until October 30, 2015 to informally attemptto resolve any outstanding discovery disputes and, ifneeded, file motions to compel. Id. (emphasis added). Despite the limited nature of the ALI's Order to allow for the resolution of any outstanding discovery disputes, on September 23, 2015, the Hearing Docket Clerk issued a subpoena duces tecumfor Dr. Long at the request ofRespondent. See Subpoena. On September 30, 2015, the FAA attorney emailed Dr. Long to notify him about the subpoena and that the hearing was continued. See September 30, 2015 Email. Regarding the subpoena, the FAA attorney stated: Additionally, [Respondent] has requested that the Judge in this case issue subpoenas to you (and Aviation Services Group) to produce certain documents in this matter. Ifand when you receive such a subpoena, please contactme (or have your attorney contact me.) The requests appear to be improper in whole or in part, in that we are past the point in this litigation where new discovery requests have beenmade, and in that the requests appear to seek documentation that is not relevant to this case. You and your attorney may, ofcourse, be able to identifY 5 Dr. Long was the passenger onthe September 18, 2012 flight at issue in this case. 3

### otherproblems with regards to this request. Ifyou receive the subpoena, you will be reguired to comply with it unless something is filed with the court seeking relieffrom the subpoena. Id. (emphasis added). On October 21, 2015, Respondent served the subpoena on Dr. Long. See Subpoena. In an October 27, 2016 email, Dr. Long informed the FAA attorney that he received the subpoena. See October 27, 2015 Email Chain. The FAA attorney replied that he would like to speak to either Dr. Long or his attorney because discovery was closed at the time the subpoena was obtained. TheFAA attorney also stated: Many of the questions seem overbroad as well, but I can't speak as to how burdensome they would be without your input. An objection and/or motion to quash some or all ofthe requests can come from my office or directly from you (presumably through your attorney). Please give me a call (and/or have your attorney give me a call) and we can discuss what response (objection, motion, compliance, otherwise) is appropriate. On November 17, 2015, Respondent moved for sanctions against Complainant pursuant to Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 26 and 37, arguing that the Complaint should be dismissed because the investigating ASI failed to comply with FAA Order 2150.3B in conducting the investigation and improperly deleted emails exchangedbetweenhimselfand Dr. Long during the investigation. See Respondent's Motion for Sanctions. On February 22, 2016, the ALI 

### denied Respondent'sNovember 17,2015 motion, correctly fmding thatthe Rules ofPractice bar an ALI from dismissing a matter for discovery violations. ALJ February 22, 2016 Order (citing 14 C.P.R.§ 13.205(b)). The ALIreserved ruling onRespondent's request for alternative sanctions. 

### Id. III. ALI June 3, 2016 OrderImposing Sanctions 4

### On June 3, 2016, the ALJ issued an Order granting Respondent's request for alternative sanctions. See June 3, 2016 Order. The ALJ recognized at the outset that her authority to impose sanctions under the Rules of Practice is limited to three specific situations: (!)improperly signed andfiled documents, 14 C.F.R. § 13.207; (2) failure to comply with ajoint discovery schedule order, 14 C.F.R. § 13.217(f); and (3) failure to comply with a discovery order, 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.220(n). See ALJ Order at 4-7. The ALJ nevertheless proceeded to find that anALJ may impose sanctions for an ASI'

### s actions during an investigation, priorto a request for hearing and the issuance of a scheduling or discovery order. See id. at I0-11. The ALJ attempted tojustify her expansive reading ofher sanction authority by making reference to (1) statements in the Federal Register about "fairness to parties" in civil penalty proceedings in connection withthe 1990 Final Rule republishing the Ru1es ofPractice, (2) FAA Order 2150.3B, and (3) the ABAModel Rules ofProfessional Conduct. See id. at 10-14. The ALJ determinedthat sanctions shouldbe imposed for the following actions found by the ALJ to havebeencommitted bythe ASI duringthe investigationinthis matter: (1) 

### pressuring Dr. Long to provide a full and detailed written statement regarding Respondent's illegal 14 C.F.R. Part 135 operation, (2) asking Dr. Long to not provide information to Respondent aboutthe FAA'sinvestigation, and (3) deleting email correspondence withDr. Longthatthe ASI did notbelieve were relevant. See id. at 14-29. Without the benefit ofa hearing or any form of oral testimony from either the ASI or Dr. Long, the ALJ determined thatthe ASI "polluted" Dr. Long as a witness and "destroyed Dr. Long's potential as an evidentiary witness." Id. at 14-19 (quotation onPage 19). The ALJ also found that anALJ may sanction Complainant when its attorney contacts a non-party witness served with a subpoena duces tecumto see ifgrounds exist to file a motion to 5

### quash. See id. at29-34. Althoughthe ALJduly acknowledgedthatno motionto quash was filed by anyone and that Dr. Long complied with the subpoena duces tecum, she found nonetheless that the FAA attorney acted improperly by contacting Dr. Long to discuss whether Complainant or Dr. Long should file a motion to quash, or otherwise object to, the subpoena Dr. Long received, and inferring that the subpoenamay be untimely. See id. at 29-34. The ALJ's Order cites no authority inthe Rules ofPractice for the proposition that a party may not discuss with a non- party witness the witness's options inresponding to a subpoena. Id. Indeed, as discussed more fully in Section IV.B. below, such discussions between a party and non-party under the circumstanceshere are reasonably contemplatedunder the applicable Rules ofPractice. After determining that Complainant should be sanctioned for both the AS

### I's conduct during an investigation- well before any request for hearing and any discovery rules attachedandthe FAA attorney's discussion with Dr. Long about the subpoena, the ALJ struck Paragraph II, page I §§ (2) and (3) inthe Complaintthat alleged Respondent operated apassenger-carrying flight on September 18, 2012 for compensationor hire and barred Complainantfrom introducing evidence ofany facts regardingthetwo allegations struckfrom thepleading. See id. at 41. In

### so sanctioning Complainant, the ALJ relied on Rules 13.217(£)(1) (sanctions for failing to comply with a joint discovery schedule) and 13.220(n)(l) (sanctions for failing to comply with a discovery order or order to compel). Id. 

### N. The ALJExceededHer SanctioningAuthority As an initial matter, Complainant emphasizes that by seeking this interlocutory appeal it Is not suggesting that it condones overzealous investigatory conduct by its investigative personnel or the failure to retain records related to a pending investigation in accordance with published guidance applicable to investigative personnel. Complainant seeks this interlocutory 6

### appeal becausethe ALJ exceededher limited sanctioning authority under the Rules ofPractice in this case. The Rules ofPractice do not give an ALJ plenary powerto impose sanctions for behavior that occurred during the FAA's investigation ofa respondent. Neither Rule 13.277(£) nor Rule 13.220(n) relied on by the ALJ here as the basis for the sanction imposed against Complainant authorizes an ALJ to sanction either party for conductthat occurs before a request for hearing is filed, before any discovery rules attach, and before the ALJ has issued a discovery order. Additionally, neither Rule provides an ALJ with authority to sanction a party for talking to a non-party witness about whether or not grounds exist to file a motionto quash a subpoena duces tecum. A. The Rules OfPractice that the ALJ Relied on Do Not Allow Her to Sanction the Investigator's Conduct as aViolation ofthose DiscoveryRules The Rules of Practice apply to civil penalty cases after a hearing is requested. See 13.20l(a). Furthermore, the Rules ofPractice only permit anALJ to impose sanctions onaparty in 

### limited, express circumstances, and only to the extent permitted by the Rules. 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(b); In 

### Re: Lisa Gamache-Wortman, FAA Order No. 2012-4 at 3-4 (May 22, 2012). Related to discovery, the Rules ofPractice permit sanctions in two narrow situations. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.217(£), 13.220(n). Rule 13.217(£) provides that "[i]fa party fails to comply with the administrative lawjudge's order establishing ajoint schedule, the administrative lawjudge may directthatparty to comply with a motionto discovery request [sic] or, limited to the extent ofthe party's failure to comply with a motion or discovery request, the administrative lawjudge may [impose a sanction]." 14 C.F.R. § 13.217(£). Rule 13.220(n) provides that "[i]faparty fails to comply with a discovery order or an order to compel, the administrative lawjudge, limitedto the extent ofthe party's failure to comply with the discovery order or motion to compel, may 7

### [impose a sanction]." 14 C.F.R. 13.220(n). Rules 13.217(f) and 13.220(n) expresslyrequire that a party violate a previously issued orderbefore an ALJ may impose sanctions on aparty. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.217(f), 13.220(n). Here, the ALJ acknowledgedherlimited authority to impose sanctions underthe Rules of Practice, butthen exceeded that authority by sanctioning Complainant for an ASI's conduct that occurred during the FAA's investigation. See June 3, 2016 Order at 4-7. In so doing, the ALJ not only ignored the fact that at thetime ofthe investigation no discovery orders had been issued because the discovery rules had not yet attached, see 14 C.F.R. § 13.20l(a), but also ignored the plain meaning ofthe very rules on which she relied to impose the sanctions here. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.217(f), 13.220(n). Rule 13.217(f) only authorizes a sanction if a party violates an order establishing thejointprocedural or discovery schedule. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.217(f). Likewise, Rule 13.220(n) only authorizes a sanction ifa party violates a discovery order ororderto compel. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.217(f), 13.220(n). It 

### is axiomatic that a party cannot violate an order before an ALJ actually issues the order. All ofthe ASI's actions that form the basis for the ALl's sanction occurred before the ALJ issued the April 7th Initial Discovery Order and the September Ist Amended Discovery Order. See June 3, 2016 Order at 10-29. The ASI's actions, therefore, did not violate a joint scheduling or discovery order and Rules 13.217(f) and 13.220(n) do not authorize sanctions. See 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 13.205(b), 13.217(f), 13.220(n). The June 3rd Orderimposing sanctions makes clearthatthe ALJ sanctioned Complainant because she disapproved ofthe ASI's conduct during his investigation. See June 3, 2016 Order at I0-29. The ALJ makes no attempt to claim that the ASI violated a scheduling or discovery order. Id. Instead, the ALJ cites to statements inthe Federal Register, FAA Order 2!50.3B, and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct as the basis for finding she has authority to 8

### sanction Complainant for the ASI's actions. Id. at 10-14. Only at the conclusion ofthe June 3rd Order imposing sanctions does the ALJ summarily impose sanctions under Rules 13.217(f) and 13.220(n) related to the ASI's actions. See id. at 41. Regardless ofthe merits ofthe ALI's opinion of the ASI's conduct during the investigation, neither Rule 13.217(f) nor 13.220(n) authorizes an ALI 

### to impose sanctions for improper investigations by FAA personnel for all of the reasons already discussed. See 14 C.P.R.§ 13.205(b); In Re: Lisa Gamache-Wortman, FAA OrderNo. 2012-4 at 3-4 (May 22, 2012) (holding that an ALI's sanctioning authority is limited to what is provided for in the Rules ofPractice). Accordingly, the ALI 

### exceeded her limited sanctioning authority by erroneously relying on Rules 13.217(f) and 13.220(n) to strike allegations from the Complaint based on the ASI's investigative conduct. See 14 C.P.R. § 13.205(b). B. 

### A PartyAttorney MayDiscuss With AThird Party Witness WhetherAMotionTo QuashIs Appropriate For reasons similar to those discussed above, the ALI 

### erroneously relied on Rules 13.217(f) and 13.220(n) as the basis for sanctioning Complainant for the FAA attorney's contact with anon-party witness regarding the options for responding to a subpoena duces tecum. Here, the FAA attorney did not violate ajoint scheduling or discovery order when he contacted Dr. 

### Long. Neither the ALI's April 7th Initial Discovery Order, nor September 1st Amended Discovery Order, prohibited the parties from talking to a non-party witness about whether grounds existedto move under Rule 13.228(b) to quash a subpoena. See generally April 7, 2015 Order; September 1, 2015 Order. Indeed, the June 3rd Order imposing sanctions does not find that the FAA attorney violated a specific provision in either discovery order. See June 3, 2016 Orderat 29-34. 9

### The June 3rd Order imposing sanctions found thatthe FAA attorney improperly impeded Respondent's "absoluteright" to discovery bytalking to Dr Long about whether grounds existed for a motion to quash the Subpoena. Id. In 

### making this finding, the ALJ ignored 14 C.P.R. § 

### 13.228(b) related to motions to quash subpoenas. See June 3, 2016 Order at 29-34. Rule 13.228(b) permits either aparty or a non-party entity served with a subpoenato moveto quash or modify the subpoena. 14 C.P.R. § 

### 13.228(b). The motionto quash "shall describe, in detail, the basis for the application to quash or modify the subpoena including, but not limited to, a statement that the testimony, document, or tangible evidence is not relevant to the proceeding, that the subpoena is not reasonably tailored to the scope ofthe proceeding, or thatthe subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive." Id. By authorizing both aparty and a non-party witness to file amotionto quash a subpoena served onthe non-party, and requiring a detailed statementfor the basisto quash ormodify, Rule 13.228(b) contemplates that a party attorney and non-party witness may discuss whether a motion to quash a subpoena, or otherwise object, is appropriate. A non-party witness does not know whether the informationrequested in the subpoena is "relevantto the proceedings" or "not reasonably tailored to the scope ofthe proceeding" because that non-party is not served with pleadings or discovery orders. See 14 C.P.R. § 

### 13.211(a) (providing that documents are to be served "oneach party"). The only way a non-party witness will knowthis information is to talk to a party's representative. Likewise, a party attorney cannot always know ifthe subpoena is "unreasonable and oppressive" without talking to the non-party witness to see how time consuming or expensive it will be for the non-party to comply with the subpoena. Therefore, in addition to not actually violating a specific provision in either the April 7th Initial Discovery Order or September 1st Amended Discovery Order, the FAA attorney's contact 10

### with Dr. Long was permissible under the Rules ofPractice. See 14 C.F.R. § 13.228(b). It 

### also bears emphasizing that the FAA attorney unequivocally told Dr. Long: "[Y]ou will be required to comply with itunless something is filed with the court seeking relieffrom the subpoena." See September 30,2015 Email (emphasis added). C. The ALJEffectivelyDismissedthe Complaint AndDidNotNarrowlyTailor Sanctions The ALJ acknowledged in the February 22, 2016 Order that the Rules ofPractice do not authorize the ALJ to dismiss the Complaint inthis matter. See ALJ February 22, 2016 Order at 4-6. Yet that is effectively whatthe ALJ did inthe ALJ June 3rd Order imposing sanctions. The ALJ acknowledged as much when she noted prior to imposing the sanction here that "Respondent seeks an order striking certain pleadings, which would essentially preclude the FAA from proceeding with its prosecution." See ALJ June 3, 2016 Order at 38. True to that objective, the June 3rd Order struckfrom the Complaintthe allegations that Respondent operated a passenger carrying flight on September 18, 2012 and that the flight was for compensation or hire. Compare June 3rd Order at 41

**(striking~** 

### II,§§ 2 and 3), with Complaint. Moreover, the ALJ ordered that "[n]o facts regarding these two struck pleadings may be introduced into evidence." ALJ June 3, 2016 Order at 41. Without the essential allegations that Respondent operated a passenger carryingflight for compensation orhire, the Complaintfails to state a claim and the ALJ will presumably grant Respondent's already filed Rule 13.218(£)(5) motion for a decision onthe pleadings.6 

### Although the ALJ agreed with Respondentthat this was "the appropriate andproportional response to the discovery violations and misconduct herein ..." 

## ifL the sanction she imposed was in no way proportional or otherwise appropriately addressed to any failure on the part of 6 Respondent filed its Motion for Decision on June !3, 2016. II

### Complainant to comply with ajointprocedural or discovery schedule under Rule 13.217(f) or a discovery order or order to compel under Rule 13.220(n) for all ofthe reasons alreadydiscussed. See 14 C.P.R.§§ 13.217(f)(l), 13.220(n)(l). To be sure, there is no nexus between any ofthe alleged misconductthe ALIpurportedto sanction under Rules 13.217(f)(1) and 13.220(n)(1) and any discovery schedule, procedure, or order in this case. The harm inflicted by the ALJ's erroneous reliance on these rules as the basis for sanctioning Complainant is all the more egregious in light ofher fmdings that: (1) Respondent obtained the correspondence between the ASI and Dr. Long that the ASI failed to retain during the course ofhis investigation through other means;7 

### (2) no motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum was ever filed by anyone and Dr. Long complied with that subpoena;8 

### and significantly, (3) there was no evidence the FAA attorney deliberately withheld any relevant disclosable documents in the course ofdiscovery.9 

### Thus, even if Rules 13.217(f)(1) and 13.220(n)(l) could have been used as a basis for sanctioning Complainant here, the record would not support striking the allegations at the heart ofthe case as the "proportionalresponse" to the purported "failureto comply." V. Request for Relief For all ofthe reasons stated in this brief, Complainant requests that the ALl's June 3, 2016 Order be vacated because it exceeded the ALl's authority to impose sanctions. Additionally, Complainant requests that Administrator direct that this matter be reassigned to another ALJ because the ALl's June 3, 2016 Order clearly indicates that the ALJ has prejudged the credibility ofthe FAA's witnesses and reliability ofthe evidence without hearing testimony from the investigatingASIorDr. Long orholding an evidentiaryhearing.
7AU'sJune 3, 2016 Order at 14 n. 25. 8AU'sJune 3, 2016 Order at 31. 9AU'sJune 3, 2016 Order at 35-36. 12

### Respectfully submitted, Patricia

### A. MeNall Acting Assistant ChiefCounsel for Enforcement By: 

### Rylm M. Landers EnforcementDivision, SouthernTeam 1701 ColumbiaAve. College Park, GA 30337 Tel: 404-305-5200 Fax: 404-305-5223

13

# COMPLAINTlJ.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION AOMINJSTR1\TION f'EDERAL AVIATION AD1v1!N!STR;\TION. Complainant, Binningham Flight Center. inc Respondent. JUDGE NOT YET ASSIGNED FAA Docket No. Judge
COMPLAINT The Federal Aviattl>rt Admmistration (FAA). hy counseL hereby i11cs its Complaint. pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (I'l C.F.R. I3.208). and stale> as 

### t(Jilows: I. I. On November 19.2014. Respondent. Binningham Flight Center, Inc was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount ofS 11.000. On November 26.2014. the Agency Attorneyreceived a written request fi.)r u hearing fl·om the Respondent II. l. At aH tinH:.'S material

**hcr~in** you

**\\,-~rc** and are an Federal Aviation Administration approved l4C.F.R. Part 61 and Part 141llightschool. 2. On or about September 18. 2012, you operated N525l.P. a Cessna Citation Jet, as apassenger carrying tlight t]·om Birmingham. AL (KBHMi !D Destin. FL (KDTS) (hereinafter ·'Flight"). 3. The Flight was operated f(}rcompensation or hire. 

### 4. At the time ofthe 

### Flight. the 

### Bim1ingham Flight Center did not: a, Hold an air carrier or commercial operatnr ceriilleate under 14 C.F.R. Pari 119;h. l--lold economic authority ffom the Department ofTransportation: e. Conduct the t1ight with ayualiticd pilot under 14 C.F.R. 135: d. Pass a written or oral test gin:n by the Administrator or an .authorized check pilot to conduct the Flight: or c. Pass or complete the training. tests. and checks required to act as a pilot under 14 C.F.R. Part 135. !II. 5. By reason ofthe tC\reguing facts and

**circ.umstances~** Respondent violated the following sections ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations:
a. Section ll9.5{g) in that no- person may operate as a direct air can-ter or as a commercial operator without or in vioiation of an appropriate certitl:cate and appropriate operations specitications. No pcrS.-tJn may operate- as a direct air carrler Pr as a commercial operator in violation ofany deviation or exemption authority, ifissued to that

**pcr~nn** orthat person's reprcsentativt::. b. Section ll9.5(i) in that no JlCrson may operate as a direct air carrier without holding appropriate economic authority from the Depanment of Tran,;portalion. c. Sccction ll9.33(al(2) in that a pers<lll may not operate as a direct air carrier unless that pcr::,.on

**obtain~** an Air Can-icr Certificate. d. Sedi<>n 135.95(h) in that no ccrtlllcatc holder may use the services of any

**p~rson** as an ain11a11 unless the person perthnning those :;.ervices is

**qualified~** under tills chapter_ t(.1r the operation fi.>r \Vhtch the person is to be used. e. Section 135.293(a) in that no certificate holder may usc a pilot. nor may any person seJYC as a pilot, unJcss, sint:c thebeglnning ofthe 12th calendar month bd(Jrc that ,;cn·ice, that pilot ltas passed a written or oral test given by the Administrator or an authorized check piloL on that pil<>t's knowledge in the areas spe(;ificd in this section. L Section l35.29J(b) 

### in that 

### no cei1Jlicate h<'lder may use a pilot. nor may any person serve as a pilot, in any aircraft unless. since the beginning ofthe 12th calendar month bct(wc that senice, that pilot has passed a competency check given by the Administr;Uor or an authorized check pilot in that class of aircraft, ifsingle-engine airplane 1>ther than turbojet, orthat type ofaircraft..

### if helicopter. multiengine mrplanc. or turbojet aitplane, to determine the pilot's competence in practical skills and 

### tcdmigues in that aircrall or class of aircraf\.g. Sedion 135.299(a) in that no certificate holder may use a pilot, nor may any person

**sen~.** as a pilot in command ofa tlight unless. since the beginning of the 12th calendar m0nth before that service. that pilot has pa»ed a flight check in one ofthe types ofaircraft which that pilot is to tly. The !light check shall (l) Begiven by an approved cheek pilot or by the Administrator: (2) Consist ofat least one flight overoneroute SCh,'TilCnt; and (3) Include takeoffs and landings at one or more representative airports. In addition to the requirements of this paragraph. for a pilot authorized to conduct 

### IFR nperatinns, at least one 

### t1ight shall be tlown over ll civil airway, an approvt-;:d off-alrway route, ora portion ofeither ofthem. 6 Pur:>uant to 49 U.S.C Sections 4630l(a)-(d), Respondent is subject to a ctvil penalty not h> exceed $1,I00 for each ofthe violations alleged. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case. a civil penalty of

### Sl LOOO is appropriate. 

### WHEREFORE. the Agency. by counsel respectihllyrequests that the Administrative Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$I 1.000. Respcctlully submilted this 

# 511'__ day ofDecember, 2014.



# ~~t//!}~4=:- Attnmcy 

### PLEASE NOTE: Pursuantto Title 14 CFR Section l3.20'l(a). you arc required to !ik a written answer to tbis Complaint. or a wnttcn Motion to Dismissi

## rappropriate. not later tban 30 days afler the date shown onthe CeriiticatenfService which ti>llows.CERTIFICATE 01'' SERVICE I hereby ccrtiry that a cnpy ofthe fc>regoing Complaint has been mailed this date hy C'endicd Mail, Return Receipt

**R~qucsted,** to the f(lllowing: Binningham Flight Center 4243 East Lake Blvd. Binningham. AL 35217 Charles R. Barnett Barnett & Bm1h, LLC ROO Waukegan Road. Suite200 Glenview, IL 60025,43S7 Hearing Docket Clerk FAA, AGC-430. Suite2WHJOO Wilbur Wright Building 800 Independence Avenue. SW Washingwn. DC 20591 

# t

**Po~P;by** Legal Assistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

## DEC 5 2014.. Dated (original + I copy)

# APRIL 7, 2015 ORDERI- .... I .... V"T VI I I •VI

### In The Matter Of: BIRMINGHAM FLIGHTCENTER Respondent 

## SERVED: APRIL 7, 2015 U.S. DEPARTlVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC 

# r-l DocketNo. FAA-2014-0867 ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Case No. 2012S0090053 

### ORDERSETTING LITIGATION DATES AND PROCEDURES On .January 6. 2015. an Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and Directing Rule 26(1) Planning and submission was filed. 

## 202016

On March 20. 2015. the parties tiled aJoint PI'Oposed Scheduling and Discovery Plan. On April?. 2015. the parties appeared by telephone for the Rlde 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference. nnd discussed theit·discovery plan. calendar availability. hearing dates. and other litigation procedural matters. Pursual1tto 

### 14 C.F.R. § 

### 13.205(a)(1). (6) and (7). Civ. R. 16. 14 C.F.R. 

### !'i I3.217, and 14 C.F.R. § 13.220. and after reviewing all relevant caselaw. regulation. statutory authority. a11d being fully advised: 

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: A. 

### The litigation dates. discovet'Y procedl1res. and heal'ing dates are hereby set as follows: 1. Aprill7,2015: 

### Dcndlinc for **lniti~li** Disclosures. 

### To ensure that the parties have sufticietlttime to address all issues in displtte, on orbefore April17,2015 

### the parties shall serve each otherwith initial disclosures (as described in Civ. 

### R. 26(a)(l)(A)(i). (ii). and (iii)) without waiting for aspecific discovery request. 2. On or before April20,2015: General Discovery 

### lnith1tcd, Pursu<llltto 14 C.F.R.

**s\3.220(~).** 

### the parties may immediately bq;in conducting gcneral discovery. In order to ensure full use ofthe discovery time allotted in this case. the panics shall begin exchanging or serving general discovery requests on orbefore April 

### 20, 2015. 

### pursuant to 14 C:F.R. **~13.220** 

### (b). (c). (d) and (e). General discovery includes. but is not limited to: notices oi'deposition: requests forproduction ofdocuments; propounding interrogatories: requests for admission: etc.

### 3. Service ofInterrogatories. Pursuantto 14 

### C.F.R. § 

### 13.220(k)(

### I). apm1y shall not serve more than thirty (30)

### interrogatories upon each other. Each subpart ofan interrogatory shall be counted as aseparate interrogatory. a. Objcction(s) to Interrogatories. Pursuuntto 14 

### C.P.R.§ l3.220(k). 

### any objection in response to an interrogatory must include the reason(s) supporting the objection. 4. Motions to LimitDiscovery upon Receipt ofDiscovery Request: Aparty served with a discovery requestwho seeks to 

### limitdiscovery pursuant to 14 

### C.I'.R.

# * l3.220(f).

### (g). nnd (h). shall tile aMoti011 for Relid'within ten (10) 

### d:tys after **servi~.:c** 

### olthe disputed discovery request. a. Good Faith Declaration Included: The Motion should include adeclaration by the moving party. confirmingthatthe movant has alre<Jdy conferred or attempted to conl\:rin good faith with the opposing patty regarding the disputed discovery or disclosure. to try andresolve the **matt~t·**

### informally. priOI' to **~eeking courtr~licf.**  

### b. Copv ofDisputed Discovery: Pursuantto 14 

### C.F.R. §l3.220(b), 

### only acopy of the disputeddiscovery, in supportofthemotion, should be attached to the Motion orthe Response. c. Response to Motion to Limit Discovcrv: .t..ny Response to the Motion should be filed no laterthan ten (10) 

### days alter **s~rvice** 

### ofthe Motion. 5. Motions to Compel Discovery: Aparty seeking to compel discovery must tile aMotion to Compel within ten (10) **d~•ys** 

### afterservice ofaddicient response or afterthe response to the discovery is due. whichever occurs first. a. Procedurefor Motion: Any Motion and/or Response to Compel Discovery shall be filed inthe same rnanneras directed above for Motions to Limit Discovery (paragraph4and 4(a)-(c)). G. 

### Retained/Hired or Employee Expert **Witnc~s** 

### Disclosures. Ira

### party retains or hires a witness to provide experttestimony. oraparty intends to uti!izc the testimony oi'an employee to give **c~pcrt**

### testimony- then the party **intcndin~;**

### to otTer such witness shall disclose this retained oremployee expertwitness to the opposing side pu!'S\mnt to the timeline below. The expert witness disclosure shall include the name ofthe witness. the witness's expertresume orqualifications. and the witness's written report or statement of opinion (i11cluding **clisclo~urc** 

### ofthe basis ofthatopinion}. a) FAA Expen Disclosure Deadline: M:t}' 15, 2015. 

### b) RespondentExpenDisclosure **D~adline:** 

### May 29, 2015. c) Expert Rebuttal Reports Deadline: June 12, 2015. Poge 2of5

### .............. ' .... ' 0 " **·-~.-.-.__...** ' Wf.., 

### 7. Duty to Supplement or Amend Discovery: Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

### 13.220(i). aparty who has responded to adiscovery request in this case has aduty to supplementor amend the response throughoutthe litigationperiod. a:; 

### soon as the information is known. 8. June 19, 2015: Deadline for Issuing Subpoenas/Arrangingfor Depositions. On or before .June 19,2015. the parties shall issue subpoenas and/or mutually arrange for depositions ofwitnesses and **e~pet1S**

### as may be **n~~essary.** 

### 9. August21,2015: Deadline for Completing Genen•l Discovery. On orbefot·e August 21,2015.the parties shall finish responding and serving answers to all general discovery requests pursuantto 14 C.F.R.

**~** 

### 13.220. This includes the taking offact witness and expert witness depositions. pursuant to 14 C.F.R.

# * 13.220(j). 10. September 18, 2015: List ofWitncsses/E:<change ofE:<hib;ts. On or before September 18, 2015. the parties will serve and file.the following: a) Alistofthe witnesses the party intends to call: b) Ashm1 statement ofthe testimony expected from each such witness: c) The resume or statement ofqualifications ofeach witness who will be offered as an expert: d) The documents the party intends to offerin evidence (pre-marked as noted in paragraph£, 

### infi'a): and c) An index cover sheet with abriefdescription ofeach document. II. Octobct• 16,2015: Written Stipulations :md/or Agreed Motions 

### in Limine. On ot· before October 16, 2015. the parties sha\1 lile any writt<:n stipttlations that narl'Ow the l'actual orlegal issues. and/orthat arc agreed Moti011s in Limine. 

### \2. Telephone Pre-HearingConference: October28,2015 (10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. ET). The parties shall convene by telephone for a Pre-l·Iearing Conference on October28, 2015 (10:00 a.m.-11:00 :1.m. ET) to discuss uny outstanding, issues and dispttted motions 

### ln limi11e. 13. November 18, 2015 and November 19,2015: HearingD:ltes. Based on the pat1ies· agreement. the Hearing will take two (2) days or less. The

**H~at·ing** 

### will begin on Novcmbc•· 18,2015 (9:00a.m-5:00p.m.ET) in the Birmin(Sham. 

### AL **ar~a.** 

### The Hearing will continue on November 19,2015 (9:00 a.m·5:00 p.m. ET) and conclude by 

### the end ofthat same day (5:00p.m. EST). The specific lowtion oi'the Hearing will be provided to the partiesprior to the Hearing. B. Discowry Requests and **Exch<~nges:** 

### Discovery ··equcsts and **exchang~s** 

### need 11otbe 

### 11led with the Oflicc ol'\lcarini's. except as put·t o!'a motionrcgal'ding limited discovery. clisput<:d discovct·y. or <JS 

### pan oi'J motion to compel discovery. Page 3of5

### C. Failure to Move for Timely Relief/Late Service ofDiscovery: The failure to timely respond to discovery requests. and/or to timely move for ,·elief regarding. discovery disputes duringthe discovery period. may result in a linding that the party has, through its actions, waived its rightto relief. Late service ofdiscovery req11ests may also be grounds for denial 

### ofamotion to compel compliance with such requests. 

### D. Scheduling Motion or Pre-Heal'ing Conferences on the .ll1dge's

### Cale11dar: Priorto the Hearing datc(s). ifa

### party wishes to 

### scheduk oral argument on any motion. or set up any type ofpre-hearing telephone confere11ce on the Judge's calendar. the party shall first conferwith opposing counsel about mutually agreeable alternate dates. The 

### movant shall next contactMr. 

### Cody L. 

### Smith. Attorney-Advisor, at the Office ofHearings (202-366-694\) as soon as possible, with at leastthree (3) 

### mutually-agreed, proposed alternate dates/times for

**th~** 

### .fudge's consideration. 

### E. Exhibits Brought to the Hearing: Each party must bring to the Hearing at leastthree copies ofany documents it intends to offer in evidence as exhibits (two forthe Judge and one for the court reporter). The exhibits musthave '10 

### index coversheet, nnd should be pre-warked. 

### Complainant'sexhibits shoL1ld be 

### marked "C-1," ''C•2," "(-3,"

### etc. Respondent's exhibits should be 

### marked "R-1 ," R-2," "R-3," 

### etc. F. Examination Process at the Hearing: At the Hearing, there will bethe opportunity for directexamination, cross-examination. and 1·edireclexamination ofeach witness. Only one representative ofaparty may di1·ect or cross-examine awitness on behalt'ofthat party. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R.

**~**

### 13.105
**~nd** 

### 14 C.

### F.R. §

### 13.222, the Federal Rules ofEvidence may be utilized as helpful t;uidancc in determining the admission ofevidence. G. Attorney Withdraw<tl: 

### Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. **~13.218,** 

### an attorney who wishes to 

### withdraw ti·omrepresenting aparty tllliSt 

### file aMotion to Withdraw. 111this Motion. the attorney shall confirm the following: 1. 

### The date the Respondent was served with written notice ofthe attomey's intent to withdraw; 2. The name ofthe designated agent/lay representative ifthe Respondent in the action is abusi11ess entity: 3. The current business address. telephone numbc1', and lax number ol'the Respondent und ol'its **d~sigt1ated** 

### agent: 4. Astatement that the Respondent has been notified in writing ofthe pending hearini:\ dates in this litigation, as well as the pending pre-hearing discovery deadlines and telephone conferences: and 5. Astntemenl that the Respondenthas been provided acopy ofall Orders issued in this litigation. as well as any other legal docLm1Cl1ts to 

### which the Respondent is entitled. Page 4 of 5

### H. Court Filing ofExhibits with the Hearing Docket: All Exhibits that the parties have moved for admission during the Hearing will

**b~** 

### attached to the court transcript and filed by the courtreporter. I. 

### Requests for Modification ofthis Order: ' 

### ...

### , ....


### Any requests for modification ofthe litigation dates and pl'occdures set fonh in this Order should be made by 

### written Motion. The parties may also file an agreed written request. 

### .1. Clarification or Questions: Forcbrifications ofthis orderorquestions with regard to tl1e procedures to be followed in this case. please contact Mr. Cody L. 

### Smith. Attorney-Advisor. at the Office ofHearings 

### (202-366-6941).
Anachmcnt: Service 

### List

Page 5of5**Dock~t**

### No. FAA-2014-0867 (Civil Penally Action) SERVICE LIST- BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 [ndependence Avenue. S.W. Washington. DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 Wilbur Wright **Building~Suite** 

### 2W!0001 Mr. Deitrick H. Johnson Complainant's
**Co1ms~l** 

### Federal Aviation Administration Oi'licc ofthe Rcl,\ional Counsel. AS0-7 Southcm Region 170I Columbia Avenue College 

### Park. GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404·305-5223 Mr. Charko R. Barnett Respondenf's Counsel Barnell & 

### Borth. LLC 800 Waukegan Road. Suite 200 G\enviN. 1L 60025-4387 TEL: 847-724-5520 !'AX: 815-356-7042 

### Judgc J.E. Sullivan 

### U.S. Ailmini.,·trilliw 

### LawJudge 

### 01"11cc ofHearings. M-20 

### U.S. Department o

### I'Transpo11ation 1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. (Ell-3\0) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 

### 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 ONE COPY

**Birmin~ham** 

### Flight Center. Inc.

**Respond~nt** 

### 4243 East Lake Blvd. Binningham, AL 35217

1St:rvicc wns by U.S. Mail. F'or service in person orby c;o<;pcditcd courier. us\! the following nddress: Fcdem! Avintion Admini;.;tration, 600 lndc:pcndt:nce Awnuc, S.W.. Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO. Washington, DC 20591; **Att~;"ntion:** Hc>ll'ing

**Dock.~t** Clc:rk. AGC.....:!30.

# COMPLAINANT'SAUGUST 20, 2015 MOTIONIn The Matter Of: IJ.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF' HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

## H
BI!Uvl!NGHAM FUGHTCENTER. 

### INC. Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 Judge 

### J.E. Sullivan Respondent FAA Case No. 2012S009005J 

## JUN 20 2016

MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDIJLE TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND SETm:ADLINF:S FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS Pursuant to the Cour1's April 7, 2015, Scheduling Order, discovery in this matter is set to close tomorrow, Augttst 2l. 2015, with pre-hearing filings to begin shortly thercaHer. and no time set aside f(H dispositive motions. However, as of this date, the parties have not yet completed discovery. and will not be able to complete it in the time allotted. Further, the limited discovery completed indicates that this case can 

### likely be resolved 

### by motion, without the need !(Jr the time and expense of a heming. Accordingly, the FAA moves to extend the discovery period, set**de~dlines** for the filing and consideration of dispositive motions. and continue the hearing to a future date consistent with these actions.

. \u11us**c~(**Discove1), On July ], 2015. the undersigned !lie a Notice ofAppearance as the FAA's counsel of record in this case, noting that prior counsel was no longer with the FAA fhat week, the undersigned telephonically contacted Respondent's counsel to discuss the case. including spccilically whether there were any pending ma!ters that the FAA ncedcd to address. See**r~,** 

# LJExhibits A, B. The undersigned left a voice mail with Respondent's counsel to that effect, but received no call or other contact in response. See Exhibits A. B. On July 7. 2015. the undersigned served discovery requests on Respondent's coumel via certified mail and facsimile. See Exhibits C. D. E. On July 24, 2015, the undersigned sent a letter to Respondent's counsel. Exhibit A. That letter spccitically sought information on ''any outstanding obligations on the part ofthe Fi\1\ in this matter (e.g. discovery responses) and, ifso, what they are." ld The undersigned received no responseto this letter. On August I, 2015, Respondent provided responses to a set ofdiscovery requests made at some time prior to July 2015. See Exhibit R After reviewing those discovery responses. ttll' undersigned sent Respondent's eounsei an e-mail on August l0, 2015, again asking Respondent to identify what infiwmation Respondent 

### believed the 

### FAA had not yet provided. Exhibit 

### B. Respondent's counsel did not respond to this e-mail. OnAugust 17.2015. Respondent's counsel for 

### trre tirst 

### time contacted

### the undersigned 

### in order to discuss unspecified discovery matters. which resulted in the undersigned and Respondent's counsel :;peaking f(or the first time on August !9, 2015. During that corwersation, Respondent's counsel represented that Respondent had served discovery requests on the FAA in April20 15. including requests that had not bet•n previously available to the' undersigned, and thot the FAA had not responded to those requests. Respondent's counsel provided the undersigned with copies of those aspects of the discovery requests to which the undersigned had not previously had access. 

### Also during that conversation, Respondent's attorney indicated that he had llt)t been 

### sure what the F:\A's intent had been with regards to the July 7, 2015, discovery reqtlt'>ls, and that hehad not yet begun to prepare responses to those discovery requests. The undersigned indic.ated that it did want responses to those discovery requests. As a result ofthese circumstances, the parties iu this case have onlyjust begun to work on providing discovery responses to full sets ofdiscovery requests, 1 but discovery is presently set to close tomorrow, August 21. 2015. Additionally, dur.ing the August l0, 2015, conversation, Respondent's counsel raised the possibility 

### of wanting to take perpetuation depositions. 

### It is. at this point, impossible for the ptlrties to complete their discovery obligations 

### during the set discovery period. Although Respondent disagrees and opposes this motion, it is difficult tiJr the undersigned to see how the patiies can complete discovery and still fulfill their obligations to exchange witness and exhibit lists by September 18, 2015. even assuming that both parties are fully satist\ed with the other's discovery responses. SummaryJudgment The current schedule l(lr this matter does not include time f(Jr filing dispositive motions. At the time the schedule was made Respondent's counsel llpincd that a hearing would "definitely" be required in this case. April 7, 2015, Scheduling Conference, Tr. at 9. Respondent's counsel has indicated that this remains Respondent's position. At the scheduling conference. the FAA·s. when asked about whether a dispositive motion period was needed, statated that "it's hard to make a decision since we haven't really gone through discovery yd ... <II this time. the agency doesn't feel as ifit would need that motion period. But again. it's hard to say without discovery, to he honest." Jd at 9-10. As discussed above. discovery in this matter is 

### not yet complete. However. based 

### on the infonnation currently dtsclosed in discovery. it appears that the FAA does need a period to file a dispositive motion. 1The FAA·s discover; ... requests include 15 interrogatories and 6

**n:quc~ts** f(Jr produc!ion (lhi..' dJscnvu-y rrqucs.L'i als-(1 included requests for (]dmission, \Vhich Rt?:spondent h:id 3lrt'<::dy responded to) Respondent's diswvc:ry requests include !3 imcnogatuncs and

**1~l** n··qutcsts for production.In brief, the FAA alleges in this case that Respondent operated a charter flight that fell within the ambit ofPart 135 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations and, because Respondent is not an air carrier 

### and does not have personnel qualified 

### to operate under Part l

### :15, violated 

### a vmiety of the regulations pertaining to the requirements for Part 135 operations. See Complaint. Respondent docs not dispute that the flight occurred, but asserts that it was not a char1er !light, butrather 

### a demonstration Hight under 14 C.F.R. 

### § 9!.501. Respondent's discovery responses do indicate that there are factual disputes as to some ofthe details ofthe arrangemems for the Hight. However. these disputes appear to 

### be immaterial because Respondent also concedes facts that provethat the tligh1 was. 

### as a matter

### oflaw, 

### nor ademonstration 

### !light. As a result ofthe abnvc, it is appropriate f()r a dispositive motion period to be set in this case. The parties so t>u have between them idcntil]ed approximately a dozen potential witnesses, including at least 

### 8 who seem likely. Holding 

### a hearing will 

### be a signilicanl .inconvenience to these witnesses, many of whom 

### do not reside 

### in the same state as the hearing location. And holding a hearing, ofcourse, requires a significant <·onnnitment oftime and

**treasur~** on the part of both pmties and the Court. Where. as here, a case can likclv be resolved on motions, the burden ofa hearing should be avoided. RequestedActions As discussed above. although discovery in this ca:;c is set to close tomorrow, August 21, 2015, the parties will 

### nnt be able 

### to complete discnvery in that time 

### frame Although the procedural schedule curren1ly set envisions a month between the close <.lf d!SCl.lVCry and rhc exchange ofwitnt"SS lists and exhihits. the parties are effectively only now beginning to address discovery requests. a process which is ulso usually assigned a month for completion !even if 

### there are

### no dispute'S about the 

### resJ.MlScs). Further, .it 

### appears that this case 

### can 

### he disposed ofonmotion. without the need for a hearing at all. Accordingly. the FAA requests the following modifications to the current schedule: Discovery in this matter be extended for an additional month. to provide the parties with additional time to respond to currently pending discovery requests. No new discovery requests would be permitted during this extendedperiod. A date f(Jr dispositive motions be set, with initial motions due approximately one month after the close 

### of discovery. with 

### an additional month or Jess 

### Cor responses in opposition and replies in support. and time as needed f(Jr a motion conference and the Judge's considera!Jon ofdispositivemotions. The remainder 

### of the cunent schedule to 

### be time-shilled 

### to accommodate these additions. with the hearing to take place in orafterApril 2016. Based on prinr experience. the undersigned anticipates thatthe primary factor controlling 

### when a continued hearing could take place would be the Judge's existing hearing schedule. To the extent that additional time would be present in the schedule due to the Judge being unavailable in or before April 2016. additional lime could be added to the discovery period to allow f(Jr any disputes to be resolved. If the .fudge was available bcf(,re April 2016, the dispositive motion schedule, and the current schedule. could be compressed to permit the parties to appear at a somewhat earl.ierhearing. in the event that the FAi\·,dispositive motion is denied in whole nr in part. As noted ahove. Respondent opposes the FAA's request to modify the existing schedule. :!""' ubmitted thisz 0 day ofAugust. 2015. ;\ttornq Ofncc ofthe ChiefCounsel. Fni()rccmcnt Division. Suuthcrn TeamCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that the j()regoing Motion to Amend Schedule to Extend Discovery and Set Deadlines for Dispositive Motions was sent: original

### and one copy via certified mail to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S,W, Washington, [),C, 

### 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building Suite 2Wl000 one copy via certified mail and tilcsimi!e to: 

### 'rhe Honorable 

### lE, Sullivan Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U,S, Department

### ofTransportation 1:!00 New Jersey Avenue, SE (.E 11-3l0) Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536 Paul R, Borth, Esq, Barnett & Botth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, lL 60025 facsimile: (815) 356-7042

Dated

## .. 

# / U.S. Department ofT 

### ransportatlon Federal Aviation Administration



## :JUL 24

**20~** VIA 

### CERTIFU.;IUc!AlL Paul R. 

### Borth Barnett & 

### Borth, 

### LLC 800 Waukegan Road, 

### Suite 200 

### Glenview, IL 60025 facsimile: (815) 356-7042 

### Southern Region Office ofthe Regional Counsel

Re: fAA v.. Birmingham Flight Center, 

### FA/,-201 4-0867 Mr. 

### Borth: P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 (404) 305-5200 (404) 305-5223 FAX 

### 2ll12SOO'l005)

Ian1 writing on several matters concerning the above-referenced case. A.s you are aware, J recently took overthis 

### case !rom

### the prior FAA attorney, 

### who Jell the Agency.! 

### have attempted 

### to speak with you telephonically, but I 

### have not received 

### a return call. l wished to cover three matters 

### in particular 

### First, I wanted to learn whether

### you believe there are 

### any outstanding 

### obligations on the part of the 

### FAA in this 

### matter (e.g., discovery responses) and. 

### ifso, what 

### they are. 

### In the absence ofany such identification, I will presume

### that my predecessorprovided 

### you with all required information. 

### Second, 

### Iwanted 

### to inquire as to 

### Respondent's initial disclosures in this matter. 

### My review of fhe 

### file does 

### not reveal any initial disclosures by Respondent. Please 

### advise whether initial 

### disclosures were made by Respondent 

### and the FAA'scopy has 

### simply been mispla<"ed, or whetherRespondent has riot yet made initial disclosures. Third, my 

### review ofthe 

### !liedoesnot reveal that any settlement ot1ers had 

### been extended in 

### this matter. 

# ·ro the extent that my predecessormay have made any settlement oiTer ofwhich I am not aware, and to the extent 

### that any such offer

### may still be outstanding, any suchoffer

### is hereby rescinded. 

### Based onmy review of

### the iile, 

### we are presently willing to 

### accept a reduced civil 

### penalty of$8,000 in full 

### settlement of

### this matter.


### I GOVERNMENT



### ~ EXHIBIT 

# I APlease do nothesitate to contact me ifyouhave any questions or concernsregardingthiscase. Sincerely, 

### CHRISTOPHER R STEVENSON Attorney Office ofthe Regional Cnunsc\

rl .Jl 

### · · ostal Service'" **~ERTIFIEO MAIL<~>**  

### RECEIPT

mesllcMailOnly



### 1 

## I I IStevenson, Chris (FAA) From: Sent: To: Cc:: Subject: Mr. Borth, Stevenson, Chns (FAA) Monday, August 10, 2015 242 PM 'Paul Borth' Charles R. Barnett ill RE Birmingham Flight Center Discovery Responses As you are aware, I recently took over this case aher my predecessor, DeitrickJohnson, left this office. Shortly after taking overthe case at the \:leginning ofJuly, I called vour office and, as you were unavailable, I left a message asking to speak with you about the case, including whetherthe Respondent was waiting on anything from the FAA in this case I received no response to that call. I later sent you a letter about the case. One of the subjects addressed m that letter was to ask you to identify what, if any, outstanding obligations you believed there were on the part ofthe FAA in thiS matter. I have, to this date, received no response to that letter. I note that, in its response to Interrogatory ij6, on page 5-6 of Respondent's discovery responses, there IS a reference to Respondent awaitmg answers to unspecified discovery propounded upon the Administrator. At this point, I can only reiterate the contents of my prior attempts to contactyou- tfyou believe there are any outstanding obligations on the part offthe FAA, please let me know what they are I apologize tf this was diScussed with my predecessor, but in reviewin-g the fHe, Ido not see any priorcorrespondence discussing uny delinquent obligations on the part ofthe

**~AA,** and I cannot work to provide you with the information ifI do not know wha litis you seek Thank you, Christopher Stevenson Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel { 404) 305-5200 From: Paul Borth [mailto:prb@barnettlegaLcom] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 3:48PM To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) Cc: Charles R. Barnett Ill Subject: Birmingham Flight Center Discovery Responses C:hm: Please ;:;ce attached answers to .your **di~crwery.** Please grve me a ca.ll should you ha-ve any guc--suons. Have a mce 'veckcnJ. Sincnely. Paul Borth, Eog. Ban1ett & Borth, U.C. 800Waukegan Ro,1d SUlt< 2()1! 

# ! GOVERNMENT 

### EXHIBIT 

# i 

# BGlenview, [L 60025 Dtrect: 847-809-9520 Office: 80(1578-5512 Fax BlS-35(,.7042 prbCiiJbJrnctclcgaLc;;)J11 1\labama Office 460I 

### East Lake 

### BtlUlevard 

### Hangar # 

### 29 Birmingham-Shuttlesv.mrth International Airport (KBHM) Birmingham, Alabama 35217

### CERTIFICATKOF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's First 

### Discovery Requests was sent 

### via certified mail and facsimile to: Paul R. Borth, Esq. Barnett & Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025 

### facsimile (8I5) 356-7042



# ~£liN~ Legal Assistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel Dated 

# us Postal **Service~** 

### c'eimFIED MAJL® RECEIPT m stlcMailOnly

GOVERNMENT 

### EXHIBIT



## (__

# -

DATE, TIME FAX HO. /NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT 0•. CHECK READABILITY r MODE TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT

87/07 12:53 918153557042 00:02:47 05**Of~** TRANSMITTED PAGE(S)**~fANDARD** 

# FAA TIME NAME FAX TEL SER. i



### Southern Region 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel,AS0-7 P. 0, 

### Box 20636 Atl'lnta, GA 30320 TEL (404) 305-5200 FAX (404) .10.5·522:) 

### Date: Frorn· Pog('c; 07/07/2015 12:55 FAA REGirn;AL COUNSEL 4043055223 4043055200 BROD9J925559



## l-l-15 Tu 

# Pctu.\ 

# e.. 3--eue(J&irJ,**€~** 

## · Tn Fu-rn· Phone F"'. 

## (\!\0

# J 3'56 

## -101.\2. Phon< HARJ) COPY TO FOLLOW 1

## ~ [ INn HARLJ COP) TO FOLLOW [ 

### IYes Fltm To FirmLISPS Mobile 

## USPS Tracking®

Tracking Number. 701SOG4Q000100875471 

### Product 

### & Tracking Information Po5tal Produt::t; July 10,2015.9:2711nt Joly9_2.015 J:07pm July9.2015 75lam J(J!y a. 2o15 ::1 31 pm JtiiJ' 7, 2015. 6:1J pm **Faatur~;ts:**

**c~rtHieo** Matl'" S't,11.TU5 or ITEM
DcparteO USPS Factli!y Atrwer.! at USPS Facility Departed USPS Facility JlJTfvt:ld at USPS F"citlty 

### TrackAnother Package

**Trac~!ng** (or ra-uipt) numbctr

HELPFULU!iKS Contact Us FAQs ON MOUI.USPS,(;OM AOOvt USPS HvrTW USPS Servtce Updates Forms!.

**P~-itlltcatloM** 

# j]IUSPS.COM.

LOCATION GLENVIEW, ll6002.5
PALATINE. !L 60095 PALATINE, jl600.95 NORTH METRO, GA 30026 NORTH METRO. GA3002'5

Track lt

OTHER U$P$ SITE3 Bvsfness Customer GatewaJ'

**Po~tallr~~pectors**

**lru;pe~;tor** Generni

**Po~tal** E,;pkner NutianalJ.'0$1al Museum Atl10llrG!J$ IQI 0...v<'kipcrl IU!glnrr1Sign1n
customer Servica) Have qoosUoM? W&'rll hen lo h01p. Got Easy Tracking Updatos., Sign upforMy USP-S.


### Available Actions To:xt Updales Emall Updato.s

Manage lncom1ng Packages Track

**a~** your

**packa{le~** lrom a daM'i!J.oatd No 1tack.ong nuJl"lb.e.rs necessary Sign up for My USPS 1

LEGAL.. INFORMATION Prwacy Policy TomnsofUst• FQ!A No f EAn Ao;t E'XO D;r.,ta 

# I

GOVERNMENT 

### EXHIBIT 

# ---------1 

# f

# AUGUST 21, 2015 EMAIL CHAINAlan 

### long. M.D.

**~rom:** Sent: To: Subject: Dr. Long, Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov friday, August 21, 2015 4:10 PM Alan Long, M.D. RE: Address Discovery technically ends today. However, the Respondent did not actually get in touch with me about discovery until two day.s ago. So we are gofng to be: continuing to provide each otherwith Information past the close of discovery ChristopherStevenson Attorney Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcen1ent Division" Southern Team (404) 305-5208 ---·--Original

**Message~-----** r:rom: Alan Long, M.D. [mailto:along@skindxgroup.com] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 5:04PM To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) Subject: Re: Address I'mworking on gett:ng this all outto you today for delivery by Monday. When does discovery end? >On Aug 21, 2015, at 4:01PM. "Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov" <Chrls.Stevenson@faa.gov> wrote: > Dr. Long, > ? That is the corre(t add

**res~.** > >Thank you, > >ChristopherStevenson >Attorney > Office ofthe Chief Counsel > Enforcement Division- Southen1 Team >

**(~0~)** 305-5208 > >-----Original Message---- > From: Alan Long, M.D. [mailto:along@skindxgroup.com) >Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 4:59 PM >To: Stevenson, Chris 

### IFAA) .> Subject: Address >>Can you confirm your mailing address? 

## ' > Office of Regional Counsel > Attn: Chris Stevenson > PO Box 20636 >Atlanta, GA 30320 > >Thanks.

# SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 ORDER

## SERVED: September 1, 2015 U.S. 

### DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC InTheMatter Of: ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. Respondent DocketNo. FAA-2014-0867 CaseNo. 2012S0090053 

### ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TOAMEND, CONTINUING THENOVEMBER2015 HEARINGTO SEPTEMBER2016, AND GRANTING OTHERRELIEF OnAugust 27, 2015 an Order Setting MotionConferencewas filed. 1 

### OnAugust 31,2015the parties appearedbytelephone for the Motion Conference, and presented argument ontheir motions for relief. 

### ShortBackground Summary: The parties appearedfor a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference onApril 7, 2015 and agreedto a litigationplan, which was codified inthe April 7, 2015 Order SettingLitigation Dates and Procedures ("Order"). As part ofthis litigationplan, the parties agreedto immediately beginconducting discovery, and conductall discovery and anyneededmotions within a short four and a half( 4 

### 'l2) monthperiod. Duringthe April 7, 2015 Motion Conference, theparties were asked ifthey wishedto schedule time for dispositivemotions. Ifso, thenthe casewould be scheduled inthe year2016. Ifnot, then anearlierNovemberHearing date that hadrecently opened onthe court'scalendar wouldbe available. (4/7/15 Tr. 8:8-19.) The FAA expresseduncertainty as to whetheritwould file any future dispositive motion(s), because discovery exchange had not yetbeen conducted. In contrast, the Respondent asserted that no suchmotionwas needed. (4/7/15 Tr. 8:22 -9: 12.) 1The Motion Conference was short-set in response to the parties' motions ar1d responses. The parties' filings were identified in the August 27, 2015 Order, and will not be repeated here.

### Despite its uncertainty about what motions mightbe neededin this case, the FAAagreed to schedulethe pre-hearing litigationprocess without any dispositive motions specifically calendared. A
**pre-h,~aring** 

### litigationplan was then agreed to by the parties, whichincluded identifying all expertwitnesses no later than May 29, 2015, scheduling depositions and issuing subpoenasbyJune 19, 2015, and completing all depositions, discovery, andmotions by August 21, 2015. (Order, 2-3.) The parties also agreed to try

### the casein onNovember 18-19, 2015. (Order, 3,A (13).) OnApril 17, 2015 (i.e., ten (10) days afterthe April 7, 2015 Motion Conference), the parties exchangedinitial disclosures, pursuantto the April 7, 2015 Order. (Order, 1,A(!).) Three (3) days later, on April 20,2015, the parties served each otherwith general discovery requests. Pursuantto 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220(d), the responses to such discovery was due "not later than30 days [after]... service." Thus, eachparty should have filed its responses to the April20, 2015 mutually exchanged discovery requests on orbefore May 21, 2015. During this time period (i.e., April21, 2015- May 21, 2015), any party unhappy with the served discovery had the option(ifneeded) to file amotion for limitationrelief (Order, 2,A (4).) In addition during this time period (i.e., April21, 2015- May 21, 2015), the parties agreed thatthe FAA would disclose all expert witnesses, on orbefore May 15,2015. Two weeks later, on May 29, 2015, the Respondent would disclose its expert witnesses. (Order, 2,A (6).) Accordingto the April 7, 2015 litigationplan, and assuming all general discovery responses were served on orbefore May 21,2015 (the 30th day), a party unhappy with discovery responses (or the lack ofdiscovery responses) had the optionto file amotionto compel discovery, "withinten (I0) days" after lack ofdiscovery or service ofdeficient discovery. (Order, 2,A (5).) Thus, absent an agreed extension oftime, aparty unhappy with served discovery, orthe lack ofdiscovery, would file amotion to compel no laterthan June I, 2015. (Order, 2,A (6).) Thereafter, any depositions ofwitnesses were to be scheduled by June 19, 20I5, and completedbefore the August 21, 2015 discovery deadline. (Order, 3 , A (8-9).) BriefDiscussion: 

### The FAA seeks to amend the April 7, 2015 Order by continuing the November 2015 hearing date, extendingthe time to exchange discovery, and setting dispositive motion deadlines. Page 2 of6

### The Respondent asserts ithas completed discovery responses, and thatthe FAA has failed to act diligently in adheringto the litigation schedule. The Respondent objects to a continuance ofthe hearing and to schedulingdispositive motions, but also movesto compel discovery. The purpose ofthe April 7, 2015 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and April 7, 2015 Order, wasto ensurethatthe parties organizedtheir cases and proceeded as expeditiously as possible. See, 6A Fed. Prac. & 

### Proc. Civ. § 1522.1 (3d. ed. 2015)("the scheduling conference...is directed toward organizingthe [litigation] process...[and] settingdeadlines for the completion of the various pretrial phases."). A scheduling order is a "critical path chosenbythe trialjudge and the parties"to secure the ')ust, speedy, and inexpensive determination ofevery action."Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250, 253 (S.D.W.V. 1995). It

### is well established that a litigation scheduling order, and the timelines establishedby the court inthe order, are binding onthe parties. See, 6A Fed. Prac. & 

### Proc. Civ. §§ 1522.1 and 1522.2 (3d. ed. 2015); Marcum v. Zimmer, Id at 253 ("a schedulingorder...is not a frivolous piece ofpaper, idly entered, which canbe cavalierlydisregardedby counsel withoutperil" citing Goeweyv. UnitedStates, 886 F.Supp. 1268, 1283 (S.S.C. 1995; Jordan v. 

### EI due Pont de Nemours & 

### Co., 867 F.Supp.1238, 1250 (D.S.C. 1994)). In its objections to the FAA'smotions, the Respondent correctly identifiedthe good cause standard ofreview for considering aparty's motionto amend or modifythe binding litigation schedule. (Resp. 4.) In essence, the "focus ofthe inquiry is uponthe movingparty's reasons for seekingmodification."Johnson v. Mammorth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9'h Cir. 1992). "Ifthatpartywas not diligent, the inquiry should end. (!d.) / I )

**~.'** I' 

### [I]ftheparty seeking reliefcan showthat the deadlines cannotreasonablybe metdespite theparty'sdiligence, reliefmay be given. Similarly, reliefmay be granted ifthe court finds thatthe movanthas not unduly delayedthe action and thatthe opponent will notbe prejudiced by the modification. Whenthe modification is necessitatedby acts ofthe opposingparty orbythe opponent's failure to act, reliefalso has beendeemed appropriate. 6A Fed. Prac. & 

### Proc. Civ. § 1522.2 (3d. ed. 2015) (footnote cites omitted). In the case herein, it was undisputed that the FAA had failed to provide any discovery responses to the Respondent'sApri\20, 2015 discovery requests. However, the Respondent's Page 3 of 6

### argumentthat the FAA'smotions shouldbe denied, because the FAAhad failed to act diligently onthe case, was notfully persuasive. As specificallydiscussed during the August 31, 2015 Motion Conference, the original April 7, 2015 litigationplanhad been an ambitious, short-setplanwith strict deadlines, to allow the parties the opportunity to utilize an earlyhearingdate available onthe court's calendar. Unfortunately, there was amutual abandonment ofthe litigation schedule by bothparties after exchanging general discoveryrequests on April 20, 2015. It was undisputedthat neither party servedtimely responses, on orbefore May 21, 20!5 (the 30th day), to the April20, 2015 discoveryrequests. Neitherparty filed motions to limitthe requested discovery withinthe thirty day discovery window (i.e., Apri121, 2015- May 21, 2015) after receipt oftherequests. Immediately afterMay 21, 2015 deadline, neither party filed amotionto compel discovery, "withinten (1

### 0) days" after the lack ofreceipt ofdiscoveryresponses. (Order, 2

# ,I A (6).) Neitherparty identifiedexpert witnesse's in May 2dl'5 pursuantto the litigationdeadlines. In 1. ' .,, ' 

### addition, neitherparty contactedthe otherto schedule any depositions ofwitnesses on or before the deadline ofJune 19, 2015. As notedbythe parties duringthe August 31, 2015 Motion Conference, partofthe abandonment ofthe litigation schedule occurredbecause theFAA's original attorney leftthe FAA on June 25,2015 to accept anotherjob. Approximately six (6) days after this original attorney transferred to a different federal agency, the case wasreassignedto a new FAA attorney, who didnotreceive a complete file. Although the FAA'snewattorney actedpromptly to file a July I, 2015 Notice ofAppearance, and immediately contactedthe Respondentto try and complete discovery exchange, communicationsbetween the parties tooktime, and did not result in discovery completionbefore the deadline ofAugust21, 2015? There is no doubtthatthe Respondenttook quick action in serving its July 13, 2015 responses to the FAA's July 7, 2015 pr?poutuied,req'iiests for admission3 

### The Respondent also filed responses to the FAA'sApril20, 2015 discovery requests on August I, 2015 (i.e., overtwo 2 The details ofthe parties' communications between July I, 2015 and August21, 2015 were fully discussed during the August 31, 2015 Motion Conference, and will notbe reiterated here, 3 As noted in the August 31, 2015 Motion Conference, the newly assigned FAA attorney propoundednew discovery requests on July 7, 2015, because it did not have copies ofthe earlier April20, 2015 FAA discovery requests, Page 4 of6

### months after the May 21,2015 due date), provided supplemental disclosure onAugust 17,2015, provided courtesy copies ofits August 1, 2015 responses to the FAAon August 19, 2015, and providednewdisco-,ery responses onAugust21, 2015 tothe FAA'sJuly 7, 2015 propounded general discoveryrequests. In contrast, as ofthe date ofthe August 31,2015 Motion Conference, the FAAhad not yet filed anyresponsesto the **Respond~pt's ApJi\~R~,2015**  

### discovery requests. Whilethis is not 

# .. commendable, it is not, as the Respondent asserted, solelybecause ofa lack ofdiligence onthe partofthe FAA. Instead, it is the result ofamutual abandorunent (for atime) ofthe discovery schedule byboth parties, combined with the disruption ofan attorney substitution onthe FAA case under unusual circumstances, and the lack ofimmediate communications betweenthe parties after such substitution occurred. This combinationoffactors, inthis particular case, is sufficientto support afinding ofgood cause, and to grantthe FAA'sMotionto Amendthe April 7, 2015 Order. Conclusion: 

### Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205, 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.218, 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.220, and after reviewing all relevantcaselaw, regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised; IT ISHEREBY ORDERED: 

### 1. The FAA has established good causeto support its Motionto Amendthe April 7, 2015 Order setting the litigation schedule. 2. The FAA'sMotionto Amend the April?, 2015 Order settingthe litigation schedule is granted. 3. The November 18-19,2015 Hearing 

### setinBirmingham, Alabamais continued to September 13-14,2016. 

### 4. On or before September 30,2015

### the FAA shall serve the Respondentwithresponses to the Respondent's April20, 2015 discoveryrequests. Page 5 of 6

### 5. Between now and October 15, 2015, the parties shall conferinformallyto discuss a mutually convenient schedulefor filing a dispositive motion, response, and reply, as well for arecommendedtelephone Motion Conference for oral argument on suchmotion. SuchMotionConference shouldbe proposedfor at least sixty (60) days priorto the September 13-14, 2016 Hearing (i.e., onorbefore July 13, 2016). 6. On or before October 15, 2015,the parties shall file a Proposed Plan, which will identify the parties' proposal for the dispositive motion schedule, as well as any deadlines for submissionofwitness lists and exhibits (and other deadlines) neededbefore the September20I6 Hearing. 7. Between now and October30, 2015, the parties shall confer informallyto discuss and attempt to resolve any disputes regarding requested discovery. 8. On or before October30,2015,eitherparty may file (ifneeded) a motionto compel discovery. Ifsuch a motioniffiled, itmustbe accompanied by a Rule 37 Declaration identifyingthe party's efforts to informally resolve the discovery dispute with opposing counsel. 9. For any procedural questions aboutthis Order, please contactMr. Cody L. 

### Smith, Attorney-Advisor atthe Office ofHearings (202-366-6941).

Attachment: Service·List

Page 6 of6

### DocketNo. FAA-2014-0867 (Civil PenaltyAction) 

### SERVICE LIST- BYU.S. 

### MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000 1 

### Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

### Complainant's Counsel Federal AviationAdministration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 SouthernRegion 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Mr. Paul R. Borth 

### Respondent's Counsel Barnett & 

### Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025-4387 TEL: 847-724-5520 FAX: 815-356-7042 Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### US. AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 

### ONE COPY

Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

### Respondent 4243 EastLake Blvd. Birmingham, AL 35217

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.

# SUBPOENA

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION CIVILPENALTY SUBPOENA IntheMatterof: Docket No.:

**Binnin£h~m** FlightCenter. Inc. FDMS No.: FAA-2014-0867 Issued on: 9/23/2015 To: ,!,Alan Lone. MD. 3512 Old Monteomerv Highway. Homewood. AL 35209 Under 14 C.F.R. § 13.228(a), YOU ARE REQUIRED: 

# D To appear and testifY before an Administrative Law Judge ofthe Department ofTransportation at: in the city of -----------onthe at _____am 

# D To appear and testify at a deposition to be conducted by: at: in the city of ------------onthe at _____am ------ day of ________ 20 ___,

------ day of -------- 20 ___. 

### fil To bring with you
**andorQduc~** thefol1owing documents, records, papers, books, andtangible items:

**~** 

### See attacliea naer. Ifyou have any questions aboutthis subpoena, contact at this address andtelephone number: ----------------------------

HearingDocketClerk Authority: 14 C.P.R.§ 13.228; 49 U.S.C. §§ 5121 and L47U)(1), or49 U.S.C §§ 46104 and 106(g)(l) ANYPERSONWHODOES NOT OBEYTHIS SUBPOENAIS SUBJECTTO FINE ORIMPRISONMEl"H ORBOTHUNDER 49 U.S.C § 46313.

# ' RETURN OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a duplicate 

### Iat origina (circle one) ofthis subpoena was servedonthe personnamed inthe subpoena by: 

## us e.ec+r+.

# 'ral Ma: I at: ¥12 

## Old 

## t"lo~!Cl!"'erg)LL-Jfkn'~a~"-'""'"'9"1"-•---'-'lb'Jll2n.u:f't(d,.,

## il£1~0':0</,<r,,-c.flu.L _ _,.-;>c,;,S:.a;;<!.I,QL;)i'<--------- onthe



### .21/~ day of 

### Oclabv: 20 J.i_ ,U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC INRE: BimlinghamFlightCenter, Inc. ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0867 Judge J.E. Sullivan Respondent. FAACaseNo, 2012S0090053 SUBPOENA RIDER (J. Alan Long,MD) Pleaseproducethe following documents: I) All memoranda, e-mailtransmissions, correspondence and documents receivedfromAviation Services Group and its agents and employees (includingbutnot limited to Bob Kent and Rhonda Masters) by J. AlanLong, M.D. for theperiod of January 2011 to and including December 31,2012. 2) All memoranda, e-mailtransmissions, correspondence and documents sent to Aviation Services Group andits agents andemployees (includingbutnot limitedto BobKent andRhondaMasters) byJ. AlanLong, M.D. for theperiodofJanuary 2011 to and including December 31, 2012. 3) All memoranda, e-mail transmissions, correspondence anddocuments receivedfrom BirminghamFlightCenter and its agents and employeesbyJ. AlanLong, M.D. fortheperiod ofJanuary2011 to and including December31, 2012. 4) All memoranda, e-mail transmissions, correspondence anddocuments sent to BinninghamFlightCenterandits agents and employeesby J. Alan Long, M.D. for the period ofJanuary2011 to and includingDecember 31,2012. 5) All memoranda, e-mailtransmissions, correspondence and documents received from Premier Group (includingbutnotlimitedto its employees and its President, J. StevenAllen, Jr.) byJ. AlanLong, M.D. for theperiod ofJanuary2011 to and including December 31, 2012. 6) All memoranda, e-mailtransmissions, correspondence and documents sent to Premier Group (including butnotlimitedto its employees andits President, J. Steven Allen, Jr.) byJ. AlanLong,M.D. fortheperiod ofJanuary 2011 to and including December 31,2012. 7) Allmemoranda, e-mail transmissions, correspondence and documents received byJ. AlanLong MD from FAAEmployees, Yancey Rushton, PatBruce, Clay Perkins andDavid Hargett, for theperiod ofJanuary 20II to thepresent.Sender.

# m :

**I~~ ~~Jt±JI1~~**  i : wAUKEGAN ROAD, SUITE 200

**~** GLENVIEW, lL60025



### ~ ::: $6.96Q US POSTAGE FIRST-GLASS

FROM 60014 OCT 21 2015



# .
**·~**
J. Alan Long, MD 

### 3512 Old Montgomery Homewood AL 

### 35209 

## 1,1111 ,)>II•J•l

### 1111 

### •111

### 1"1

### 1nml,!J..I

### "II

# SEPTERMBER30, 2015 EMAILAi.?in l.ong, 

### M.D.

**t~r':lrD1:** Sent: To: Subject: Alan Long, M.D. Wednesday. Septemoe• 30, 2015 8:02AM 'Chris5tevenson@faa.gov' RE: Birmingham Flight Centef Hearing from; Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mallto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] Set1t: Wednesday, September 30,201.57:58AM To: Alan Long, rvl.D. <along@skindxgroup.corn::o Subject: 81rmingham Flight CenterHearing Dr. Long, fwanted to update you on the status ofthe hearing concerning Birmingham Flight Center. Whc:n we h.ad spol(en before that hearing was scheduledfor November2015.The hearing has now been continued, and will nottake place in Novembr:;r 2015. The hearing was continued to allowfor resolution of discovery disputes and forthe filing of motion that may resolve tl}2 case without hearing. The hearingis now scheduled for the wee!< ofSeptember 12, 2016 t\dditionally, Binningh;nn Flight Center has requested that theJudge in this caseissue subpoenasto you (and Avl·ation Services Group) to produce certain documents in this matter. Ifond when you receive such asubpoena, please contact me (or have your attorney contact me). The requestsappearto be improperin whole or in part. in that v.}e are pastthe pointin this litigation where new tliscovery requests have been made., and in that the requests appetlr to seek documentationtha:is not relevant to this case. You and your attorney may, ofcourse, be able to identify other problems with regards to this request. !fyou rec€ivethe subpoena. you will be required to comph; v.J!th it lmless sornelhing is. filed with the courtseekingre!ieffram the subpoena. Christophe!" Stevenson i\ttornev Office of the ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division- Southern Tearn (404i 305-5208

# OCTOBER27, 2015 EMAILFrom: Sent: Yo:

**;uhjec~:** Alan Long, M.D. Tuesdoy, October 27, 2015 1:23 PM 'Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov RE Attached Image From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [rnailto:Chrts.Stevenson@faa.govJ Sent: Tuesday, October27, 2015 1:20PM To: Alan Long, M.D. <a!ong@slcindxgroup.com> Cc:jlevy@babc.com Subject:

**~E:** Attached Image

'ih ' •'I:'

,,.

**~rom:** Alan Long,

**~1.0.** [ :··: : ..

c

**5~nt'** Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:00 AM To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) Cc: Levy, Jack §l!b,ject: P\111: Attached Image

·-,I,·-

**~:rom:** scanuser

**Sen~:** Tuesday,. October27, 2015 9:50 Ar\·iTo: Alan Long, M.D.< Subject: Attached Image >

# RESPONDENT'SMOTIONFOR SANCTIONSU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS. WASHINGTON. DC In the Matter of ) ) BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. ) ) Respondent. ) Docket No. FAA-20I


## !:it~~i

## i .Judge .1. E. Sullivan FAA Case No. 2012S0090053 RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Now Comesthe Respondent. Birmingham Flight Center_ 

### by its attorneys. Barnett & Borth. LLC and pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure Rule 26 and Rule 37 moves this Courtto impose sanctions upon the Complainant and in support states as follows: I. Factnal Background: From the inception ofthe FAA's investigation to the present, the FAA has engaged in improper. sanctionab\e conduct that requires this Court's attention and consideration. a. Respondent's Discovery and The FAA's compliance: On March 16. 2013. Respondent's counsel requested the FAA to produce the releasable portions ofthe Enforcement Investigation Report (FIR) concerningthis matter. (See Exhibit A). The Respondent's owner had also requested the releasable portions of the EIR from the Administrator's investigator. Yancey Rushton. on December 26 2012 1 • (See Exhibit A-1 ). Thereafter. FAA produced its EIR consistingof50 pages. Subsequentlythe Administrator filed his complaint. On April 7. 2015. this Court issued its Federal Rule 16 Order setting litigation dates and procedures. (See Exhibit B).

1 This letter. Exhibit A-I_ was not included in the EIR. I 

## IOn April 17, 2015, the Administrator provided the Respondent's counsel with the Administrator's initial Rule 26 disclosures. (See Exhibit C). Administrator's Rule 26 disclosure names its investigator. Yancey Rushton, as an individual with discoverable information. (See Exhibit Cat p.l ). The majority ofthe investigation performed by the Administrator was performed by his agent Yancey Rushton. The Administrator's Rule 26 disclosure also names Dr. Alan Long as an individual with discoverable information. (See Exhibit Catp.l). Dr. Long was the individual tor whom the subject demonstration tlight was arranged and carried out by the Respondent. The Administrator's initial Rule 26 disclosures disclose the Administrator's EIR as the only documents that are relevant to this matter and no others. (See Exhibit Cat p.2). The EIR disclosed by the Administrator pursuant to Rule 26 consisted ofthe 50 pages previously produced. (See Exhibit C). On September I, 2015. this Court on the Administrator's motion extended the time lrame allotted for the Administratorto comply with the Respondent's discovery requests. (See Exhibit D). Specilically. this Court's Order provides that: "On or before September 30,2015 the FAA shall servethe Respondent with responsesto the Respondent's April20, 2015 discovery requests." ld. Respondent's Requests fix Production pettinent to the instant motion include:



## 21 2. Complete copies ofall statements (oral. written. or transcribed, signed orunsigned) by parties or witnesses to this matter. including but not limited to individuals who: has or claims to have knowledge ofany ofthe facts specitied in the Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty. (See Exhibit Eat#2). 7. All written documents, materials, exhibits. diagrams. plats. photographs, records, films. and the like to be used by yourexperts and witnesses to prepare fortestimony orcreate reports related to this matter. (See Exhibit E at#7). 18. All correspondence and c-mails sent to or sent ti·om Dr. Alan Long related to the subject flight. (Sec Exhibit E at#l8). 19. All correspondence and/or e-mails to-from Aviation Services Group concerning Dr. Alan Long and/orthe subject flight. (Sec Exhibit Eat#19). 25. All documents generated by Yancey Rushton. Pat Bruce. Clay Perkins. and David Hargett related to this case. (See Exhibit Eat#25). On September 18. 2015. Respondent's counsel received the Administrator's discovery compliance. (See Exhibit F). With the exception ofseven (7) additional pages ofdocuments. the Administrator did not produce any fut1her documents responsive to the above referenced Requests for Production. Thetotal number ofdocuments produced by the Administrator now stands at 57. (See Exhibit G). To date. no fi.trther documents have been produced by the Administrator and the EIR has not been amended to add any additional documents to the EIR administrative record. On September

### 23. 2015. the DepartmentofTranspot1ation Hearing Docket clerk signed a subpoenaduces tecum drafted by Respondent's counsel and directed to witness Dr. Alan Long. (See Exhibit H). The riderto the subpoena requested e-mails transmitted to and fi·om Dr. Long and the Administrator's investigators and attorneys in similar fashion to the Respondent's requests for production ofdocuments #18 and #25. (See Exhibit 1-1

**at~~** 7-1 0). On November 3. 2015. Dr. Long's counsel mailed the Respondent documents responsive to said subpoena's rider. (Sec Exhibit 1). Dr. Long's subpoena compliance disclosed 87 pages ofe-mails and other pertinent infot-mation responsive to Respondent's subpoena rider requests numbers 7 through 10. (See Exhibits .I and 1<). 

### 31Accordingto the cover letter for Dr. Long's subpoena compliance, the Administrator's counsel, Chris Stevenson. was also provided copies ofthese documents coincident with Dr. Long's disclosure ofthe documents to Respondent's counsel. However. an e-maiIofDr. Long to FAA attorney. Chris Stevenson. dated August 21. 2015 indicates that the same or similardocuments may have been provided to Mr. Stevenson (without subpoena) on or about August 24.2015 (See Exhibit M). From theemails and documents contained in Dr. Long's subpoenacompliance it cannot be confirmed one way or the other ifor on what date the document referred to in Dr. Long's August 21 e-mail were provided to Mr. Stevenson. It can be confirmedthat Mr. Stevenson did provide 7 pages ofdocuments to Respondent's counsel on September 18.20!5 and that these documents were among the 87 pages ofdocuments provided by Dr. Long in his subpoena compliance ofNovember 3. 2015. The documents disclosed by Mr. Stevenson on September 18.2015 are identical to and in the same sequential orderas some ofthe documents contained in Dr. Long's subpoena compliance. (See Exhibit L). No other documents have been produced by Administrator"s counsel. stated:



### 41 On September 30.2015. Mr. Stevenson wrote an email to Dr. Long in which he [A]dditiona\ly. Birmingham flight center has requested that thejudge in this case issue subpoenas to you (and Aviation Services Group) to produce certain documents in this matter. lfand when you receive such a subpoena. please contact me (or have your attorney contact me). The requests appear to he improper in whole or in part, in thatwe are past the point in this litigation were new discovery requests have been made, and in that the requests appear to seek documentation that is not relevant to this case. You and/or your attorney may, ofcourse, be·able to identify other problems with the regards to this request. Ifyou receive a subpoena. you will be required to comply with it unless something is file with the court seeking relieffrom the subpoena. (See Exhibit N)(Emphasis supplied). On October '27. 20!5. Mr. Stevenson sent an e-mail to Dr. Long that stated: Iwould like to speak with you and/or your attorney (at your option) about responding to this subpoena. As Imentioned last time we interacted. discovery is closed in this case (and was closed even before respondent obtained the subpoena. which I note is dated almost a month before it was served). Many ofthe questions seemoverbroad as well hutI can't speakas to how burdensome they would be withoutyour input. Objection and/or motion to quash to some orall ofthe requests can come by way ofmy office ordirectly from you (presumably through your attorney). Please give me a call (and/or have your attorney give me a call) and we can discuss what response (objection. motion. compliance. or otherwise) is appropriate. (See Exhibit O)(Emphasis supplied). Respondenfs counsel's urging ofDr. Long to moveto quash Respondenfs subpoena was preceded by his urging ofRespondenfs counsel to drop the subject of seeking any documents generated by Mr. Rushton orthe other FAA investigators involved in this case. Whenthe Respondenfs counsel received no documents responsive to his request for production#25 concerning documents written by FAA investigators he sent a letter to Administrator"s counsel seeking clarification and to address discovery concerns as Rule 37 requires. On October 6. 2015. the Administrator's counsel responded by stating: ""With regards to request for production #25. the FAA has also already provided the information required by Rule 26(b)(5)(A). As the FAA noted in its discovery response. the documents withheld include the report already discussed in the paragraph above. The FAA further notes that. although the FAA objected to this request for pmduction on 

### 51the basis that the request covered documents that. ifthey existed. would be covered by the deliberative process privilege, no particulardocuments were withheld on this basis beyond portions ofthe EIR." (See Exhibit Patp. 2) The conclusion that may be drawn from Mr. Stevenson's e-mails is that he did not want Dr. Longto fully comply with the Subpoena. The conclusion drawn by Respondent's counsel from his October 6 letter is thatthe Respondent had already received from the Administrator ofall discoverable documents otherthan those that are cloaked with attorney work product privilege. Clearly. the subject documents are not privileged. Buttorthe issuance ofthe subpoena to Dr. Long. these documents would never have seen the light ofday. 

### h. Sequestered Documents Discovered in Dr. Long's Subpoena Compliance. While the EIR that was produced in this case does contain selecledemails, statements and documents. a significant numberofemails and statements were quite obviously withheld ti·01n inclusion in the EIR and were not produced by the Administrator in his Rule 26 Disclosure or in response to the Respondent's request tor production ofdocuments. A comparison ofthe documents contained in the FIR and those produced in Dr. Long's subpoenacompliance for Rider requests numbers 7 through I0 bears this out. (See tor comparison. Exhibits G and L). One wonders hmv it is thatthe seven documents produced by the Administrator identically match the documents produced in Dr. Long's subpoena compliance hut there is such a disparity in the number ofdocuments produced by the respective individuals. Almost all ofthe documents 

## 61sequestered by the Administrator are ofparticular signillcance to this case.' Some examples ofthe signillcant sequestered documents arc as follows: A statementwritten by Dr. Long on October I. 2012 that sets f(Jrth inf(mnation not contained in his subsequent statements including infonnation that Dr. Long vvas using the Respondent to seek out airplanes to purchase (includingthe aircrati used torthe subject demonstration flight). the fact that the Respondent sent Dr. Long operatingcost projections for the model aircraft used lorthe demonstration flight (among others). Dr. Long's prior interaction with Premier Group (the aircrati brokerthat arranged the demonstration flight with one ofits clients who was sellingthe airplane used in the subject demonstration flight). Dr. Long's prior discussions with the Respondent concerning using the subject airplane or similarjet in demonstration flight(s). and the statement: "I called Steven Pickett that night and asked him what was going on. He said not to worry about it that he would call Stephen Allen Junior and take care ofit. Later that night I received an email from Steven Allen Jr. thanking me lorthe demo flight. It was at that point Iassume that this was the demo flight that we had been talking about. (Sec Exhibit 

### J at pp. LONG 441-443). Documentation respecting the cost projectionsthat were provided to Dr. Long b) Respondent was included in Dr. Long's subpoena compliance. Like many other pettinent and relevant documents. the cost projections were not included in the EIR and were not disclosed in the Administrator's discovery responses. Accordingto the Inspector's Statement ofFAA investigator. David Hargett. a spec sheet on the subject airplane was provided to him by the Respondent. That was not included in the 

### ElR either.

lt should be noted that it is not known how many other documents have been **s~questercd** concerning other witnesses or subjects beyond Dr. Long's subpoena compliance. 

## 71Respondent's Supplemental Request for production seekingthat document was countered by Mr. Stevenson with an objection that the request was untimely. (See Exhibit QJ. The Administratoranswered Respondent"s request to produce statements by stating: ··,LUI statements in the possession ofthe FAA were included in the EIR and copies were previously provided to the Respondent." (See Exhibit Fatp.2). Dr. Long·s disclosure ofhis October 1. 2012 statement and the accompanyingcmaiIs that demonstrate that this statement was provided to the administrators investigator. Yancy Rushton. the same day it was created prove that the FAA·s response to respondent's requestto produce #2 is patently false. In addition. Respondent's requestfor production asked for "All correspondence and e-mails sentto or sent from Dr. Alan Long related to the subject llighl. (See Exhibit Eat#18). The Administrator·s response was: "1n addition to documents previously produced. see attached. Additionally. the FAA notes thatthis request appears to seek documents that would primarily be in the possession ofpersons otherthan the FAA (or its employees). and that the FAA makes no representations as to what documents third pat1ies may possess... (See Exhibit Fat#18). 1fthesee-mails drafted by Mr. Rushton were outside the definition of"all correspondence and emails sentto or h·om Dr. Long they were surelythe Respondent·s Request#25 covered these documents Request #25 asked for "All documents generated by Yancey Rushton. Pat Bruce. Clay Perkins. and David Hargett related to this case." (See Exhibit Eat#25). The administrator's response was: "Objection. privileged. The documents generated by the named individuals concerningthis case include deliberative process privileged materials. such as the abovereferenced opinions in the EIR. as well as internal discussions between FAA personnel 

### 81about the investigation. The documents also include attorney-client privileged materials. Not waiving and notwithstanding those objections. all non-privileged documents have previously been produced."" (See Exhibit Fat#25). As is demonstrated by some ofthe following emails written by FAA investigator. Mr. Rushton. not only was Dr. Long"s October I. 2012 statement sequestered. never included in the EIR and never disclosed bythe FAA in its discovery responses. but Mr. Long was continuously contacted by Mr. Rushton to amend and shape a subsequent statement. The subsequent statement written by Dr. Long·s on October 12. 2012 excludes his October I references to the Respondent and other individual"s efforts to assist him in the location in potential purchase ofa citationjetand the background facts and his impressions concerning the subject demonstration flight. (See Exhibit Jat pp. LONG 474-475). The revised statement found its way into the EIR and was disclosed by the Administrator both in his rule 26 disclosure and response to the Respondent"s Request for Production ofdocuments. The October 1. 2012 statement ofDr. Long was buried by the Administrator. But for the diligence ofthe Respondent in seckingdocuments from Dr. Long. these documents would never have been unearthed. In addition to the revelation ofDr. Long's initial statement. a number ofc-mails written by the Administrator"s primary investigator. Yancey Rushton. that were subject to disclosure by Rule 26. the Respondcnt"s Requests for Production and letter and spirit of the FIR and email provisions ofFAA Order 2150 were uncovered in Dr. Long's subpoena compliance. These emails ofMr. Rushton were dratied and sentto Dr. Long to!lowing a meeting that Mr. Rushton had with Dr. Long at Dr. Long"s medical ot11ce on 

### 91September21. 2012. The tenor ofthat meeting can be gleaned by reading the opening portion ofMr. Rushton's record ofconversation drafted on September 22. 2012 in which he stated: The meeting was initially somewhat aggressive because Dr. Alan long did not understand who I was and why ! was speaking with him. He was extremely ti·ustrated and initially threatened to call his attorney. I encouraged him to do that and decided Iwouldjust leave and meet with him another day. He cooled down quickly though and asked me to stay. He proceeded to tell me that he didn"t want to get caught up in anything and that was the reason for his frustration. He also explained that he didn't want his family to know about his flying orthat he owned an aircraft. After Dr. Long realized that Iwasn't there to turn his office upside [down] he softened and began to speak more freely· with me. (See Exhibit R)(Emphasis supplied). Against this backdrop, Dr. Long wrote his October L 2012 statement. Following his receipt ofDr. Long·s October I statement. Mr. Rushton began an email campaign that began on October 3. 2012 and ended the same day that Dr. Long provided is revised statement. The information that Mr. Rushton provided in these emails sets forth Mr. Rushton's obvious animosity for the Respondent and contains misinformation and talse infonnation concerning the Respondent. A sample ofthe pertinent cmails sent by Mr. Rushton to Dr. Long follows:

10 1 October 3. 2012 (clj 7:49am: Thanks for yourtime last night. I was wondering ifyou knew who your insurance carrier was for the airplane and ifyou have a copy ofthe pilot forms submitted... We all make mistakes and I understand that but this is not a one-time mistake. This is a systemic issue and it needs to be corrected. (See Exhibit 

### Jat p. LONG 444)(Emphasis supplied). October 3. 2012 ({j! 8:21 am: Even ifyou sign something. I give you my word that you will be left out ofthis. You are new to aviation and areII 

## I relying on these more experienced aviators to help and guide you. I need your help to stop this and I need you to look atyourwife and eightkids and think aboutwhat could'vc happened to you,your practice, and your family. Thanks Doc. I knowyou don'twant to be involved and I will keep you outofthis but I need your help. See Exhibit J at p. LONG 445). (Emphasis supplied) October 3. 2012 

### (c/J, 3:33pm: Thanks Doc. You are doingthe right thing. It takes a strong man to do what's right sometimes and Iappreciate it and so do the others who might be helped/saved etc in the future. We all make mistakes. but purposeful deception that puts other lives in assets at riskwill not be tolerated. Thatis whatoccurred here. This was not an innocent case ofa misunderstanding. BFC knew what they were doing and we are going to prevent this from happening again. It's not pleasantto see kids in innocent people burned /mutilated/and injured and especially unpleasantwhen you know it was all in the interest ofchasing the almighty dollar. (ExhibitJ at p. LONG 451 )(Emphasis Supplied). October 4. 2012@ 3:36pm: Iguess that should tell you something about the managerof your aircraft. You thinkyou would have been covered had something happened?? Good luck. Pleasekeep all of this toyourselfto help us. Pickettdoes not need to know whatweknow. (Exhibit 

### J at p. LONG 458)(Emphasis supplied). October 12. 20121GJ 10:57 pm: Doc: You do whatever you need or feel like doing. Iwould just say. he knows the hammer is about to fall and you just need to remember that he flew yourwife uninsured. allow Justin to tly uninsured. and used your plane (New Orleans) for his purposes. not yours. Iam all about helping people and understanding mistakes. This case is not about that. This is aboutgreed, and a complete lack ofconcern for others and safety all in the interest ofmaking a buck. He proved to me that he doesn't care and that's why he needs to betaken down. He knows he was wrong and he wants to talk and make you feel sorry for him. Do what you want and Idon't care, but understand this, this is not his first rodeo. Ifhe walks hewill do this again to somebody elsejustlike you. He played with your assetsand yourfamily's safety. He put it uninsured unqualified pilotin a planewith yourwife and family. Remember that Irepresent you and him and I have no interest in winning anything. Icare about lives and safety and I see a lot ofhorribledeaths from people that are qualified and fly planes they shouldn't beflying. Mistakes areonething. Willful acts ofnegligence are another. Good night. (See ExhibitJ at pp. LONG 466-467) (Emphasis supplied) October 12,2012 @II :IOpm: One last thing. Please understand. I am not out to get anyone. I'mjusttryingto protectyou, yourwife, me, and the random person on the street. Thiswas careless, disrespectful, and self-centered. Itwasn'ta[n] innocent mistake itwas calculated and deceitful. (See Exhibit .I at LONG 468) (Emphasis supplied). Mr. Rushton had no evidence that there was no insurance coverageon the demonstration airplane, had no evidencethat the Respondent's pilot \vas not qualified. had no evidencethat ofcrashes in similar situations. had no evidence that the Respondent had any prior violations orthat the Respondent was engaged in ··systemic" violations. In fact. the ElR compiled by Mr. Rushton contains no information ordocuments that would suppoti any ofthe insinuations that he made in his emails to Dr. Long. Based on the energy and effoti spent by Mr. Rushton in shaping Dr. Long's attitude and taking multiple statements ofa number ofthe witnesses in this case. one would think that Mr. Rushton sought and received most ifnot all ofthese documents back in 2012. Theemails were quite obviously in the Administrators possession years beforethe Respondent requested them. Another email that came to light in Dr. Long's subpoenacompliance demonstrates Mr. Rushton·s continued propaganda efforts. 

## 121 April II. 2013@ I:27 pm: Hey Doc. Just a question/comment. I received an anonymous and very unprofessional and rude letter about the people we are discussed discussing two days agoimplying that Ihave done nothing about the school in question orthe individual. Idon't think her assume you would write such a letter but you might know the people who did write this letter. Ifso. please pass on and understand that I'm doing alii can within the structure of the system and Ithink we have a strong case and we arc going to see some results. Having said that, we also live in America where people are innocent first (thankfully) and the burden ofproofis on me not them. Things that appear obvious and clear still must be proved beyond a shadow of doubt and that is a good thing. Sometimes unfortunately though, the peoplethat pay the highest price are not always the wmst offenders and in this case I do feel badly for the one individual who has really paid the highest price so far. The other house ofcards will fall too though Ithink you will sec the results you are hoping fi.,r. Bottom line. ifyou are talking with people who wrote methat letter two days ago, this FSDO is aware ofthe concerns and issues and we arc working very hard to see thatjustice is served. Nothing has been swept under a carpet and nobody has been paid off(to my knowledge). (See Exhibit J at p. LONG 483) II. Argument: The conduct ofthe Administratorand his agents in this case has demonstrated that the integrity ofthe FAA. the enforcementprocess and this litigation has been damaged pastthe point that could be considered an objective investigation oradvocacy in a civil penalty action or any FAA action. a. Violations ofFAAOrder2150.3 B According to FAA Order2150.3 B. "To be effective. the agency·s compliance and enforcement program must be fair and reasonable and should be perceived as fair by those subject to regulation... It does encompassthe right ofan apparent violatorto be given objective. evenhanded consideration ofall circumstances surrounding the allegations before final action is taken. It also requires good faith efforts to understand the apparentviolator's position and take it into account...." FAA Order2150.3 B Ch. 2 

## 131, g. The introductory remarks concerningthe creation ofan EIR state that: ..The Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) is the means for documenting. assembling. organizing. and presentingali evidence andother relevant infiJrmalion ohtainedduring an invesfigation. L'.A Order 2! 50.3 B Ch.8

**~** ! . (Emphasis supplied). In this case. it is apparentthatthe investigation carried out by Mr. Rushton was not evenhanded and that little or no effort was taken to understand the apparent violator·s position. As setforth in the factual section above the investigation was undertaken in a heavy handed manner as potentially exculpatory documents and statements were collected and purposely left out ofthe EIR. To makematters worse. these documents were never disclosed by the Administrator's counsel when they were clearly part ofthe FAA·s corporate memory and were subject to disclosure. Instead the Respondent received a selective. incomplete set ofdocuments that had been cherry picked prior to disclosure. Numerous otherdictates ofOrder2150.3 B were also eitherdisregarded or were patently violated. Some ofthe relevant examples are cited and explained below. FAA Order2150.3 B dictates that: ·'FAA investigative personnel's role in an investigation is to gatherall material. relevant evidence that either proves ordisproves the potential violation that precipitatedthe investigation... FAA Order 2150.3 B Ch.4

**~** 2 a. (Emphasis in original). The records and otherdocuments guidelines contained in FAA Order 2150.3 B provide. in part. that: ..Records and other documents are perhaps the most common type ofevidence gathered by FAA investigativepersonnel. FAA investigative personnel gather and obtain all documents that are relevantto matters that are being investigated... FAA Order 2150.3 B Ch. 4 11 I0 (c) (I0). Obviously not all materials that may serve to disprove a potential violation was included in the EIRor disclosed. It is not 141for the investigator to decide to leave potentially damaging information out ofthe EIR and it is notfor the Administrator's counsel to leave this information out ofdiscovery compliance. The evidence provision ofFAA Order 2150.3 B dictates that: ""Evidence includes all the means by which any alleged fact tends to be proved or disproved. .. IfFAA investigative personnel are unsure aboutthe relevance ofa piece ofevidence. they secure and preservethe evidence and consult legal counsel." FAA Order2150.3 B Ch.4

**~** I0 a. (Emphasis supplied). Here a wealth ofrelevant evidence was buried. To state that this new found evidence is not relevant to this action strains all notions ofcredibility. The communications with counsel provision ofFAA Order2150.3 B dictates that: FAA investigative personnel share information and communicate as needed with legal counsel during an investigation and the processing ofenfi.1rcement cases." FAA Order 2150.3 B Ch.4

**~** 4 d (Emphasis supplied). Was this information shared with counsel? From the disclosed EIR and Administrator's discovery responses. the answerto this question is unknown. The witness interview guidelines contained in FAA Order2150.3 B provide that: No promises ofcontidentiality may be given withoutprior consultation with FAA legal counsel. .. Do not discuss with witnesses any possible sanctions... The report of interview must not contain personal opinions ofthe interviewer. . FAA Order2150.3 B Ch. 4

**~** 10 (c) (3). Many ofthe investigator's statements contain personal opinions and surely some oftheemails that Mr. Rushton sent to Dr. Long included promises of contidentiality as stated in one ofMr. Rushton's October 3. 2012 emails: "l give you my word that you will be left out ofthis... Thanks Doc. Iknow you don't want to be IS 

## Iinvolved and I will keep you out ofthis... (See ExhibitJ at p LONG 445). ··Please keep all ofthis to yourselfto help us. Pickett does not need to know what we know."" (Exhibit .I at p. LONG 458). The preparation ofwitness statements guidelines contained in FAA Order 1150.3 B provide. in part. that: "FAA investigative personnel do not dictate the content ofthe statement.·· FAA Order 2I50.3 BCh.4 4

**~** I0 (c) (6). Perhaps Mr. Rushton did not dictatethe content ofthe statements tiled by Dr. Longafter October 1. 2012. but he sure went outofhis way to influence the thinking ofDr. Long by bringing out visions ofplane crashes and greed. There was no accident or incident involved here and there is no evidencethatthe Respondent somehow profited from the demonstration flight. The copying ofrecords an authenticity ofrel:urds guidelines contained in FAA Order 2150.3 B provide. in part. that: FAA investigative personnel exercisecareto assure that documentary evidence obtained is currentand applicableto the time of theviolations in question and that prior orlater versions ofdocumentary evidence that may be importantto a case are also included in the EIR. FAA Order 2150.3 B Ch.4

**~** 10 (c)( 12). (Emphasis supplied). Similarly. the electronic evidence provision of FAA Order 2150.3 Bdictates that: ··Portions ofthe electronic evidence relevant to the investigation are printed outon discovery and included in the EIR."" FAA Order2150.3 B Ch.4

**~** I0 (c)(29). The electronic documents provision ofFAA Order2150.3 Bdictates that: ··Forelectronic documents. FAA investigative personnel identify a witness who can testify the printout is a correct reflection ofthe information contained in the electronic format and obtain a signed statement from that witness to include in the EIR as an item of proof" FAA Order2150.3 

### BCh.4 11 10 (c)(30). The email provision ofFAA Order 16]2150.3 B dictates that: ··For e-mail messages. FAA investigative personnel identify as a possiblewitness the recipient ofthe e-mail and includein the EIR as an item of proofa signed statement from that witness statingthe circumstances under which theemail message¥vas received. When putting in an e-mail message as an item of

**proof~** FAA investigative personnel obtain the entire e-mail, including theoriginal 

### message and all replies, as well as the routing information. FAA Order2150.3 B Ch.4

**~** I0 (c) (31) (Emphasis supplied). Where are all these emails contained in the EIR? The Administratordid leak a few out by way ofthe EIR and some were disclosed in discovery but all ofthe emails cited above and many others were never disclosed or included in the EIR as required 

### by the above cited provisions. In its September 19.2013, final rule implementingchangesto 49 CFR 821.19. the NTSB tlnalized an amendment to paragraph (d) ofthat section that provides: (d) Failure to provide copy ofreleasable pmtion of Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR). (I) Except as provided

**in~** 821.55 with respect to emergency proceedings. where the respondent requests the EIR and the Administratorfails to providethe releasable portion ofthe EIRto the respondent by the time he or she serves the complaint onthe respondent. the respondent may move to dismiss the complaint or for other reliefand. unless the Administrator establishes good cause for that failure. the lawjudge shall order such reliefas he or she deems appropriate. after consideringthe parties· arguments. 49 CFR 821.19 (d). As demonstrated above. the Administratorfailed to provide Respondent with all releasable portions ofthe EIR and cannot meet any ofthe criteria for exception to the provisions of 49CFR S21.19 (d) setfo11h in49 CFR 821.19 (d)(2). No good cause 

## 171exists torthe Administrator"s violation ofthis rule. Accordingly. this Court should dismiss the Administrator's complaintwith prejudice. b. Violations ofFederal Rules ofCivil Procedure Rule 26 and Rule 37 This Courtentered an Orderrequiring the Administratorto comply with Rule 26 andto comply with the Respondent's discovery requests. The Administrator violated that order. Rule 26 (e) provides: Basis for Initial Disclosure: Unacceptable Excuses. A party must make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it. A party is not excused from making its disclosures because it has notfully investigated the case orbecause it challengesthe sufficiency ofanother party's disclosures orbecause another party has not made its disclosures. Rule 37(c) provides for alternative sanctions in addition to. or in lieu of. the sanction ofexclusion ofthe non-released discovery. The alternative sanctions are set up to provide relieffor the present situation where preclusion ofevidence is not an effective incentive to compel disclosure ofinformationthat would benefitthe party to whom it was not disclosed. Where. as here. the Administratorpossessed evidence that would tend to support the Respondent·s position: excluding such evidence would not punish the Administrator orafford a remedy to the Respondent. Therefore. in addition to the automatic preclusion ofevidence. district courts may impose otherappropriate sanctions. In addition to requiring paymentofreasonable expenses. including attorney fees. caused by the failure to disclose. these sanctions may include an orderthat facts be taken to be established under Rule 37(b)(2)(A): an order striking pleadings. dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof. or rendering a judgment 

### by default against the disobedient party under Rule 37(b)(2)(C). While dismissal is a severe sanction. in this 

### 1s 1case it is warranted as bad faith is present. Dismissal may be "imposed only ifthe court concludes that a pat1y's failure to cooperate in discovery is due to willfulness. bad faith. orfault.'' Reg'! Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co.. 842 F.2d 150. !53-54 (6th Cir. !988). Deemingcertain matters established and precluding the Administrator from suppotiing it claims is proper. Patterson v. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co.. !05 F.3d 125 I. 1252 (81 h Cir. 1997). The striking ofpleadings or poriions thereofis also a sanction that may be imposed in a case such as the presentone. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. v. American Body Armor, Inc.. 177 F.R.D. 633. 637 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Dismissing or enteringjudgment as to partor all ofthe action is also a sanction that would be appropriate in this case. Wade v. Sao Line R.R. Corp. 500 F3d 559. 562 (7"' Cir. 2003). In this case. the Administrator has advocated 

### tl-om initial **disclosure~;** and discovery responses that they were reasonably believed to be true when made. Rule 26(g) sanctions are. therefore. warranted. Rule 26(g) is tested !romthe date ofthe signing of initial disclosures and responses. Rule 26(e) requiresthe Administratorto supplement. which in this case is rather moot in light ofthe fact that the Administratorpossessed the subject documents even before this I itigation began. The Court may sanction the Administratorfor failing to do so under Rule 37. The rather severe sanction ofdismissal is also appropriate when the nature ofthis case is considered. Being a case governed bythe principles ofadministrative law. had this case been tried with the cherry picked EIR that the Administrator provided. the administrative •·ecord would be devoid ofall ofthe newly unearthed information and evidence and all appeals to this action would be reviewed on a bogus administrative record. Based on the
191facts presented. this Court should dismiss this case with prejudice and impose further sanctions as the Court deems appropriate. WHEREFORE. for the foregoing reasons. the Respondent respectfully requests that this Court grant the Respondent's motion for sanctions, dismiss the Administrator's case with prejudice and impose such further sanctions as the Court deems properandjust under all ofthe circumstances. Respectfully submitted. BARNETT & BORTH. LLC Dated: November 17.2015 Paul R. Borth Counsel for Respondent Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. Barnett & Borth, LLC 800Waukegan Road Suite 200 Glenview. IL 60025 Tel. (847) 724-5520 Fax (815) 356-7042 prb@barnettlegal.com

20 1CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that Ihave sent via FedExthe foregoing RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS addressed to: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue. S.W. Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2WI000 Washington. D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 The Honorable J. E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings. M-20 lJ.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE(Eil-310) Washington D.C. 20590 1herebycertify that Ihave sent via e-mail the foregoing RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS addressed to: Christopher Stevenson Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Olliee ofthe Regional CounseL AS0-7 Southern Region 1701 Columbia Avenue College Park. GA 30337 Via e-mail: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov Dated: November 17. 2015 

### ) ,--:-")

**,~-~-** Paul R. Borth Counsel for Respondent Barnett & Borth. LLC 800Waukegan Road Suite 200 Glenview. IL 60025 Tel. (847) 724-5520 Fax (815) 356-7042

**t~_d:~-·.UJ!_;_!_LU**l'ti!

**~ ~al.** **~~~~ll_!_**
21 

### IU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS. WASHINGTON. DC In the Matter of: ) ) BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER. INC. ) ) Respondent. ) DocketNo. FAA-20I 4-0867 Judge J.E. Sullivan FAA Case No. 20 12S0090053 

### RULE 37 CERTIFICATION Ihereby certify that I have in good faith attempted to confer with Administrator's counsel respecting discovery in this matter and that the Administrator's counsel has failed to provide ti.J!I and complete disclosure ofdocuments and the Administratorfailed to provide a complete copy ofthe releasable portions ofthe EIR. The representations concerning discovery and the EIR are contained in the Exhibits attached to the J(:>regoing briefand include. Exhibit F. P. and Q. The subject matter ofthis motion while addressing discovery is one addressing sanctions. As such. the parties are unable to reach an accord. Respectfully submitted. BARNETT & BORTH. LLC Dated: November 17. 2015 

### ) Paul R. Borth Counsel for Respondent. Birmingham Flight Center. Inc. Oat·nett & Oorth. LLC 800Waukegan Road Suite 200 Glenview. IL 60025 Tel (847) 724-5520 Fax (815) 356-7042 prb@barnettlegal.com

# FEBRUARY22, 2016 ORDERIn The Matter Of: 

## SERVED: February 22, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT O.F TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC Docket Ko. FAA-20!4-0867 BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER. INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) CaseNo. 20l2S0090053 Respondent ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DTSMISS AND RESERVING RULING ON OTHER SANCTIONS OnNovember 18, 2015, the Respondent, BirminghamFlight Center, Inc., fi.lcd the Respondent's Motion for Sanctions ("Motion'} On December 10. 2015, fhe FAA fileu a Response in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions ("Response"). OnDecember 16,2015, the Respondent filed the Respondent's Motion for Protective Order and Request to Delay the Filing ofa Reply to the Administrator's Response [sic] Respondent's Motion for Sanctions. On December 17.2015, an Order Granting the Respondent's Requestto File a Reply, but Denying Motions for Protective Order and

### Leave to 

### 'T'akc Depositions 

### Bef(Jre Filing a Reply was filed. On January 15, :2016, the Respondent tiled the Respondent's Reply to the Strikingthe FAA's Response in Opposition to Motion f(lr Sanctions (''Reply'} 

### A. Short Summa!)' ofDispute Only ce11ain matters will be highlighted in this discussion. which addresses only the Respondent's Motion for Dismissal as a sanction. Otherrequested sanctions are reserved. and will be addressed in a separate Order.The Respondent generally alleges that "[i]rom the inception" ofthe FAA's investigation in this case, the FAAhas engaged in "improper, sanctionable conduct'' (Motion, I,

## 111.) The Respondentmore specifically-asserts that the FAAhas violated thefollowing: a) the FAA'sown internal guidelines in investigating a civil penalty case; b) the Coun's April 7, 2015 Order Setting Litigation Dales and Procedmes; and c) the discovery procedures identified in Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure ("Rule")26 (Motion, 

### 18,

**~II** (b); Reply, 

### 1 -3.) The Respondentrequests dismissal with prejudice as a sanction, or in the alternative, other "s<mctions as the Court deems proper andjust.'' (Motion, 20.) lnresponse, the FAA asserts that it did not engage in most ofthe behaviorthatthe Respondent has alleged. Further, the FAA argues that even

### ifit wereproved that itfailed to follow some ofits own internal guidelines for investigationofa civil penalty case, such error wouldnot be grounds loreitherdismissal or ahernately plead sanctions. (Response, 1.) B. Authorityfor Dismissal and Sanctions In FAA civil penalty proceedings, apanymay 

### file a motion to dismiss, specifying the grounds lor dismissal, at any time during the litigation. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13218(1)(2). The proponent ofsuch a motion has the bmden ofproof: 14 C.F.R. § 13.224 (h). In addition, the FAA's Rules ofPractice ("ROP"), 14 C.F.R. Part 13. Subpart G, specifically provide, in four (4) separate sections,directions regarding the imposition of sanctions as follows: l) sanctions involving tllcd documents. 14 C.F.R. § LL'.07; 2) limitations regarding sanctions. 14 C.F.R. § l3.205(b); 3) sanctions involving agreedjointschedules, 14 C.P.R.§ 13.217(!); and, 4) sanctions 

### lc1r failL1res to comply with general discovery, 14 C.F.R. 

### § l3.220(n). C. Arguments Regarding Dismissal as a Sanction Inits requestfor dismissal, the Respondent acknowledges that none ofthe four (4) separate sections in the ROP specifically include dismissal as an allowable sanction. (Reply 11.) The Respondent argues, however. that dismissaJ is a sanction allowed by a) the Federal Rules. specifically Rules 26 and 37, (Motion, 1 ); b) the Conn's inherent authoritytonmnage litigation Page 2 of 6(Reply, 9); and, c) by using as guidance decisions issued by the National Transportation Safety Board("NTSB'') (Reply, ll). Inresponse, the FAA argues, in· part. that dismissal as a sanction is not warranted, because it did not violate Rule 26 (Rcsp. 7). The FAA further argued that dismissal under Rule 37(b)(2) and (c) would be inapplicable. because the Respondent has made unfounded allegations not supportedby its materials. (Resp. 16.) D. Discussion All pleading and arguments submitted byboth parties on the dismissal issue were fully considered. However, only certain matters will 

### be highlighted in this discussion. 

### I.**_Q_eM.r!!LE<:cL~H!l1!.\igation** 

### Sanction Authoritv 

### a_nd PtrrQQ_$_g It is well established in general federal litigationpractice that H courthas broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, either for violation ofdiscovery rules or orders. orunder the court's inherentpower to prevent abuse ofthejudic:ial process. 33 llrn. Jur. 

### ProvlofFacls 3d 459 (Dec. 2015); 

### Phelps v. Wveth. Inc., 280 F.R.D. 572 (D. Or. 2012); Rule 26(a) and Rule 

### 37(c). This may include sanctioning

### aparty 

### who violates court orders designed to enablejudges to control theirdockets and manage the flow oflitigation. 33 Am. Jur. 

### ProofolFacts 3d459 

### § 6 (Dec. 2015): 

### Gohi1·tein v. Co/borne Acquisiu/1 Cu.. LLC, 873 F. Supp.2d 

### 932 (N.D. 

### IlL 2012); 

### Mva Saray, LLC' ''· AI-Amir, 83I F. Supp. 

### 2d 922 (E.D. Va. 2011 ). The purpose

### for imposing sanctions is multitt)Jd: I) 

### to punish

### a party for improper discovery 

### or other conductand assure

### that itwill notprofit from it; 

### 2) to compensatethe other party(s) for theexpenseand/or dif!iculties caused by any impropriety: 3) to specifically deterthe offending party from future misconduct, and secure its compliance with a particular court order and/orotherlitigation duties; and, 4) to generally deter others hom engaging in litigation abuses. 33 Am. Jur. 

### ProofofFacts 3d459 

### § I (Dec. 2015). 2. Authoritv ofAdministrativeCourt inFAA Civil. Penaltv**Case~** The authority ofthis Court to regulate proceedings in FAA civil penalty cases originates ti·om Section 556 ofthe Administrative Procedure Act ("APA''), 5 U.S.C. §556. The APA Page 3 of6provides in part that a U.S. Administrative LawJudgepresides over administrative adjudication "[s]ubjectto publishedrules ofthe agency and withinits powers." The "published rulesofthe agency" governingthis and all FAA civil penalty proceedings are the FAA's Rules ofPractice ("ROP")found in 14 C.F,R. Part 13. SubpartG. These rules arc binding in FAA civil penalty proceedings. When the FAA promulgated its ROP in J990, the FAr\ wanted to maintain a ''less formal" administrative process. 55 Fed. Reg. 27563 (Jul. 3, 1990) (DiscussionofFinal Rule). As a result, it declined to adoptas controllingthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure./d. at 27563. However,the FAA Administratorexplained that its ow11 rules regarding discovery. althoughnot as detailed as the Federal Rules, were "already roughlyparallel ... [to] the Federal Rules..,

### Id. Thus, adding additional discovery safeguards, asurged by commentators, was um1ecessary. TheFAA Administrator also assllfed the public thatthe FederalRules--and case law construing them,-would 

### be "instn1ctive" inadministrative civil penalty cases, tor

### any discovery disputes or alleged abuses that might arise. fd. In shmt, the Federal Ruics and case law arc instructive. but "do not supercede [sic]" the FAA's ROP. See, e.g, TokyoAir Cargo U'iA, FAA Order No. 2004-7, at 5 (Sept. 22, 2004); KDSAviaticmInc., FAA OrderNo. 91-17 (May 30, 1991) (Complainant's reference to Federal Rules "does not change the fact that it is theorder

**itself~issued** pursuantto the authority to "[r]cgulate the murseofthe hearing in accordance with the rules of[14 C.F.R. Part 13. Subpart G]" contained in 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.205(a)(6)-thatis binding onthe parties). As noted briefly above, bothparties agreed that underthe Federal Rules, dismissal may be utilizedas a sanction j{}fdiscovery violations" Generally. in imposing sanctions, the ·'com1 need not find that theparty or its counsel acted willfully or in bad faith ... unlessthe sanction is dismissalofthe complaint orentry ofdetiwltjudgment." 

### 33 Am. Jur. 

### Proofof Facts 3d459, §§ 2 and 9 (Dec. 2015); 

### Bray & 

### Gillespie Management LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 259 F.R.D. 568 (M.D. Fla. 2009): 

### Ulyanenko v. Merropo/iran 

### Life .Ins. Co.. 275 F.R.D. 179 (S.D. N.Y. 20! 1): Page 4 of6Rule 37: and Wallace v McG/othan. 606 F. 3d410 (7'h Cir. 2010).1t is also well-established in general federal practice that dismissal ofa complaint is a "severe sanction"that should 

### be granted only "sparingly·· upon a finding that a serious violation or violations have occurred. 33 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d459 § 21 

### (Dec. 2015); Montblanc-Simplo GmbHv. Colibri Corp., 692 F. Supp. 2d 245 (E.D. N.Y. 2010.) a) FAA 's ROPLimitationRegardingSanctions However, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(b), the FAA's ROP limitthe types

### ofsanctions U.S. Administrative Law Judges may impose when presiding overFAA. civil penalty cases. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.205(b)provides in part: The administrative lawjudge shall not issue an orderofcontempt, award cost to any party, orimpose any sanction nut specified in this subpart. Iftheadministrative lawjudge imposesany sanction 

### not specified inthis Sllbpart, 

### aparty may t'ile an interlocutory appeal ofrightwith the FAA decisioumaker pursuant to 

### §13.219(c)(4) ofthis subpart. 

### !4 C.F.R. 

### § l3.205(bl. As noted earlier. sanctions arc speeiiicd in the ROP in four (4) separate sections. The Respondenthas idcntiticd all four (4) sections in pleading f(>r relief: (Reply, 9.) However. the ROPhas expressly limited the use ofsanctions. and dismissal as a sanction is not specifically allowed. Thus, even ifa movant files a general motion for dismissal under 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(1)(2), and the grounds alleged is improper conduct that should be sanctioned by dismissal (or defaultjudgement), the specitic limitation language under 14 C.F.R. 

### § J3.205(b) prohibits dismissal or dispositive reliefas relief. b) Recenr F;J,j AdministratorDecision···· Dismissal notAllowedas 5'anction The issue ofdismissal as a discovery sanction was recently addressedby theFAA Administrator inthe case ofGamache-Wonman. FAA Order No. 2012-4 (May 22. 2012). lnthis ca>e, the Jll(ige "incongruously'" dismissed the respondent's request ic>r hearing fLS a discovery violation sanction, and simultaneouslyentered a civil penalty finding andjudgmcnt for S2,500 based ontheallegations in the FAA·s complaint. The FAA Administratorreversed both decisions, holding in part: Page 5 of6The Rules ofPractice in Civil Penalty Proceedings do not specify that an ALJ [sic]may dismiss a respondent'srequestfor hearing as a sanction for a respondent's failure to respond to 

### a discovery order or order

### to compel. Id. at 6.The FAA Adminisuaroralso noted that other sanctions. as specified under 14 C.F.R.

**~** 13.220(n), should have been considered and utilized for

### the respondeni'

### s discovery violations. !d. at6-7. 5. NTSB Decision- Not Controllingorlnsrructive The Respondent's alternate argument for dismissal based on decisions issued by the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") must also be rejected. (Mot. 17.) Therules governing proceedings atthe NTSB, or other administrative forums, do not supersedethe FAA's ROP. Itis also noteworthy that, unlikethe NTSB rules (e.g.. 49 C.F.R. § 821.I9), theFAA's ROP do not place an a11irmative duty on the FAA 

### tc1 provide 

### the releasable portionofthe Enforcement Investigative Reportto a respondent 

### by the

### time the FAA serves a complaint E, Conclusion AlthoughtheFAA·s ROP are "roughly parallel" to the Federal Rules. there are some exceptions and differences. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § I3.205(b), the FAAAdministratorhas found that dismissal may not he utilized as a discovery sanction in FAA civil penalty proceedings. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205, and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulation, statutory authority. and being 

### fully advised: 

### IT IS HEREBY ORD.ERED: 1. The Respondent's Motion for dismissal asa sanctionis denied. 2. The Respomknl·s Motion for alternate sanctions is reserved. and a further Orderwill issue shortly.
Attacbment: Service List Page 6 of6Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICELIST- 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 2W!000 1 ONE COPY 

### Mr. Christopher

### R. Stevenson Complainant

## :v Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 

### Office ofthe Regional CounseL 

### ASO-7 Southern Region 

### J701 CohunbiaAve-nue CollegePark, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Mr. Paul R. Borth Respondent's Counsel Barnett & Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite200 Glenview,IL 60025-4387 

### TEL: 847-724-5520 FAX: 815-356-7042 Judge

### J.E. Sullivan U.S Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue. S.E. (Ell-310) Washington. DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 Birmingham f'light Center, Inc. Respondem 4243 East Lake Blvd. Birmingham. AL 35217

1 Service was by U,S. MaiL For sel\.'ice In person or by e.xpctlitcd courier, usc rhe fn!lm:"ting address: Federal Aviation Administration. 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., \Vifbur Wright Building----,Suile 2WJOOO, Washington.. DC 2.0591; Auention: Heari11g Docket Clerk. AGC--430.

# JUNE 3, 2016 ORDERIn 

### The Mutkr OJ': 

### lliRMINGIIAM 

### SEilYED: .JUNE 3, 2016 U.S. **DI~:I'AHTMENT** OF TH.ANSPORTATIOI'I 

### OFFICU: OF BEARINGS WASIIINGTON, DC 

### I I.IGI IT CENTL:IC INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### CclSC 

### No. 20 12S0()900)3 

### Rc•spondcnt OIH>ER GRANTING **IU~SPONOI~NT'S** \'lOTION FOR ALTERNATE SANCTIONS :1 

### ,, !l

On 

### November I8, 

### 2015, the **R~sponcknt.** 

### l.lirminghnm !'light Center. Inc.. I!led 

### the

**Rcspond~nt**

### 's Motion llw Sanctions ("Motion''). which includcd nrcqucst l'ora\kmatc sur1etions. On Dcccrllbcr 10, 2015.tlll' Fi\1\ 1\kJ 

### a Response in Opposition to Motion 1(>1· 

### Sanctions ("Response"). Or1.ltll1tll11')' 15. 2016.the Rcspondentllled the **Rcspond~nt's** 

### Reply lo the Striking the l:t\i\'s 

### Response in Opposition to .Motion li1r SurKtion:; (''Reply"). ()n l:dmrary i'J. 21116 

### mr Order Striking the Respondent's Response nnd lknyinf( the \·:\!\

### 's Vlotion lo Compd was liltd. Ott Fdmt<tl') 22,201 (>an Orckr Denying Respondent's Ylntion to Dismiss :md Rcsc:rvi11g Ruling "n

**Oth~r** 

### Sanctions was I\

### led. Or1 March 30. 2016 an Order Setting Motio11 Conl<orcncc wus tiled. On /\prili12010.thc parties convened I(Jr· aMotion Conlcrencc to discuss the legal and pr\lcc·dur:rl quc,tiuns raised by 

### tlw Pcspr.mdcnl's Mution I[Jr Alternate **~unctillll!i.** 

### That sumc clil\.

### (111/\pril I:l, 

### 2016, <lfl 

### Order Setting Deadline l(lr Rc•spnndum to lile Supplcnwntal Muturiulund Co11tinuing the Motion Conference was likd, 1 

### On May 1. 

### 21116, the l(csponcknt I ikd aSuppkment<li 13riei"Conccming Respondent's Motion li1r Sunclions ("Suppktllcnt"),2 

### On Muy

**~.** 

### 2016, the panics convened l(,·n Second Motion C'oni'urcncc ctnd l'lt"cscntcd \lntlurgumcnt on the Rcsponcleni's Motion f'or AltcTrwtc Sunctions. L BA('f((:IWUND 

### i\, 

### Complaint and Answer On December 1.), 2014. the FAA served uComplaim on the 1\<.'spondcnL a flight school opcmting in llinninghnm, Alubnmu. In this Cornplaintthc I:AA cdlcb(cd that on or about Sqttcmbcr IK, 21112. the Rctspondent had opcrnwi upusscngcr llightl'or compcnsution or hire without nccrtil1cd pilot. Bused on this fact alkgatinn. tlw 1'/\A asserted the Rc>spondcnt hml "lolutcd sc'wn17l 1·".1\A safety rcgui:Jtions. and propo.'C·d cJtoltll civil rcnnlty of' $11.0011. !he l<c·spm"lcnt 11kd ulkcvmber IH. 

### 21114 :\n,;wcrHnd cknicd the
**rtllcge~ti<>IJS.** B. Short Summary ofRespondent's Motion 

### The l(cspondcnt's November IH. 

### 201

**~Motion** 

### l(tr Snnctiuns allcgc·d ti1Ht 

### "I !"!rorn tlw inception'" olthc l·'i\.1\'s inwstigation inthi.s '''''"·the 

### I:A/\ had c'lll!ngcd in '"irnprllpcir'. sunctionubk condcrct." (Motion,

**I.~:** 

### 1.) lhc Re.sponJcnturgcd either dismissal orthe "tsc ot·. ttltnnativcly, other sanctions us the court deemed nppropriatc. [3ccausc disrnissnl is not an avrrllnhle sanction 

### under the FAA Rules of' l'rnctice. 

### the Respondent's request l(lfllismissrtl w;IS

rh

**~~** /\jni! 1 ,\, 20 I6 U!'lkl'
**~·non~ously** idr.;n\1 Fii.!d dtL' dDt!:: nrllie Motion
**Conlt'r'l.!l'\~~** H'> "!\pl'il I6,

**~0** I(J " ( r\pt·i I

**1.~.** :.101(,

**Clrd~.-·t·.** I.)

**!'hi~** is a{:lericnl l't'I'I'L giwt·t tlwtthc
**CnrJn.:t·~.:ncc** \,Vl\:-l

**s~.·t** i'ot· Apt"il ll

**~0** H1 (.1·,.,,_ NLm.:h .10,

**~o** I(1 (Jnll·t· S01ting Mnli\ln ('unkn.::nc-L'L;utd tit(; April 13.

**~.()** 16 On:kr w11-. II kd nnd

**..,~.·rvl·d** tfll the

**~mnK** duy llt1,.' jidl'liL·c. l'\111Y\.'Iil;d

**lill'lh~·** i'-·lution Ctlnlt·rl'II\.T (.\'('('.April l:'i,

**~()I** (1 ()nil:r. I. <lfld ( 'l'I'L urScndL'C ), · l)tlt'itl.t,! 1111.: 1\pl'ill.\, 201(, f\'IOJittn
**Cnnl't,;nmc~.** thl' partk·s

**\1101\~** ul'l'rt'\.'i.llill.' opportuni\y 111 sttppil'nh.'ntlhl' n:{,.'\lt'd L.'ithi;T i11 1vriting or by Of'[\I

**at·~unt(.'tlL** Tht,.· FAA did not Ill\:: a

**,-~,**..ritten
**~~fpplctllt:nt** btl!
**diclrm::~~.'nt** tWill

**ar·~tHlH**.. 'nt :1! tltL' 'vl;1y 5. 20 I(J IVJo(ion Cnllil't'L:'i1CL!. (1\pr-i I ll 20 16 Tr, .12,

**(1~!** 'J.) Page 2 of 41**1kni~d** 

### on February 22. 2016 '1 llowcWI', as part ni' its Motion the Respundent allc'i'I1Util·ei) r.:qucstc'd "sanctions us 

### the Comt 

### tkcms proper and ,iust," (Million. 20.) 

### During the i\pril 13.2016 'v1otion Conli:rcncc, the Respondent was dir·eucd to specify wllnt alternate sanctions it was requesting. to its May 2, 

### 2016 Supplement (Supp. 7) and during the May 5. 

### 2011> Motion Cunkrencc.tlw Responckntussened thnttlw nppropr·inte ultematc scll>ction ''"" tu 

### strike tlw 1'1\J\\

### pleadings. (May 5. 21116lr. 1).) 

### I lased 

### on the materials submit1cd. the Respondent has <illegcd l'i\i\ 

### wrongdoing lhm> Septenlhcr20!2 through 

### December 1014. which inelt1ded nil \11i'Ce distinct time perinds invulvcd irr the 1:1\/\·, sukty cnl'mccnwlll action: I. lnitinllnvystigtiJLon
**1Sep1~111bcr** 20, 

### 20J),:::Jv1w·ch 7, 

### 2013) a. 

### "l'ollutcd" the
**perception~** unci 

### testimony ol' 

### Dr. IJ>ng. 

### uthird-party witness 1 Mot. 0.13); 

### and b. 

### l·ailed to preserve relevant dounncntary evidence. 2. 

### 1\>rmal (iyjJfctl<tlty 1\c:tion

**(tyl\11:~1!** 8 

### 2011 ,,,. Dcccml?cx4. 20141 n. 

### l'nikd to 

### preserve relevant doclllllctllary cvidcnw :L 

### Obstru<:lcd discovery by 

### contncting Dr. l,ong. nthird pon·ty witncso. nnd cnc'numging him 

### and his attorney to ob'tect to I'll'

### avoid l'csponding to the

**l~cspnndcnt's** 

### lawl'ully obtuincd Subpoena (Mot. 4-5): :md b. 

### hrikclio provide 1\rll discovery pursuant to euul'lordcrs'' (Mot. 

### I-2; 5-(J); 

### and

''

**l>urill)~** lht: t\pril 1:1. 201(1 Hlld May 5, 2016 MotiOIJ **Cnnh.:rl~IH..:~~~.Ihi.'** ('l)tll'( **id~IHII·'it:\1** til\: **ad.iudic-iltl~Hl** pt:riPd

**a~** 'i\\11'\irlJ!. lllr
**DL·~~II\lr~l'** .:1. lO

**I~.** \he date

**th~.~** C(llnplaint wus serwd. lloWL'VL'I'.

**th~'** adi 11dii.:J\l ion tWfllld in civ iI JWI 1;rl1\ CH.'Ii(IIPi

**i~ ldf:!8t.:'r~~d**  by till.'
**l~!;.'ijJtmdv-nt** filing n RL'qu!.!.'ll l(ll' 1-lcnrin,g. whh:l1 occUlTed on Novt"IHher 2(1, 2014 Ihi" 1'-

**di•.ctl~~l!d** i11

**nwt·~.;** dct<.1il ill/1'(/, ;11 HI.

**Dat~:** oi-C'tm\IHiJth.:l)rncnt ni'Civil

**P~IU\Ity** /\ctinn.

**~{C).** ' **'-;[h.'Cilkiill~.** !Ill.' 1\pl·il 7. 1015 (kdl'l'

**s~..·tting,** l.ili!,2:lli!\ll

**[)(1\1.'.~** Wld Pr\ll._'i.::d(ll'l,',..;: <!lid. lhl' Sl..'fl\L.'Illht:r ). 20

**~-~** ()r\kr· \ll'iil\ting tlw \1utiprlto 1\l\lt'lld. Contimling

**th~.:** Novernbc1· 201) I

**k<win.~** to St:pll'illbi..'l'

**~(II(),** ;1nd lln11Hing, OtiK•r· 

### llc•licl, Pilge 3 of 41

### c. Udi!Kratcly withheld rckvnnt, discl<lsuhk. documentury evidctKe in its JlllssessillIL 

### C. Short Summury ofFAA's

**R~sponsc** 

### In Response to the Motion, the Fi\1\ usscrtcd thut it had not engaged in most nl' the hdtltVior that the Respondent hus alleged. i\ltunalivdy it 

### mgucd thHI even 

### il'it were 

### pr11v,·d

**th;~l** 

### itlitikd to J'olluw some ol'its own intcmal guidelines I(Jr investigation ol':t civil pcn;dt.y cusc, or 

### thm it 

### Jililcd to prcsct·vc certain c·viclcncc, such crror(s) wottld not 

### he grounds 

### 1\11· sanclillt\s 

### nr dismissal. (Rc•sp.. 1.1 

### Some <ll'thc

**l~c·sp<Hl<knt's** 

### n1os1 scl'inu.s nllcgmiuns involved c-mails autlllll'Cd 

### hy l/\1\ 

### lnspccl<ll' YL\1\ccy 

### Rushton, who served as the primury investigator in the Cl\sc. (l{csp. 

### l·:s. i\. I. 1 

### llw Fi\A 

### denied th:tt Inspector Rushton had engugcd in nny in1propcr conduct or 

### cunJmuniccrtioJJs. either while discw;sing the zrllcg<rtiolls with Dr. l ..o11g, u 

### third-rany witncs,; or when gulhcring testimonial evidence ft·um Dr. Long. (April 13, 20 I(> lr. 25, I0·1 

### J. IThe I·Ai\ 

### argued thut lmpcctor Rushton's destruction oi'his e-mail correspondence with 

### Dr. l.ong hud hccn pal'l 

### oi'il "routine" purge oi'c·nwil (R\.lsp. 51. 

### ilnd should not he 

### deemed problcmutic. ;:ince rlrcsc· c•-muils "did'"" mid something to the evidence•." !Rcsp. J·.x. i\

**~!·'·I** 

### In rc•spollSC 

### t<' :.dkgatiuJJs that it had !:tiled lc1 disclmc cvickrwc pmswrnlto court,>rdcr. or obstructed the Rcspnndcnt's ;Htcmpt lll 

### gather cvidcnc:c vin subpoena, tlw 1 1/\i\ 

### usscned thnt it hml done· 

### ncithcL II. LE<;AL AUTIIOIHTV FOR SANCTIONS 

### In partial support ll>r ultcrn<rW sutKtions. tlw

**~~~SJ1li1Jdcnt** 

### cited lo 

### multiple scc·ti''"' llllhc 1·.-v,

### \Rules ol' \'nl(;tice, 14 C.F.R. 

### Perri IJ. 

### Subpart U ("I';\;\ Rules").

**Th~** Ft\i\ 

### Rules spcci 11cnlly address the imposition of' sanctions in l(ntr ( 4) elirterent sections..,Tlw

**llll'l~C** 

### I3) sections upplie1tbk to the Motion !'or nlternnle snnctions are brielly outlined b.;lnw. with sume

**necess:~ry** 

### discussinn regrrrding s<:vet·:rl substantivc'L'ITOI'S cutrt:rined in two (21 

### oltiK sc<:tiutt.s.
; lit ll!lL' l)l'

**li1l'~~:** l(l!lr (...J)

**~·~t:tiuns.** tht.' F!\/\

**Ruk~s** linJil

**tit~.; Cntu·r~**  **SUr\L'li~lll** {\llliHII'ity. 14 cyy_

**~ IJ.~O.:'l(b),**  **rlli~;** '-\'I'Iiiii\ 1\';j•; tiiOf'()IJglll>

**iidLit'~-~:,cd** in tlw 1\.'b!"ll\ll}

## n. ::w I(1 ()I'til' I' J)t:nying i{(,'_..;polldl:t\t's Motion \U J )itillliS', IllHI

**1\l'~I.'I'Vil\g** ]{ulillg llll O!ik•r Slllll..'!illllb, fllld willtml Ill' t·r.:pvull'd hct\'. Page 4 of 41

### A. Snnction.s 

### for

**lmpr·op~rly** 

### Signed nnd Filed Oocumcnts (14 C.F.R.

# * 11207)

**l'urs~mntto** 

### 14 CJ".R.

**~** 

### 13.207(<1). ;dllikll documenls nntst be signed. The signing oi':tny documenl is 1.1 

### cc,·tillcation' that tlw do<:untent has been read :111d 

### is in compliance· with the rules ol'pl'lleticc·. 14l'.I'K

**:~** 

### ll107(a). il'any document is signed or certified in violation or 1•1 u:.R.

**~** 

### 13.207. then six (6) 

### diiTercnt sanctions 

### may be consickrcd lllr imposition. 14 ('.I'.R.

**~** I U07(c)( I 1·(6). II. 

### Sanctions for Violnting .Joint llbcovc•r·y Sclwlutc (14 C.F.R

**~** 13.217) 

### Pursuant to 14 

### CY.R.

**~** 

### 13.21711\ a party 

### who lttils to comply wilh njoint discovery schedule is subject to sattctions. It should be noted. however. that the• nile in this section is prohkmatic. hce:tusc it .st:1tes in pmt that 

### aparty should "eon1ply with 

### a motion'' or wilh 

### a "discovery request": (I') 

### Suncriunsjorjitihfl·e 10 

### c<lllllliVwirhjoim schedule. If"n

### runy lltils lo comply with the ndministmtivc lawjudge's ordercst<tblishing 

### ajoint schedule'. the :tdministrmivc ktwjudgc 

### mny direct lhnt party 

### ro comply with amorion /sic/to discri1'<'ty re<III<!SI (sic/

### or, litnitcd to the extent ol'tlic 

### party'sJuilure to 

### complv JJ"ilh" t11nlir111 (.1icj 

### or discowl'y t·cquest. the administmtive lawJUdge may . !sanctions listed!. t4 C.I .1\.

**~** t:U 17(I) (

### emrhusis nddccl). II is wdl esliihlishc•d that :tmution is a 

### f"ul'lllHI rc·qucst hy 

### 11 pnrly in lttigntion. nwdc lo the

**CIHirl.s,:c·kin~ccl'lainc\>UI't-orcbcd** relici: 

### See. e.g.. 14l'J.R.

**~** 

### 13.21H: l·cd.IZ.Ci1.l'- 7(b)(l) 

### (";\ ,·cquestl(n acourt order must be made by mntion...").lhc rnotiun itseli'd<>cs not carry :JIJlhoriwtiw weight. nor m;ty it hind un opposing J1t11'ty in any way. .'itc·vcn
**ll<~ic~cr-Mc·Kc·c.** 

### c't 

### ttl.• i'vdvrul Cil·il Nnlesllundhuok. :1.11 !Westl'uhlishing 2012) ("A n1otion is uI'Ctjllc.stto the· cnurt. usually subn1iltc•d in writing, that sceb an order.") However. <l 

### cottnordcr issued :ti'tcr considering and ntling upon amotion docs ctll'l')' hinding authority.
!1. lilt'

**~~j!Jll!1b~** pal"l) is l'l'l'tirying Jii<H

**Slh~·** h<b 11\!idl'
**''fL'C!~I\!1<1hk'** inqLI!I'}. ili>out (l\l' dm:U111L.'III(\L <IIlLi "IP 1111:

**bl'~-1** lll thiil

**p~TS\lll'c.** KIWWkdgl.'. in t'u1'111atinn. illld I H . .:Ik

### r· tilL' dOl'UII1l.'lll(

**~)** a!'\:: ·-\,-llllSISil'lll" \\· it!l till' ruk·'l ()(' pnll..'lin· ( 1-1 ( 1- ,I(

**~ 11:~07(**  h)( I)): \\-lll'l'i\tlll.'d hy c.'i

**istiub~** illw m hy n):l.OOd I':lith lll"gllll\1.!111 about

**~:.-.:**i:-;t iny. law ( 1-1 ( .I

**I~. ~** 

**1,~_.":07{b)(J** )). ;_111d nut

**111~1tk** ((w <li1Y impmpc-r

**purpos~** 14 CY.H.

**-~** I.LW7(blL1). Page 5 of41

### lhu.s. the
**lunguilg~** 

### ol'l4 

### CF.R.

**~** 

### 1.1.217(I) contains crmr. **l'onun~ttc·ly.** 

### in l'i\1\ civil pcnillty cnscs. 

### the Fedcml Rules--and ellSe 

### law eOitstt·uing them--muy bc 

### used us l(llid;tncc when needed.'' In 

### ilw illSWnt case, 

### the language ol' 14 CF.R.

# *13.217(1) 

### appears to syuthcsir.c· ecn:lin et'mponenls oi"huth

**Fcd~ml** 

### Rule ol'Civil 

### Pmccdme I6("Rule I(,"), 111 

### and Fetkml Rule ul'l'i1 il l'roccclurc· 

### 3 7('"Ru

### k 

### J7"). 11 i\ 

### comp<ll'isolt 11

### I'tk· si 111

### i

### I ill. 

### languilge 1 J

### between 14 

### C. 

### I·.R.

**~** I

### \217(I) und 

### Rules 16 

### and 

### 37 dcn1onstr<tk thai the most **r~usonahle** 

### interpretation orthe ['I'Dhlcmalic text ol'\4 

### C.F.R.

**~** 

### 1.1.217(1) is as l(tllows; (/) Surtclion,.ft!i'fitilwc to cutnpl_t·ll'ithjoi/11.\chudu/e.

**II"<~** puny 

### !hils 1,, 

### Cilmply with the udminisu·utivc lnw_iud8c's order cst:il1lishing 11j1tint schedule. tile udtninistrative lawjudge rmty direct lltilt p<li'IY to co111ply with H 

### tWl-liHH--··1<·' di"owry request or, limited 10 the extent ol'll1c 

### pur!y's litilure to comply with" nwfit>Jt-<-w discovery request 

### nr order direcring di.I"<'Ol'cl:t·. the administmtive law 

### _judge may ... lsunc!ions listed!. 14 

### CJ'.R.

**~** 

### ll]17(I) 

### (emphasis and 11

### licrntions udthl) lltili,ing this interpretation.. ira violation ol" 14 

### C.I'.R. R

### IJ.217 is 

### l"nund, the (',n,t·t 1\HI\ 

### iniJJUsc·llntr (4) dii'lcrcnt sanctions: I. 

### Stl'ikc that portion ol'ti 

### party's picmlings; Preclude prchcaring or tlisct,vcry nwlions 

### by that puny: 3. PrecluJc• admission oi'thal portion ni' a party's cvickncc at the hcuring. lll" 

### 4.. i'redutk liwt punion ul"lhc testimony oi'tltm party',, witnesses at 

### the hearing. 11

**Wh~·11** tilt: !:At\ prtH1HllgiJIL'd

**th~ l\uk~**  t,li'Pmc\i..:c In l

**~)'10,** till..' I:AA

**lv<ll11~d** 1o llliiilttuln Ll

**"ll's~** ll.ln11i!r· udminisii'!UiVe

**pru~~.;;-;:-;, ,'i.~**  l:cd, Ri.!g.17S6J (Jul. 3. 1990) **(l)is~ll~~illll**

## or I.-ill!\I Ruli.'),

**A~;\** I'L'SUIL il
**dt~~,:liw,:d** l\1 :lth)pl

**Ll~** L'nn1mlli11g till'

**l:~dt:ml** RuiL!s ufCivil Proct.·dun:. The b\1\ c-xplaitled. llt)Wevcr, tl1:11 1'1s tiWil

**nil~::-, r~•g:wding** 

**dis~:ov(,•ry, ~~ltlmu~IJ**  not ;1s lktnill,.'d B!llllc

**h~L!cral** HuiC.'i.. Wl.!\'1.:' "al!·o.;<ld)' rllughly P<lmllcl.

**ltojth~** l\;tl0r;ll

**Huk~."** i!lld 111!1:.

**11Lidi11~** <iddiliollCII
**di·~cowry std!:guurd.~.**  a:; urgt:d by (.:IH111l11;.'1\lil1urs. Wi.l:i tllliH.'ccs,..;ary. Jd Tl\t.' l:i\1\

**;d~u** llul\:d lh:tlthe **h:d~,;r<ill{ull:s** Hnd co•,e lnw t'IHlS.InJing

**th~~lll** wo1ild bl! "'imtt'\IL'tivL··· in **i1dl1li11L'ill'ilth·,~** t.·ivillll-'rltdl) \/:1\t.\';, IJ 1'' Rule 1 (l prnvides

**gukliliK~** m1 st;:tling up p!'C·\ritll
**discov~.:ry** sdH.:dulcs 11

**~~Ilk** _l/ idt'lllifj!,;s

**Vt~rinll~** Si.\1\t.:\iOil.', ror illSH\1\t:CS (1i'd]sr.;I.)Vi.!l)' **11(lli-C0!1lpJiUill.:~~-** ·It

**~lluuld** he **not~;;llth:u thl'l"t~**  (liT s0111c **dil't'~rciiCl:S bct\v,:~n**  I..J CY.It

**~** IJ.217(fJ and

**RulcC~** 16 nnd .17. J.'or

**~'\<l!llple** (IHH im:lusive). l{ulc 16

**rt•quir~s** th<: i'edeml

**dist1·i~1** wurt 111

**con~o;ult** \vilh tlw

**p~H'tk~'i** :ltHL "<tc. soon as p1':1Clil'ilhiL'"'

**~~~** <l **di~L:ovcry ~t:hcduk,**  **1·-~li.** ItCiv. P. l(l(h)( 1H2)_ In (,.'tlrltrasL till' 1·/\/\'.'i Rltk.'>

**nllow~·** 1111·l\\'\1 tlpli\ltlS: the ('OLil'\ 11HI,Y thfnugh its pl·<::::iding auti\OI'ily

**din~ct** lhl' punks In cunll·1· it!Hl 'Hibtnit

**~~joint ;o;~.:hcdulc.**  1--1 

### \·.r·

**It~** 1.1.::!0.\ or the p;u·Jic.<; 111<1)' \1\lllllllllrily itgn:e 1o r.;on!l:1· witl\t)llt 1wior coun dirl'cti\•C <111d

**ii1if1tl~** lik :1 )lWji()SL'd d

**isl'lt\'~o'(v** st:lh:duk I hi' 1..:uun llpprov;d.

**I~~** CJ'. IC

**~ I~.~**  17(!1 Hd), Page 6ol41**l4CJR~** 

### J:UI711)(1) ·(4). l'unher. any **s:~nction(.s).** 

### iI' imposed. 11 

### should k "limited to tlw extent orthe put'ty"s ltrilurc lo comply." 14 C.FK

**~** 

### 13.217(1')(1). C Snndions for Ji'uilure to Comply with Discovery Ot•dcrs (14 C.F.R.

**~** 

### 13.220) il'nojoint discovery schedule is entered ina case, then prtrsuantttr 14 

### C.I:. R. 

### I! 13.120. srtnctions may be imposed in those instmtccs when a party lt1ils to :rei put'suant In adhcovcry <mkr. or when apurty l(rils to comply with tr court's order to compel discowry. 11 

### 14 C.F.R.

**~** 

### 11 210inl. llowcvcr. the langltngc in this scctiotr is again problcmatk. and echoes the pruhkms in 14 (

### 'Y.R.

**~** 

### I3.2 17(I) ns discussed uhnw. (n) hlilut·c Ill comply with tl discovery mdcr or order Ill COITtpcl. II' a puny lcrilo: to comply wilh adiscowt')' <lrdcr or nn order to cnmpcl, the
**~tdtninistrmive** 

### lnw JUdge. limited to \he cxtcnl oi'lhc pnrty's l'ailurc 10

**~otnply** 

### with the discovery order 

### ormnlion to com;u.d. may. 14 C.

### I

**X~** 

### 13.220(n) (emphasis ndlkd). l'hus.thc discussion and tumlysis

**rq~trrdin!'** 

### the languugc• in 11

### 1C'Y.I\.

**~** 

### 1.\.217 is lil'<l 

### upplicnbk here. 1\s" 

### msull, the problematic IH11gua!'c of' 1'1 C.F.R.

**~** 

### 13.210(n) shmrld lw similurly i,ttcrprcted to reud: "to the extent oi'thc puny's railurc to comply with the discowry <\ickr or ordcr/o Cl!llljid"

### Thcrcalkr. \he ltlUI' (4I"'nuions idc•ntilic·d in 14 C.i'.R.

**~** 

### 1.1.22tl(nl lire idc'lllicaltrrlhc "rnctiotrs 

### !bed in 14 t'.I'.R.

**~** 

### ll.217(1). iilld should ulso be "li11utcd In 

### tlw CS\L'Ill oJ' the pttrly.' lttilurc' to

**~:omply."** 

### 14 C.I".R.

# *1.1.11 7(I)( I).

1. I'IH.: fuw 1-1)

**'>illlc\IOIL~** li:,(t•d

**in~** U.

**~** 17(!) ill\' itkntlc,:;d to

**thu~~ li:-,t~~d**  i11

**~I** ,1.22(1(11). I )H.:sc ''i\IKII(IIh lllll'l'lil

**~~lli1H.:** oi'\lJt.:

**~!IIKIIIllh id~.-·mill(.!d**  in holll Rule I(J

**nmll~ult..:** .17, which <trt.' lltiliJ.t:d will'l) a pany

**00g<lg,G~** i11 di:1t'llVt:l')" i"•lilurL'S m **nnn·,:olilpli~Hitt:** with cout·tmdcrs, !\•d. IC Civ. P. lf1{1), J7(hHJ). 14 llll' prnvisinns

## or 14 c.t:.R.

**~ ll2~.0**  <!ppc;.!r \()

**synth~;.·sit.C** 111!\jor CUl11(1lll1lHHS or Ruk 37 as J'ollnw:-; (rl\)\

**l!iclusiv~):** lllhiling

**1111\~SpOIH.I** i.ldC<.JUlltdy [I_) !1 di!it'()V(.'[')' n:qw:s.t.

**r~,;d,** R. Civ. P. :l7(n}; 2) lllillrll;!. \0 CHillply willI :1 l'!\111'( tH'dt:l'dirl.'cting: discovery. f·'d. It Civ, P ..

17(b): J) nliling (tl discloS(..' or '\Uppkmerll

**di~l't\V~I'y.** ];>,,'d It Ci\ p .17 (c): <IIH.I ,.() 1';1iling. to nllt:nd

**~~** tkJW-',ilion. pruvilk

**'il!l.~wer:-.** 10

**iutL i'ro,lltttnri~:s.**  pt· alluw

**ph~sil:al** in-;pcL'\iun. l·nL R Ch. P..l7 (d). Page 7 of 41Ill. DATE 01<' COMMENCEMENTOF CIVIL PENALTY ACTION 

### l':tn

**ol'lh~** 

### Rcspondcm's 

### Motion

**alkg~s** 

### i111pmpc·r cnnducl

**e~nd** 

### c<>llli11Urlklllinn' hy 

### the H/1 

### during its initial invc:;tigmion stage. which occurTed prior to I he II

### ling ol'hoillthc 1:1\/\'s 

### March H, 2013 Notice ol' Proposed 

### Civil

**Penult~** ("NI'CI'") 

### Hnd December I5. 2014 

### l'ornpluinL As pari nl' its Rcspnnse. the FAA 

### generally usscncd that discovery withheld or losI 111'i<lr to ''litigution cornnwncclnW11ll" wc<ld 

### nor "ll11·m 

### the basis lhr·

**s~illCrions**

### ... (Rcsp. I.) 

### Tl1c I:AA 

### did ll<lt identify. however. 

### whm dale it considered 

### the "litigation" to 

### huvc 

### "commenced" l\1r 

### the purpose oi'suncrion review, nor did it idetHiiY the date lhctt it 

### hall issued its 

### NPCI'. (Rc•sp. i- i

### R, 1 !\s

### nresult.

**lh~** 

### vorious phases ol'lhis

**ens~.** 

### lind "'henlhcsc 

### phu:>es ··.:omnwnccd" will first he illcnlilkd. li>llowcd by n

### hricl'discussion ol'tlw scope ol't:oun oversight. 

### A September201 

### 2012- FAA lnvcstigution l'ursuanttll F;li\ Order 2I50Jil.

### C'hnpler ?J(e). ctll l'i\A 

### civil penally
**investi~<>tiotl** 

### n1usr

**hc~in** 

### "promplly." In 

### the inst<llll case. 

### the idlcgcd September 

### I8. 2012 

### ineidcm w11s 

### hmughtro 

### I he: 1·;\!\'s 

### <>llention via a 

### Scpt,:mbcr 

### J'J. 2012 

### telephone nwssage lei\ by Mr. Jloh 

### Kcnl. an c·rnplovcc· ol·a business ,:ntitlccl.i\viution Services 

### Oroup. (Mol. Ex. C.. Scpl. 

### 20.2012 Record 

### ur· l'orJvcrsation).lhc next

**dn~.** llll 

### Scplcmber 20.2012. FAA 

### lnspccwr RLISillon pro111ptly began Ihe F/1;\ 

### invcsligation when he rllCI 

### with ML 

### Kent. pmsuunt to FA;\ 

### Orlb 2150Jll. 

### Chapter

.,

**~** ll

- (C).. 

### 1!. Murch H, 21113- Fo•·mnl Civiii'Cillllly Action Tile ·•comrncnecment"

# or" 1\>rmal I;AA civil penalty :,lt:liOI) 

### has pn:vinusly hcl'll 

### cttklrcssc:d by 

### the !1 i\1\ 

### i\dministr:1tnr. "'and lws :1\so lwcn discussed by 

### this ('nurt in other 11 Tlwl

**~Hil'\1.;** dc:ly, tHl

**s~;ph;illb~r** 20,

**201~~.** 1111p!.'t;lllr

**!{u~llhll\** ilho lll!..'l\.Vith Ml', .1\.IStitt rvL l,oll:n·. 1]11..,' cn..piiPI or l{e-.pondctl\'sSeptember

**I~.** 2011

**ni~ht.** (Reply.

**~~-'·** 1\.) 'l'he 1ll.'X] dity, tlll l.ll'[lll:illht.:-•r '21'

**~()!** "j' 11\'ipl't.:ltlt' l{\l_.,l\1(\i\ ttl(,.'t with Dr l,u11g, il third p<tt'ty \vi\11\'Ss_ (MllL b,s. .I and R: lh•pl;.

**1:.~.** A) 1 " Jlt·icll·tn

**]t)t)~.** thQ I·'Ar\ 1\dlllillistrntor· in!crpreh.:d the term ''conlllll.'tl<.'ed' in civll j}t.:"tWil)'
**prnr.:l..'~dlng~,** conwi11Gd in

**~~** t!.S.('.

# *24(12. Hl !11\J\II\ til\:

**is~.;u~:tncw** of"

**lltJik~ ofpropo~ed**  ctvil pct1<llty ("NPCP"). Sec

**~5** 1-'cd. Reg_

**27Sd~**.

**.'.~75.;;::: {Di.-;cussi~Jn**  nJ'J:tnal Rule)_ Then in 199J, wiHm Congress. CllliCtocl49l.LS.C

**~** 46301(dl{7H<'l. it

**l~dled** 111

**n:r~~t'l'11t't'** tlw 1:1\A\
**intl•qm~tation** ol''\•omnwlfl'ed' in thl' r;tulllll' Instead. it tllilit.(.'d

**th~** 1.--vord "itlitiated.·'

**Nl'VL'i'tlwl~._.~s.** •dncl'

**I'N~.** tlw Admilli:.ttl·n!or· ha!, intcrpnH0d

**th~·** word "inil/ote(r in ;J'J lJ,S,C.

**~ -1CJ~DI(d)(7)(t')**  1\t 11H'i\1llli.. •

**<;~IIlli..' ~~~**  "1_'1)//11111'//(.'('(/' thut IS,\(] lllt.:nn !Ill..'

**i~Slll\111.:1.'** ofil NP('jl s('(' 11111\'(.t/ .'/1'/f!!/1('\ Si·_-,/('/111 !l!t'. 1.-t\i\ (lnkr No,

**~OOlA1** at 7"fi (f\pr. 1 (J.

**~W0:2J:** ;111d lli.l;h 1·.:\p!J.IIr/'l', Inc., h'\;\ {)nit.:r Nu.

**~003~**7<ll H(

**~cpt. I:~** .. **:~oo_;** J Poge 8 of 41

### cases."' In essence, lo ensure compliance with the 1:.1\1\'s twn ycm limitations period (14 C.l 

### Y

**~** 

### ll20X(d)).thc issunncc ol'a NPCP. 

### and not the COII1plaint. is the ''criticnl event" in C\li111JICI1Cing u

### t(ntmtl civil pcnulty proccc:dittg21 

### In the instant 

### case, the Respondent Jid 

### not include 

### a copy ot'tlic NI'CI' 

### in its Motion. NcithCI' (llli'IY spccillcally idcnti

### lied the date that the r:;\1\ hml iHSliCd its Nt'l'l'. 

### I1\c'Hfl. l.tH.t llnwc'wl·. the Rcsponucnt did illtach 

### acopy ol'thc t:in;ll Notiw 

### ol' l'rl1(1llscd Civil l'vn;dty ("I·NI'('i'") Ill 

### its November 211. 

### 2014 Request i'o1·lleming. This I'NI'Cl' indicated that till' 1:/\/\ 

### had issued its 

### NI'CP on Mmch 

### S, 2013. (Req. 

### 2.) As 

### a rcsL!it. the date the l(mnal civil penalty ilc'lion "cum1m:nccd" 

### was IVlilrch 

### 8. 2011 C. 

### Nov\·mher 2(!, 21114- Formal A!ljlldicution While

**th~** 

### FI\A'o lbnnnl civil penalty action is initiated 

### by isouing a NI 1

### CP (sec. 14 

### C.FK

**~** t:l.li>(l) 

### and 14 

### C.J.'.H.

**~** 

### 13.208). the llmnal :1djudication period is triggc,·cd whcnn 1\c·sp<>ildcnt exercises its right to adjudicution hy 

### !Iling a rcquesil(>r hcnrinfl. .\'t'e. l'u.- :IJ•ial/1117. 

### lluckcl Nu. I·AA-20 14-0K07. 01·dc1' llcnying the Ecspundcnt's IVI<llions 1<1 llismiss (Sc•pt. IH. 211151("\k complaint is tiled as a responsive dm:nnwnt. wholly dependent on a respondent requesting a hearing. 

### See 14 C.I".R.

**~** 

### Ll.l 6(i)). Once a rcqwst l(,r hearing is lilcd, tlw nHIItc'l' is rc·krrcd 1\lr adjudicntion. 

### See. IVoolt""'i /./.(·.Docket \lo. 

### I·'Ai\·21115·0211. (li'ckr lkny1ng the 1:.<\i\·, Motion In i)isllliss (April JO. 2015). In the 111Stanl cnse. on November 26.2014. the Rcspomkntliled nl(cqu,sllcll'lkaring ("l{c'l(l.ll'SI.,) with the· 1'1\/\ lknring Dnckct_ put·suUI1t to 14C.I.R.
**~1.1.16(h).** 

### llponl·ccc·ipt nl'the

**l(~;quc'l.** 

### the l·1\i\ 

### hud tw<:nty (211) cluys \o tile the uriginul und <>IlL' c:opy ul' its I'ompluint with the 1·1\1\ Ikuring Dud;ct. 14 C.I.R. *I :l.211X(u). On DccC111hc:r 4. 2014 the J'i\1\ served its '".\\It' t')!.. iilis.\[,\',lifJJii .·lir

**;.,~\-}!tess.** U .C.

**Do~~L'l** No. FAA ·2U I

**<-~~0~()(1,** Order ClrLin111lJ:!, tlw
**1~~::\p(liKit.:!l\**\ iv1PI iun Ill

**Di;,1ni~..,** Auioll Chdy

**~2.** J01::): <1111.1. /111; ·l,·fll/111/1, l)m:ket NtL **I-'AJ\-201,1~0H07.** 01'\.kl'

**D~.:nying** lhL' Rl'"li\'IHhcnt·, !\1ntion:; I\J [)i.c,tni:-J:i (S..,·pt_ IlL :!015). -'' .'·r'l·u

**H~i.t•o!** .·lt:tlmlcs
**.~J'.I'/1!1!1.\',** Inc. Ft'\A Or·dcr No.

**2002~6** at

**7~8** (1\pr. I(). 1002}: /li,1:h 1:\tJw·ure. f11c. l:i\1\ Onh:r :\ll. JII(IJ.J ill g(Sept. 12,200.11:55 Fed Heg. 2754H, 2755) (.lul.l. 19'10) (IJisoussion ul't inn\ Rule) (LIIdiliod :11 I·I r'.I.IC

**~ IJ.JO~(<.IJ).**  I'age 9 of41

### CompJ,IinL On December I

### 0. 2014 {i.e.. l(mrteen (14) days al'ter 

### the Request 

### wus lib!)the \-';\;\ likll :1 

### copy oi'its Cumplaint. nlong with <111 

### etllachetl copy ol'thc

**l~equest.** 

### with the Fi\i\ I

**il'min~** I

### h>i:ket.r\,; 

### a result, the I(Hmal lldjttdication (OI'"Iitigation'') plwse o!'this ad

### inn cnmmence1.1 011 

### Nnvembct' 26.2014. tlw date the Responcknl liled its Rcqttcst. 

### IV. COiilrl' OVERSIGHT OF ENTIRE ACTIOi\ It 

### 111l1St he **emph;t~i<ccd.** 

### however, that neither the date the NPC'I' was issued (i.e.

**Mt~rch** H. 

### 2111.1) 1101· the dnlc the Rcspondc:tl tiled its J(equcst (i.e.. Novemhc:· 2(>. 2014) is dispositive in lktcnnining the scope ol'thc court's ClWrsigiH ol'thc· case. i\s 

### briclly discus:;cd (!bow. the two-ycm·limili.ttions period lhr issuunce ol'thc Nl'l'l' in civil pc:wlty litigntiun sntislics the I·'!\A's requirements that cnlc>rcerncnt action ncTu:·s espeditiously uller the dille ol' the

**nlk~cd** 

### viol:llion. This two )'l'Ul' 

### period nlwallows ;til ponies" :nc::ningl'ul oppnnunity to
**pr~scrvc** 

### evidence c::rly in the uction. 55 Fed. Reg, 27S4H. 1755(, (.lui. :1. 

### I')'!()) (Discussion of' l'inal Rule). The 1'1\i\'s adoption ol'utwo-ycnr statutc o!'limitations :o L'llSUI\.' L'}lpt'i.Ji1fuLIS' '·litlgution cnmmcn!.'r:mcnt'' hns never meant, however. tim\ tht: inVL':-llig.atitlll 

### pc!'iod prio:' lo issuance ol'thc NI'CI' w::s cscmpt l'rom enurt oversight i11 civil penalty ::djudicalions '" .ISI'cd. Reg. 27548,27556-57 (.il:l. ]. 11 

### )90) (Discussion ol'l'inal Ruk) (codil"red at lei C.I..,R.

**~** 

### IJ.208(d)). Se<' also, 

### l'u: iil•iafi!m.Dockct No. l'i\i\-2014-08117. Orckr llcnying the Rc·spont.ktlt'.s Motions lo lli."n1ss (Sept. 18.201 )) Wl1e>n

**scttitt~** 

### ami cs11lnining :he NI'CI' '" the• dmc "col\\11\cncing" the ci"il penally action. the i'i\A i\tlminiHralo:· **~mplu:sizcd** 

### that both

**r<~rtics** 

### hud l'osponsibilities that preceded both lite 

### formal civil penalty uclion "comme:tecment" dmc and the ndjudication ol'thc case. lhc colicellon and pt·cscrvlltion oI'evidence during tlw investi gati Vl' 

### slagc:s or1 he l'itSC 

### was :: 111utual responsibility lh:· both the l·i\1\ and till' rcspondc:n:
'' l1t1!'111_g the 1\pril I.1, 2016 Mo1io11 Ctlnl'(.,'l\,'l1C0. lhL' I·'/\/\ iippcnrcd tu

**itgrt~~** tlliltlllt.: t.:tHtrl's lWCr"iJ-1 ,111 (ll' ihl' livil p1.'i1td1y :ttl,judkr11itlll inl'iudt•d tl1t' **invc.~li~~;uivt: stu~('**  **ui'~hL'** nr1i1111 (Apl·il I.1,

**~01** () lr 2)·

**1.\-~."i:X)** Page 10 of41

### Thl!S, well bdrJrc legal cni(Jrccmcntacti,ll\ is initiated 

### hy the issuance nl'anolicc li.c.. the NPC'I'Ithe
**rc~pondcnt** 

### is usLmlly uware of

### charges ...clnd that thL'I'c mtl! hL· aneed to
**pn:s~;Jrve** evidence regarding 11 purtkular incident. 

### 55 I·eel. Hcg. 

### 2754R. 2755(, (.lui. :1, 

### 19911) ([)is,llssiun oiTinul Ruk). Tlw FAA Administn\lornlso assut·cd the uvintion conHnunity und the j111hlic that il'

**<~diudication** 

### oi'thc action O\OCLJ\Tcd, 

### it W<IS 

### the I:A;\'s goal to ensure "ll 

### lt1ir udjudicutinn I0<1sed on the lticts und tile luw.-·/d. ut2755(J. llilthjudiciul ami 

### appdi<M oversight nl'the civil pc·nulty cnllJrcemcnt action wmild hdp prevent "ovcrz.cnlous prosc(:ution" and be the "prool''ol'lilimcss ini,.AA civil penalty actions. 55 Fed. Reg. 27548,27551 (.lui. 3, 1990) (Disc:Lission ol'l'inul

**Ruki.lh~** 

### FA/\ /\cltninistralor wus "conlidclil" that the independent ad111inislrativc law_judge•; ud,iudicuting civil penalty cases would "exercise their discrclion upproprilltc'ly und
**iudiciousl~** 

### to ensure l'nimc.<s to the pnrtics" in the proceedings. ld. ut27:>4'!. lhw;. the scope <ll'thc• cnurl 's uvcrsi8hi ol'tlw ''i'aimcss" ol'thcsc proceeding.< begins at the inception ol'the civil pcnnlly action <llld mntinucs untilun initial tb:ision is issued. V. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF FAIR AllYERSARIAL PROCESS /\S flill'l 

### orit.s .support ltll' sanctions. I he l(.cspondenl cilcd to multiple: scclions in I

### he I;\/\ Rule•;;. '"well us to language contained in FAA Ordc1· 21 511JI.l (the FAI\'s puh\ishcd stui'l'

**!:\l.ll~klin~o:s).** To

**n~sist** in

**thi~** d\s\.:\.lss\on, abricrovcrviL'W

**oCFc~ir udvt..·r~arial**  **pro~css,** ulilit.ing 

### matcriul in 1:1\1\ 

### Order 2I50.313, the Federal Register. and the 1\mcrici\11 flar **Asso~iatinn\** 

### (",\ll.A"I Model Rules oi'Proicssionnl

**ConJu~l (''Moil~l**  

### RuiL's'·l. is pmvi!lcd. A. FAA\ (;oul nfFuir 

### unu **l{l>asnnubl~** 

### l'roccs.,

**J'ursu~1111** 

### to 1:/\i\ 

### Order 215\Uil. (

### 'huptcr 2J(g). til\: 1:/\1\

### 's cnil1rccmcnt process throughout the pnJCecding---must he "ltlir and rcusr,lwblc." <md
**•·p~rc>eived** 

### as litir 

### hy thmc suhic'cl **tul·c~ulatiun"'** 

### in ortkr 111 

### be "eiTc•etiw." 1:1\1\ 

### Order 2150..11.\. Ciluplc>r

**:'J(~.).** 

### Ihis i'airncss polky in<:ILtdcs: Illhe right ol'an appurent violator to be given objective. evenhanded n>nsidcmlion

**nl'~tll** 

### cirl'lllllstllnccs sUITnunding the Illlegations bci(n·c !I

### nul action is 1:1kc·n. It also requires gnod lililh ei'l'nrh to underslllnd the upparcnl violtl\ot··s po:-;itinn and

**wk~** 

### it into IH,.'(.'ounL Page ll of41I 

### .IIAOrckr2150.313. Chnptcr 2.3(g). 

### B. FAA Coal-Objective, Unbiased, and Accur·atc lnvcstil(ntion Whet I 

### wnducting initiul inwstigutiuns.I·'A;\ **itwesli~tuliw p~r~;onnclmust**  

### "gnthcr, und 

### rtccllru!elv amicom!'letely I'VJI0/'1 

### <!l/fitcrs ... in rtll unhia.ler.lund focused 111iil1rlcr." 

### 1:;\i\ Order 

## cISIIJIL 

### CIHiptcr 2J(c)(c·mphusis added). This includc·s an 1:;\i\ irm:stig<llor's r·csponsihilily 10 lrcullhc rcspondcnl with obicctivity und llllckrstumling. 

### it!.. ami interview and guthcr "'idctH:c !'rum willl'-'"'-'' about the respondent. 

### hi. ''' Chtrptcr 4.I0(c)( I)-(11). 

### lluring nil ph<IScs ol'the invcsligulion. the 

### 1-Ar\ inwstigmor is sctpposcd to c.xcrdsc "common sense and good_iuclgmctil... ld 

### nl 4.1. The FAA goal is to condm:l investigations that ctre not only designed In be !'air. hu11hat will also be perceived as i'uir, even 

### by the at:wsccl. 1:;\;\ 

### Order 

### c151Uil. Cl\l\pler 2.. \(g). C. 

### FAA Go:li- linbiased
**Witnt.~s Tc~timon,v**  

### FAI\ investigative personnel are aho tasked with ohwining unbiased witness swtcn1cn1s. llnhiascd slmcmcrtts mise ll·omthc witnc»·s ownpc,·ccptions und accurcllcly t·c·lkclllw witnt:0:-l·s O\V'Il

**ht..:li~!S** und opi11ions. vvi!hnut nwnipulntion or co;t(.:hing, hJr t.:.\ilmpk. **tiLcort\in~** 

### to guidance: in l'A.fl Order 2150.JB. Chaplcr 4.10. i1· wilncss slttlctncnts me obi;Iined h:v ellI 

### inwstigntor, such statements should identify the 1\wts the witness "perceived hy hh m· her senses." 

### !d. at4.1 Otc)(5). While an!';\;\ inwstih(ttlnr may nssisl a witness in dral'ling nnd ih111lillg ll 

### S\tl\ell\C11L the invcstiglllor should 1\t;VCr "dit:tlltl' the e0t11<:11l nJ' tltC 

### SltliC\l1Clli." fd. 

### Ul ·1.1 ll(c)(h).lhc 

### invcsllglltOI' should ncvcr discuss any possible sanclions regarding the ttlkgc·cl vi<>iation(sl with till' witness. 

### JJ al4.10(c)(J). Funhcr. an\';\/\ irwc•stigator .should t\ol promi.sc· cnnlidclllicility ll> uwilnc'"'' ami s/hc should ;ti'llnnntivcly illlvisc the wilnc•ss ilwt "'cllly 

### 1nli>nnn1ion provided m;ry he used tiS evidence in suhscquc·n1 cnl'orccntcnt pmcccdings." !d. 

### al

·; ]1 1'.:1.'1'\ilill IIJS(HI1\:I.!:i C(1111id'.!i11i;tlity nwy lK' pl'omiscd to a witl\t::>:;. but 011ly ctlli.!r

**th~ 1'nv~..·~tigntm**  lw:-. ubudr1L'd lcl-!ill

**n:vi~...·w** ;111d **<luth~ll'il.;ttion** !'u1· sucl\ H
**!'~(]tiC'S!.** 1:1\A Order :2150.JI), Ch<lptl'r' 4.10 (C)(J). P<Jge 12of41

### D. Model Hult·s- Fnirncss Requires Rcstnlint in Spccd1

**I'll~** 

### FAA /\dministralor's published guidelines und goals 1\n 

### conduding l'uir investigations and obtaining unbiased wiwc·ss lcslilllnny urc almo;;t idcnticulto !hose rcsponsibilitks idcntilicd hy 

### the Al.lA in its Model Rub 

### i'nr lawyers cmd their stun:s. ;\s explained by 

### AI\A Modc-1 1\ulc 

### lS. i'uirnl,ss in udvorsurial pmcccllings requires t·cstrclinl in speech while 11 cusc is pending. espcciully by 

### gowmmc·ntprosecutors and swl'l' 21 (l'l

**~~·\~.'l,'!JI** l{n **.\lakJn~.-:llL\tll~lt** <II\' **llL'Cl'..,·~·;~r-y** ILl i1il\mn

**th~.·** pllhliL'

**~d** till.' 11:\\ul\.' 11111.! l'.\kiH p(lhl' prn.'lL:l'II(Or\ :H:tin11 Llllllihi.lt

**'l~:nv** :1 h:gitinlillL' Ia\\ \.'tllnrL't..;lllL'llt purpo:-,l'. jtlw
**JWO~l'('tltor** 

### ,Jwuld

## I

**n:l'r:~in** 1·1·on1 lll(d.;illti cxlnl_iudici;ll **c~lllllllL'IIh** tillII 

### h:nv :1 **suh~;t:1111ial** 

### likt...:lib\J\ld **o(ht.'igh~t.:nitiS** 

### public CtHtdcnltwlinn (JJ"\Ill' \I!.,.Tti:.:L·d .

. . <IJH.J V\L'I"CI'\t: l'l.:l\SUI1Cih\t.: 1..:\!l'l.' \(li'H"I.'\-t,'l'l\ il'\\1.-''ilil}h.l1l11'S. imv **l:lli'Ui'L~L'IIll'l1\**

**(ll'l''1~llllll:l.** L'llljliO)"(.'(.':-, OJ' litIH.' I' j"JL'l'S()I)S :1;-,:-,1;-;\illb t)]' **U~h(1l'i<.ttcd** \\"I Ill \I h._' ptn'>l'L'liiO! 111 ,r **vJ·imiiJ:ill·jl'-,1,~** !'n1111 Jtwkinf.!. :111 **~,·~\l'<l.iudki:il** '>l<llt.:IIJL'i\l tiH1t

**th~..· 1~1'(1'-.,V~.'IIl\11.**  \\tll.lld hl' pmllihill'd rn1111 **tllil~il1plllilk'l' l~t1k·**  _·; (1 111· thi_-.; !\uk·. 

### Model Rules oJ' ProI"IConduct r. 3.H 

### (Am. Bur

**As~'n** 

### I9X3). !'his emphasis ,mprosecutoriulrestraint. in order to ensure litirness 10 the

**t~ecuscd.** 

### C\tc·nds to allpel''<lllS wnrking with the
**~owrnmcnt** 

### pi'Osccutur:
!d. 

### llhc pmsecutnr should ulsul exercise
**rc<~sonabk** 

### cut·c to prevent inwstigtllors.hlw cni'mccrncrll personneL employees ut· other persons assisting orc1ssociuted with the prosecutor in act·imirml case !'rom making an cXtrt\iudicial statcmcntthnt the pt'o'"wtor WlHtld be prohihiled ihnn 

### making umb 

### Rule ].6 or this Rule.



### E. Model Rules" 

### Fairness Requires 

### Pr·ohibiting Misconduct In ,1dditin11. nccot·ding to the Model Ruks.

**lclim~ss** 

### in litigation pt·occcdings is uchic·vcd in pun by 

### idL'ntii'yittg and prohibiting
**miscondu~t:** 

### Ill Ilie· I'IOcc·drtl\c oi' the udvers;tt'l s;sic>lll colltc'llll'l'lk's tit"! I

### lie· cv idl'licv: 

### 111 u

**l'~I~V** r:, tn hl' i\l:Jr'-...h;dk.'d t'lliHPI..'IIti\t..'l)' hy the
**(,_'~!!llvndill)..:** rnrlil!'>, lt1il- C\llllllL'tilillll i11 llh.' :id\vrc,:Jn

**"~"lvlll** 

### i\ :·;',.\,'ill'L'd 1)\ (il'rd!il·rll.lrill'· .J,: 1 ;1ill:,l tk·,[l'll\.'1i1HI PI )r, Wl1ik I{irk .1.8 is
**~;p~.:cillcDlly uJUr~1~;.;cd**  to crimi11nl actions, it is rht: M()dt·l Eulc tlwt mo:.,t cl0arly idl'IHi!lr.::.; ur1d

**e:-..plt~in:;** tht: undl'i'lyirlg, <lnd **wcll~c~tnblish(:d** principlct:i or' !'ait'nt.:'ss and
**ob.i~·~.:tivdy** in :-.pl'L'I:h thm gov.:r11 all

**~UV~'r]lllll'11l** ()1'0!-it:CllliOib. Page 13 of 41 ""'I ' ...l'U!l\.:(,';lilll\,:111 U!'L'\'it.k:llCI..',
**lmpi'OI)~.TI)'** inJhH.TJl'ing \\ ilnL':.;.'iL'S. uh:ill"U\..'Ii\1..' Ull·liv._, ill lli;..ci\Vl'r} prnu:lhlrl'. and lht.: like. IVIockl }{uks oi'l'rol'l Conduct r. 3.4 cml. (1\m.IJur 1\ss'n I'IRJ). 

### VL ALLEGATION OF "POLLUTING" TilE WITNESS Jior this nnd all subscqctcnl sections. the

**cvid~nce** <ind

**mgum~nts** by both parties have been !'ully considered. llowcver. bccuusc of'the volmnc

# or 111Uieri•ils suhmillcd. only cc•rtuin nwtter.s will 

### be discussed. !\s Jlltrt of' its Motion, t.he Respondent asserted that 1hc FA!\ hns "polluted" witnesses. including l)r.l.ong. athird party witness. (IVIoL II.) In suppot·t o!'this <tsscrtion. the Respondent

**prcs~..·ntl'd** writh . **.'llt,'~rn~\i!l:ommunic.:atinns.** pl·cs()l'VCd hy Dr.

**Long,~~** which codilicd

**~nllll'** u!'his cal'iy co11111111nicctlimls with ln.spcctm Rushton dming tlw tnitinl investigation ol'thh cusc 1i.e'.. ScptCI1thct·] 1.11117 through October 1:1. 20 12). During this time Inspector Rushton was

**sec~ in~**  Ill'. Iong"s c:nupcmtion in the 1'!\/\'s inwstig:ttion and attcillpling to persuade Dr. l.ong 

### w Jtrovidc multipk tcstinwnial statements :thmtt1hc Rcspomktll's alkged September IH. 20

**I~** !light. {Mol. '!-I :1.1 Inspector Rushton wlls also instructing Dr. Lung not to tulk to. c>r shurc

**inl'r>~'tnation** with. the Respondent. llitllhc 

### FAA impt·opcrly "pollute" tht' perceptions anti testimony of

## nr.

**Lon~.** 

### a third·plll'ty witness'? YES. llcginning on September 21. 2012. Inspector Rctshton had mullipk cnnvcrsations 1\tth llr.l.nng. and nlso cxclwngcd multiple c-maib with him.lhc lirst convcrsatiuntook 

### place utili. 

### I.on{

### sul'liw on s,,ptcmhc·r

### 11. 20 12. ''' I

### tvlr\1.. I.. \ ..I.. c;ept. 2

### I. 21112 cmui I. 1

### 1\ccrmlin

### gto IJr.

., J"hr..''il'

**~'-111:1il** (;UI111llllllic;·l!iom

**\VL~I'C' nh1<1in~.,:d**  b.) a Suhpor..'tl!l d!ld Rid<:r· ,,·t·vr;d \H1 Dr. Long by tilt Rl'.'.[HliHkllt. l'IH:
**f{~spundL'tlt':t** <lSSL.'r'ti\Ht that Ihe FA/\ improperly ntl(;)mptt:d 10 obstrltt.'t aml prt..:vcnlthis di:;cov-:ry

**i~ tl!.idr~s:;l.'d**  tnfru. <It IX. t\llcgati\Ht uf

**Di~~;ov~,~ry** Ohstruction. 'I· Dr Lu11g'!i rl'nmls did nut include

**now~** fro111 in ponmn llll't'lings Of

**lck~phon(;'** convt•t·s;11!ons.
**nllhull),!.llth~.:** pt'L'_o..:l't'vl'd t'lllnil:-; did tll'utsionnlly

**p,;lh~tlCL'** that sttc.:h

**tn~cliugs** i.111d l'alls lwd tilken pi;Kt:. Page 14 of 41

### LLrng\ recovered c-mails.27 

### nsecond eonvc,rsation occurred at Inspector Ruslrtun·s onice hclwccn September 

### 21,2012 and October 

### J. 2012. 

### tk l.ong provickd his 11rst stutctrwntlo Inspector l<ushton on October I. 2012 (Mot. L;;. J Oct. I. 21112). hut Inspector Rushton declined it. 1\o 

### nwck no note that it hall been prolkrcd. lie lltibl In 

### pt•csct·vc it in the 1:;\J\'s inwstigatirc· lik.

**,,~** 

### lnspcctot· Rushton then encouraged Dr. Long to read reports nn uirplunc crushes as he attetnpted lo persuade Lk I

### .ong to provide u

### dil'i'crcnt statcnwnl l(,r tlw J./\;\ 

### invcsti)!attle lik. lly ()ctohct· .1, 

### 21112, Dr: 

### L.ong had wnwrsed with Inspector RuslttLlll several times, lud read the materials''' Inspector Rllsliton had 

### given 10 

### him, and was echoing Inspector Rttshton's l'LJI1dcn\llation oi'tlw Respondent (e.g., 

### "llli\VC zero tolerance ror what's happening a\ Ill'('"), (\!lot.. I x, .1. 

### Oct. 3. :>OJ:> J:J7 pm 

### e-mail.) Ott Octubct· 3, 

### 2012. Inspector l<ushton usked llr. l.ong J'or nsecond s\alc'mcnt to sill>I' 

### Ills illSJ'Cclut· Rushton cbaractcrit,ed it) how the 1\espondcnt h11d rried ''to hick the nature oflhe llight," (lvlut.. 

### Ex. J. 

### Oct. 

### J. 21!12, 7:49 Hi11c'-i111lill. As purl oi'lltis e-mail request. Inspector Rushtun mlviscd IJr. \,ung tlwt "this is nutliL>nc Lil\\c mistake· 

## Iby the 1\cspundc·ntl. \'his is a sv.stcmie is.'ntc lll1d 

### it riL'Cds to 

### be con·ectc:d." (lrl.) 

### Shurtly thc•tuil'tcr. Inspector RusiHon nskcd Dr. Long to provide a copy orthe "1\tkc nlfcr" given to \Jr. 

### Long by 

### the 1\espondcnt. (Mot., L'x. 

### J. Oct. 

### J. 2012. X:21um c-mnil). Tlwt sunw d:ty. IJr. I,ong provided ashun supplcnwntal st:Jk\11Cilt. (MoL. Ex. J. Oct. :l. 

### 2012 I)r.

**I"'"~**

**Al~L'III'l.iilll!** {(l lhL'

**~:mails. l11sp~ttm**  f'w;ilton lllt'l witl1 Dr. Lllll_!.! **:;~'YL.:I'IIIti111e~.** :tnd ai;-,J.) c1ilh:d hi111 \Hltlw 1\.!k]lll\llll'. lhcsl.'

**111~~:ti11gs** ltml pllllilt:

**~ails.** Wl'l\' twt r·t'Ull'lkd, ;111d the !'l'Cnnil'\:'111ll1ns in\.'(1\llpklt **n.:,~nnliny.** tht.:

**~ullsl-lliKe** ol->jtJt:h **t.:l)l1lllllll'li~·tlliun:-;.** •:;
**l)tll'ill~** thl.' May :i, 20 I(J iVlotion Conrt:!'l'lh.:e. thr...' 1·'/\/\ inititllly

**,~xcusuJ** this l<il'k n!'pt'C'>l'I'V<!!itHI in !Ill' l:/1.1\\

**ill\11,..\~lit.!._mivl.':** llk hv

**a~s~rtirH;** no lwt·m lind
**o~:cutTr.:d.** bet:HliSt:: lhl'

**111i~osing** (ktoht.:r I, 1012 St;\1\.'llll'llt h111.l :,itnph

**h~·l'tl ,,~luplicm~.:**  ul:thl' **suh~~t]Ul'tHiy** pn:.'scrvcd (klobL:I
**12.101~** St<tlclllt::tl\.

**Wh~..:n HSk~d**  why 11 s-:"<..'111\d '-'lil\t'ltH;-nt I\'<I:, **tl~~~,.·:~sllt).** il' il wtb unly" **··dtlp!i~.:HH.'"** ol'tlw lirst s!ilt(.:mt:nt, th(.: 1:1\i\ pml'rt:n.:d that tlw October I,

**·-~Ol ~** 

**~l<~t~'llll.'l11** h:1d bL.'Cil <HI "itiClllllpkll' **dupllc<U(~"** pflht
**Ot:Wb~:r** 12. :20 I.?
**:-)t:lt~tl\\!111.** (M!ly .s. ]Ill() lr !lH...I-I:?i '"His

**Ulll.'l~~~\1'** lhllttlhe

**r~,:~,:J_Hd** wltctiH.:r !Itt! ''l·'f\A rcpot·i'' (440. 16 KB) !hatlnspl:t:lor ltush!Oil t.:"trwikd to lk

**l.llll~** 11n Octllb(•r I. 20

**I~** (MoL. Ex. .1. OcL L 2016, l :7.1 pnl e"tllitil and **~1\tadmll'nl) W~IS**  pul'l ofthe
**''ttirplun~.·** cr<tsl(

**1\ltlh.'r·i<~l th:nlr1~p~Clll1'**  Rusilll\ll t'Ct.:Otl\l\tl'tllh.;d to Dr,

**1.1111~** to p;ad (Mot.,

**l·~x.** J. Oct. J. 2016.3:.\7 p111 t>ntail't. \lt' :-.\lllWIIJiltS

**~·1st·** Page 15 of41

### Slllicnwnt). \lpon rccciplul'this suppkn1cnlr.d sllltcmcnl, Inspector Rushton <>lllrtikd lk Long. rtnd cut\linued to disparage the

**Rc~pondcnt:** 

### We ullrnnkc rnistnkcs, but purposd'ul deception thlll puts others [sic[ lives and assets nl risk will not be tolcnrtcd. Thai is whr.ll has occurred here. This WHS not an innocc11L case ul·a rnisundcrstnnding. lli:C knew whuttlwy were doing. Mot.. 

### Lx.

### .1. (kt. 

### 3. 2012.3:33 pm e-muil. 

### On Ocwhcr 

### 5. 2012. Inspector Rushton c·nlHikd Dr. Long ami itkntilied l'or him spec:ilk lcic\ c·vidcncc the: I'Afl needed in order lo help pmvc the accusations against the J(cspondent. (Mot., 

### 1-:.x..I. 

### Oct. 

### 5. 2016 

### 2: 15 pm 

### c-mniI.) 

### Dr. Long i rnmcdintcly responded by c·maiIwith short answers. r·csponsiw to the inl(lnnationlnsret:tol· Rushton sought. (MoL, t'x. ,1, 

### Oct. 3. 

### 20161:'0 ptn <tnJ 2:56pm 

### e-mails.) However. the FIR disclo"·d to the Rcspundentmnkc·s no mcnliPn ol this

**c·~chnn~e.** 

### Instead. the I'IR eorll,lins

# 'I orw-pnge dncumt:nt entitled

**··lnv·c•sti~ltlion** 

### Notes." (Mui., l·.x. C, 

### Oct. 3, 

### 2016.) The 

### Investigation Note:; identily ··Aiun

**l.nn~;··** 

### as the witm:ss. 

### ,111d cnnt:rins ll 

### handwritten strHemcnt ··but these "Notes" were ll<lt signed or dated by lk l.ong. 

### and dono! idcntil'y wlwrtel\lally wrote the mnterinl. (!d) 

### repeatedly maligned and vilified the Respondent. 

### 1-\Jr example (not in<:lusivc), Inspector l(usllton told lk 

### l.ong: I. liK' 

### Respondent was willing lo "bum .. 

### mutillllc ... and injure·· innocent pcnplc soldy in pursuit or··thc almighty doll:•r." (Mot.. IO-Il: l'.x. 

### J. IJet. 

### l. 201 li. 

### l:D pr11 t:·miliI): The Respondent's ;telions were• ··"11·ckss:· '"tlisrcspc·ctl\rl." "scikcntcrcd... "cakulutcd... ami ··deceitl'ul." lMot. I2: I

## :x. J. 

### Oct. I

### 2. 201 (,, II:I0 :un c-m:ri

### I): 

### J. 

### lhc Respondent wns urepeat oi'J'cndcr (i.e.. "this is not his lirstmdco'·). (lviot.. 

### 1·.-'· .1. (Mot.. l:x.

### .1, lkt 12. 

### 101Ci.

**10:.~7** :1111 

### email): 4. l'hc Rcspomlcni hud Hclcd wrungly ami willl'ully towards llr. I.ong t"l 

### k- pla)Cd \\ilh your assets

**<~nd** 

### yom lltmily's salcty"'). (Mol.. Ex.

### .1, Oct. 

### 12.

# :w 16. IO:S7 arne-mail): Page 16 of41

### 5. The Respondent ncc,kd to be ··wkcn down." (Mot.. 

### l':x.

### .1. Oct. 12. 20I

### !1. 10:'7 "Ill 

### c· nwil): 6. The Respondent would repeat the of!Cnsc(s) i!"thc Respondent'"" allowed to ··walk". (Mot.. 

### b ..1. 

### Oct. 

### 1:>. 2111!1. 10:57 ;rm e-mail): 

### 7. Dr. Long needed to think about his ..wif\:."' ·tids:· ··pructicc,.. and ..litmily" and ..llelp stop" the Respondent (Mol., Lx..1, (kt. 

### 3, 20 16, H:21 am c-maiI). On Odobcr II. 2012. lnspcdor Rushton c-nmik•d J)r. Long iii,(Hin. inll !'ollow-upt,, illi unrccol·ckd convcrsutionlw had had the previous day (i.e.. October 10. 2012) with both lk l.ong nnd illl FilA 

### supervisor (unnumcd). (Mot.. Ex. 

### .1, Oct. II, 

### 2016. 3:0Hpn1 emuil). In this October II. 

### :!II 12 e-mail. lnspcctm Rushton inl(mllcd Dr. l.ong thlll Dr. Long's three 

### D) prior s\H\Cments (not i'unh.:1· identilicd) were lacking in "h•y 

### ckwils... (/d.) 1\s 

### nresult, he nsl,cd Dr·. Long to illl."vcr thil'lccn 1 I.\) ndditional <tnd sp,•cilic !'net questions in writing. hnscd on the· unrecortkd lkwhc1· III. 2012 conwrsntion between l.lr. 

### Long nnu the two 1-',-\;\ 

### cmployc·c·s. hccnusc ..the hcttcr c;rsc Icun

**11111k~** 

### on puper.thc more likely he will .lctlk 

### and <til o!'this will he closed." (!d.) 

### !'he ne.st duy. on lktohcl' 12.2012. lk Long provided a l\tu1·th t4111)

**stntcme~nl.** 

### lriSJ'"Ctor lh"hton accepted this 1\l\ll'th Si<I\CI11Cllt HS 

### "rclcVi111l" l\J 

### the jli'OOI'

### ofthe 1'1111

### 's CiiSC, 

### 11nd

**e~ddcd** 

### il to 

### the 1:/\fl's investigative Iiic. (Mot.. Fx.

### .1. Oct. 12. 201 (,, Ct:04 pm c-nwil allll nllnchcd St:ltCIIW!Jl), lnl·c·sponsc' to this 1\'covcrc·d c·nwil evidence. the !'iii\ 

### acknowkdgcd thut Inspector l{ushtonmny not huw kepi "nn op<:11111ind" as rccont!11c!ldcd by 1:;\;\ 

### Order 21 )lUll. hut argued that thi.s did not give ris'' to 11 srHKlionablc uiTcnsc I

**Mt~y** 

### ), }III6lr X'l:'l-16).

**~1nd** 

### that "no lwrm" had occu1rcd to anyone. (flpt·iiiJ, 201() lr. 25:7-S.i llltcrnativcly.thc 1'1\1\ 

### bla111cd the Rcspundcnt !"ril' Inspector Rushton's comnttmicrttions. and minin1i1cd and excused lnspccl\lr ((ushtun's <:cLndur:t ami Sllttclllctrls. F,H. cxumplc. llcc'ording to the 1:111\, 

### it wus the Rcspundenr's ltrultth;tlthe l·ll/1 "lwd 1<1 enguge" in these e-mail cnmnlllnic.ltions with Dr. Long. (Rcsp. II, !'n. 4), The Filii Curl

### her Poge 17 of 41**arg11~d** 

### ih<rt lnspceiOr Rushton's e-nwil communications were necessary in order to 

### "enwuragc" llr. l"nng 10 

### give u"1\111 

### accounting" ol'his experience with the Rcsr)(mdent. (hi.). 

### Thus. Inspector Rushr,rn's multiple e-mail commcmications to Dr. Long should simpl,v be vic,wd us "usking awiurcss to

**provide~** 

### a l'ull and complete stutcmcnt of" events." (Rcsp. 12.

### Ilnspccl!ll' Rushton echoed thi.s po:<itinn in his testimonial statement. by 

### describing his c·llltlils as "the cnrails wkr·c• Ieneour1rge Dr. Long Ill 

### tell the Whilll' truth. ." (h.;\ 

### I'1 15.) 

### This Coul't expressed concern ahout I he FAA's crrgumcnts. during both the ApriI

**I~.** 

### 20I(, :rml \1uy 

### 5. 2016 

### Motion Conli::rcnccs. In response. ilw FI\A argued: IIthe ('our! h:1d Ill</ '1"!111<' 

### n1iscd 11 cornpktcly new issue when it rckrcnccd tile issue ni' "witnc·.s.s

**pollutint~**

### .. (:Is 

### <ilkgcd by 

### the Rcspondcnl) us wilness lUntpcring,'11 

### und. 2) the Court's usc ol'tilc word "tnmpcrin{' wfls cnoncous, because no criminal witness lampt'ring had taken pinee. This ('ourtugrecs that !nsrcctor Rushton did not c;ngagc in ads ili1HIIIlllin>' lu crimin«l witness t<rmpcring. llowcvcr. the lktthutthc polluting or t;unpcr·ing lli'Dr. l.ong did not 1·isc: It> :1lcwl ol'u clwrgcnblc cr·imc31' 

### is not dispnsitivc ol'lhc issue Dr. Long's preserved cmuils dcnwnsll'lllc thnt lnspecltlr Rushtonc·ngugcd in wilncss tmnpct·ing. IIt: 

### lklih<:t'lltc:ly 11r1d pcr·sistcntly condcrnncd and viiilied the Rcspondcrrl innn <lllc'mpl to shape• Ill'. Long's perceptions, obtain his wopcration. nnd inllucncc· his tcstinwny about the l<cspondent's aiJcg,·d Scptctlllx'r IX. 

### 2012 violation.

**H~** 

### also pl\lVidcd inltll'lnation to fk L.ong lo try and shnpc his lc>timony. llascd Cll1 

### IJr. l.,o!l{s rc·sponscs. lnsp,·ctnr Rushton wm; succcssf'ul in ulltlwsc cl'l'ort,. In his

**l.~td** 

### to "clllch" il possible salhy oi'li;ndcr. Inspector Rushl<lnahandoncd the· I'Ar\ 

### ;\drniniSII'illOr's public prnmhc that the i'A;\'s sal\:ly c·nlcH·ccn1cnl progmm would he i 1 Lunpvr i:-; kgolly

**litlin~d** in pltfl ;1s

**lbllow_~.;:** ·· l'a1npn. /(,111\'rhl!e so a.1 ro

**~t/1,.'1'** u

**tlun,\~,** e.lfll't'ill/11- \ll

**!11<11-i~** ilh:'g;ll. ,.,i!TIIfltl!l,i.! ur·
**f!~'l'l'('!'fll'i,L;** clwn;.:,e.l': m:. 10

**li-llllp~.;r·** IV!tll a do!.:Uil\Cill 01' <I {1.'-..:t: to illfl.·'t/l're i!l!fii'!J/)<'f'h·. /u ll/('l!t//('_ 111 hll\1' lii/L'IT(/

**1'/l.l'h~t** ''" llii!lflt'r, 

### n lack's Ltiw

**[)i~o:tion;u·y'** (51 II

**~ll, )7~J** ){l..'lllphasis add(,;'Ll), 111

**~l.lllW** ii1SUIIKi..''1 ,vltlll':-iS rumpt;l·ing c:nt

**b\~** sn t.:gn:gious (t:.g.,

**murd~r.** hidnup, bribery,

**\~ll:.)** liHII it 1-vill

**n.:~:ull** in

**il'd~'nd** •:rilllinul

**ch:~r~cs. 1~**  **l!.~.c· ~**  1512 I'Oie) 1" 111 Sl)l11l'

**in:-;1:\llL'I.'~,** witm·ss !llinpcring c:tn

**h~.,·** snl'gH..>gious

**{l'.~"** llllll'dl'l'. kidn;tp.

**hribl'l'~. L~i~·.)**  !hal il 1.1 ill r'l'"lrlt i11

**i'cd,_~nilcrinlill'di el1;1rg,c~.**  IHl.!.S.C.

**~** 15 12 (20 I-I l. Page 18 of 41I 17/"+Co; 

### administered ll1irly und objCl'tivcly37 

### llc did not conduct his



### inv~oligntion with any



### ··~nod t'nith" or "cwn·hundcd consideration'' ol'tlw

**l~cspondcnt's** 

### position or circumstiu1ccs. lnstcfrd. lnspcc!Or

**I~**

### ushlon rushed tojudgmcnl, and repealeliI y

### expt·csscd wndc11111

### ing j udgmcnts :111d opinions ubnut the Respondent with Dr. L.ong. 1' 

### Inspector Rushton pcrsumkd Dr. l.ong to sh:trc his vililication oi' the Rcspondcrn. and to provide inl(ll'lnation us shaped :tnd directed hy 

### the l't\1\. 

### This is u"p<>lltning" or. or tnmpc•ring with, nwitness. It 

### is dclihcr:udy ulkring and slwping thc·pc:r<:cplions and testimony oi' :1 

### po!Cntial witness to suit one's own goals. Such l!llnpcring ckslt'l>ys the credibility and value ol':my 11:stimony such witness might ol'kr. In shol'l, Inspector Rushton lnmpcrcd with the perceptions. hclil'i's. and lestinwny o!' llt· Long, a lhit'd 

### parly witness. lie ddu·oyl'd both the value ol'

### Dr. Long as u<:rcdihk witness. und :dso demonstrated his own lack of'objectivity unci lttimess. lnspcdor J{ushton's Slntcments. t1S pn.:scrvcd by Dr. Long.

**ur~** 

### prohibited by both 1:;\/\ Order 2150Jil :md the .1\ll/1 MockIRtilcs.'10 

### lns1wclor Rllshtnn's wnduc·t tHll only destroyed Ill'. l.ong's potcnliu! u.s an cvitkntilll'y witr"'"· but il ttlldcnnincd any hcliei'. pcrccplitliL or hope thut the• 1\cspondcnt (or the public) might have had thai the Respondent would he treated lilit'ly itl this P'trlkulm

**(!lnlrc~tncnl pfO(,.'.cs~:**  **11**

**'** Thnn.tgh Inspector Rushton. llw I;A/\·s conduct wus lmpmpcr. 

### harml'uL and should not be cscuscd or minimized.. llanctions should he imposed.

**1** V/iliiL.: lll:i]Wctor Ruslttun did

**oc.~(ISionniJy** ickntil)' due

**proccs~; ~tunJnrds**  ns i1rl''llicahlc- ( Mot.. Lx. .J, Oi.:t. II,


### ..:w ]6, I:27 [1111

**L,'~liHiil c·w~**  !\[So livt' il1 1\tnt,;l'ic;:;l wllwre i'H·:opk nn: il"lllllCl'l11

**~~~·st (lli~lrlkfully)**  !lild tile

**lllll'd~n** pf"pt·uoi" is olt nK

**IHllllwtn'liH~** did nol

**rnk:~mmh:l** or ill\ph::lrl(.;IH tllCS(.'

**sUIJid~lrd."'** in hili

**invcsti~nlion procl'~;s** 

**'~It** i"

**w~ll t~stahlishcd**  tl\;11 such l.:ililduct i." pmllibit!.!d. Alll\UonH::y ;111d l1is starr llHJsi

**vigil~llllly** pmt:tit:-t'

**1\~!,traill(** in !Ill)' ll"ild pmCI!l'tling

**tci~·il** or crilllimd), in Imler to ensun,' hlirm.:ss wthe opposi11g pnrty <llld COUII:lL'I. While <1 c:1sc

**i~**

**pt:ndin.~.** IJt•illiel' a l:lwyl.!r nor ttny

**lll~mbur** ol' his st;d'fshnuld

**"stt1t~** a

**pt;r.~onal** opilllon n.s 10

**tiH.~ justne~s**  {lru

**~:n11.~t.\** tile CtL\libiliry ufil \ViiiW.'.S, !orlthL'. culp;lhility oru

**i.:ivillilig~\IH,"** Motkl

**Rul~s** or Pro

**I~** I C'{llldU<;(I'.. 1.<1(L'). 'I'· Till..'

**A!~t\** 'vlil(,kl Ruk'>

**sp~.~dlh:<d!y** l"t'L'D);l,lli/1,.'.'\ \llld

**di~CU!>S(.'S** tile

**''lllliqu~.-·** d<lllgl'r'i or ilnpropcr

**--·~!l·;.ljudil"ild**

**~lill\:111t'lth"'** rur giJV\j"("jiiHL:I\l PI'DSl!i.,:UWt'.c. and li1L'ir inH•filig.lll\lf:O,, and [l!'ltYid\.'S S])L\:i!k din:t'\1{111 Oil huw (U ;\Vilid

**~11(:11** \.'1"1"111" See. e.g.. Model CPck :l.S, Coi\lt\11..'1\t 6 I ,,r l'\,iltlttk 111 .• ,,\,"l't'\IVI\1 l'l.tt·,,·,·tilltltJ·, .1 111,1·.,·1 111•'1 1. 1:1·-1_,-.j 11

**:~It**

**~1,,.** ,., .. **~,,,,.,ihil11\** 1" ,.,,.,vi-;, 1\';\:-lltldhk

**~·:11'(•"** 111

**IH·:·,~·nl** htilll i.lll' t'l"·· ,111d litII"• id11\l"l"·· .. ,J·.··''·IIt\" 111 •l'->1'' 1.11.,! \I till Ill•." J'lll'""'.liltlr".., ,ll.!iu· l·rulll!llilkill)l. \l\1[11"11!h."l"

**l"'oii;JjttdJ~·Iill** •,l;trl.'!lh:l\1.". L'\t.'tl \1llt"J\ ·qtl"il

**ill'l"-..oJr>.~** .t:·l·ttt•l ttrt,lc-.• ilt, ,11r·,·,·1 ··tlj\1'1 \ i'litlll ttl :!11.' Pl"ti.'.<.::Cl\1(11' ·· :\•[ndcl I{Ilk'> tt!. f'nil."l ( "ttntlll\.'1 L

**"1.,~.** 1.:1111 (1

_,,, A•; llll!0d h: the

**R~.:spot1d~111** (SIIIlP. :'i}.

**!nspL:~.:!or l~usltlun'.~**  rondt:lltnnti{m oi'I]H.'

**R~,;spondt!il!.** (1:--,

**I"C:fl1\~"1:!11~'d** i111li" i.'•lll;dlt.'dllllllllllk<l\ioltl;. Wi\U]d ]J;IVI: also

**inJhtL'IH;~d.** tlYl'l"!iy Wid Silhiilllii\Hily. ;11\!'i!Jll..' (;ht,• in tilL']:!\.!\ 111· t•ISl'l\·]]\'1\' ""ill! wllorn ht.: sllMt.:ll his v·icws or IVIlu

**n~ad** lli:-.

**c~rmtilh** or

**inv..:.stigutiv1~** I..'OIIilllllllit:dtilm:-,, Page 19 of41VII. INITIAL INTI<:RFERENCE WITH

**RI~SI'ONBENT'S** HIGHTTO I>ISCOVEHY

**lh~** 

### Rcspnmknt generally alleged the FilA had

**~ngagcd** 

### in discovery obstruction throughout the J1rocccdings. Although not spc'<:ilic:tlly highlightc'll by the 

### Rcspondcnt inrts Motion. the email records preserved hy llr. 

### Long lind

**produ~:cd** by llw 

### Rcspondc·nt in scrppon 

### of' SllllcliollS :II"' 

### dcnHlllstratcd th,llll1sJ1Uctm Rushton pronllscdlk l.on;t <:cn"in cunlidc·nti>tlity pmtcctions 

### if'he• lwllwd thc 

### FAA, snd 

### :rl.so instructed Dr. Lortg not to t<ilk to, or siH\rc inl'ormation with. the Respondent. As noted cnrlicr. the FAll's inwslig<Jtion began on September 20. ?0 16, and 

### Dt· l.ong '"" interviewed l(n the lirst time by 

### Inspector Rushton on Scplcmhcr 21, 2016. 

### As noted uhuvc. during this critknltime Inspector Rushton was shaping 

### Dr. Long's opinions and perceptions." ;ts well ns promising l<l ''keep" 

### Dr. Long "out" ol'thc proceeding. (IYloL 

### l'.x. 

### J. Oct..\ 2011>. H:21 am 

### e-mail.)

### Although lnspc•ctnr Rushtontcolillcd in2011Jthut he 

### h;td never oiTcrcd any promise· ui' 

### conlldcntiulity to Dr. 

### I

### .ong

**(l~csp,** 

### Lx. 1\.2 ,I(>). 

### the Respondent's 

### 2012 evidence rrom 

### Ur. l.cllt!' dc·mons\nrtes that [ttspcctor Rushton had indeed lllltlk such a rmmisc: l'.vcn il'you signed something. I 

### give you my word ihtll you will be ldt uttl orthis ..I know you don't want to be involved unJ Iwill keep you out orthis!.! Moi..l:x..1, 

### Oct.l2012e-muil. One cl:.ry later, on October 4. 2012. Inspector 1\ushton '"kc·d Ur. 

### Long to "keep all ol'thi' to yoursell'to help us."

**(Mot.l~x**

### ..1. 

### Oct. 4, 2016, 3:3(> pm email.) lie abo 

### told lk l.on8thattlw

**R~spomlent** 

### "do0s not need to know what wo know.'' (!d.) 

### In rc>spnnsc.that sante duy. l)r.

**1.<111~**

1 ' lri'lpcctol'

**){u~;illtm':;** ncwttivt: opi11ions nhtHt! tl1-: 1\-:spnndt:lll nwy h:m.:

**11~.~1..'!1 .~hat\;d**  \Vilh Dr· l.nll;!

**:1~ ";wl~**  ;1.., llh..:ir

**Iii'~(** llil.'l'littg. Itis IHI\l:WOI'\IJy that ii1111JG'diii\C[y ;J!l\..'1' [)!-,

**1,\lll):.).'~;** lirst

**(\)I\Vl'l'~l\tinn** Willi

**illS[K'~'(nt'** i(IP•IHOil <lhlliiii[\L'

**I\,·~[1Lit\lknt** \HI SL:pll'mh,;r 1L 20!(i, lk L(lng

**ask.~d** lnspvctot·lhL'IIltnntn

**t\~\.'Oilllllclld** "t.;Ollh'

**p~·npk·** <II

**Kl-~111>/1** \\'ho Llllild be "gnml HltcnwtivDs" (i.e,. oth<:r th;mthc \{lJspondcnt's

**bu~incssJ whL~I\'**  Dr. l.ong t:ould 1:1hL' !light

**[I,':.SOII~** lll1d IWll[!.ill' 11i.'l nir[liHilt'. (Mot, r-:>i. J. 

### surt. 21' 2016, I:41 pm

**l~lllail,)** Page 20 of41

### cOillitmcd with ln,spcclor Rushton thm he would refuse to speak to the Respondent nhoul the [·'!\;\ 

### inve''ligllliun.'" (Mot. Ex.

### .1, Oct. 4, 2016. J:5J pm e·mail.l Six ((1) 

### dctys lake on October 10, 2012, Inspector Rushlotl sent a 

### Lettn ol' 

### lnwstigatiun ("1.01") 

### to the Respondent, 

### swting thaLL\11 IL'AA
**invcsti~ation** 

### was pending regarding th,· ulkg,·d Sqotcmhcr I

### H. 21112 llighl. (Mot., 

### l'x. C.) 

### This LOI was the Respondent's lit·st notiliealiotl 1ha1 :111 I·/\,\ 

### itwestigutiun hnd ulready commenced, and Lhat the 1\espotldent would need to begin preserving evidence 

### I'm i'utlll'c litigation.'''' 

### Upon receipt ofilK' 

### LOI. the Rcspomknt ullcmptcd to discover and preserve evidence. 11) 

### contacting llr. l.ong and asking lo speak 

### lo him aboul the 1'/\i\'s alkgatiom;. (Mot h ..1. 

### I

### let...1,

**~Ill** 

### 6, J:5] pm e-mail.) Dr,

**Lon~** 

### did not
**re~pomlto** 

### the RcspundenL lnsteud. Dr. Long i'mwardcd the Respondent's email to Inspector Rushton (MoL 

### Ex..1, Oct. 

### 12, 20!6, 

### 9:27am cmuil).

**~111d** 

### rcanlrmcd to Inspector Rushton that he 

### would not spcuk tu the R,•spondcnt. (MnL h. J, 

### Oct. 12. ]()[(,, 'UOam 

### email.) Inspector !(usliton rcspun<.kd immediately. (Mot. lex..I, 

### OcL 12. 20l!J. 10:57 pillc'-mail.l i\ILh<IUgh Inspector Rushtonlirst Lo!d 

### lk Long to 

### "do whatever you need," he thcnur!!cd [Jr. 

### Inn!! "Lo rci11Ciltber" that the Respondent 

### wus gtlilty und ktNW 

### "the lmmn1L'r is abnul to lldl."'(!cl.) ltispcetur 1\ushtun ctKOIII'llgcd lk 

### Long to believe that the Rcspondcnl hml <klihcrutcly c·mlnngcrcd Dr. 

### l..tlng's wil'c 1111d 

### l(lmily. (!d,) 

### The Respondent hut! 

### "played" with "'kty\ll, I),·. 

### l.ong's l'amily, bccuu": the Rcspundcnt WliS greedy <tnd 

### scllish unu 

### guilty, (/d.) 

### This is 

### obout greed, and lt 

### complete lack 

### ui' Cllncern lbr others und

**Slli'~ty** 

### all in the illltrcsts ol'

**makin~** 11 

### huck. lie proved Lo me 

### thut he docon't cure and 

### thut's 

### why he needs 

### to he taken down.

**~** lk I

**.till)!·~** 0nlaill't'nm.b unly add1·ess thL' initi;tl
**ilt\'~,:stlgatiun** pl.!l"i()tl in 2012, I

**lo\~L'YCI-.** it

**:tpp-:<ir~** t'r01n lhl"

**r.:ct~l'** 1\;wrd tilt\\ l)r Long

**11111int~dn(:d hi~**  Jili.·ncL', lllld pmdtltt:d his

**~111<1il enrl\'~pnitlh.'IH:I..'**  11.)1' tlu,·Rt:spond\"11\ in Nm'L'IIIlll..'r

**~0 1.~**  \lilly nllt!r: I)

**th~~ R~:sponth::ntuhwincJ**  :md

**s~.~rv!.!d** Dr

**l.ort~~-** wltllll subpucnct illld rid..
**'t·~** Hlld 2J l)r 1.1

mg hc1d

**C\lll,~Uited** wttllmuluplu atwrnt•ys abDLII whethc1· Ol' ho1v llt: :-;hmild n.:spo11d to till'
**Rt:~if'H>IIdL'Ilt**\ :..llhp1ll'11a. 1 '' Sn'. Illtlw :\Juifl'f' ofHu_l'al .·h-·ioll/(',\' ,\)•.r.. I/!('.

**CI 9QW!JO()~**  I.

**200~** WI. I

**0~2JOJ.** <II '"I (;\pr· 1.\ :!002) (-·!\lthuuglt (I kllc'l' uI'

**!nvL·~l**igatio11 do..;); nllt

**snti~fy** th.: I!mill.\!i<J!1

**p~ri<ld** st:l li.1r1l1 in •19 

### t:S t · _

### Sd(J,\{1! (dI( 7)( (·I ur in 1··1 (' l'Jt

**~** u.·.:o8(d), it

**thlt'~** 110\ll-'y u**r~:-;pondl'tl[** thut PI'L'SL'I"Ving

**l.''vidcnt:~** lllay hL't.:OiliL'
**IWC~'·iS\\t)** ., **{cilil~~-/1}** J/1v

**.\hrlil'~'** (if W{•J"/v. F/\1\ Onkr

**~ll, ll7~2(!**  ;_11

**H~ J**  (Muy 23, ]l)lJ7)) Page 21 or41**lnsp~ctor** 

### Rushton.also subtly warned Dr. l..ong thnt there could he negative c·onscquenccs i

## rDr. Long spoke to the 

### Respondent: 

### Do whnl you want 

### ;md Idon'tcarc. hut Wtdcrstnnd this, this 

### is not his tlrst rodeo. II'he wulks he will do thi., ng<tin 

### to so111cbody clsejust like you. 

### ld Thi1·tccn1 U) 

### minute:< later. inspector Rushton

**s~ntu** 

### second email to Dr.

**l.on~.** 

### assL'rti11g that he wus 

### ·jrtst trying to P''olcct'' lk l..ong and **~Y<.'I)'onc** 

### else. lie thc•n chaructcri;cd the Respondent 

### ns aguilty pnrty who 

### was "careless. disrcspccllttl illlu **scll~ccntcrcd"** 

### nnd "calculmcd ;md 

### dcccitl'rtl." !Mot.. l:x.

### .I. Oct. 12.2016, 

### II:IOpmenwil) The tll'xtday llr. l.ong cmnihl lnspcctm l<.ushton and ussured him: "Wc·'rc oil L'tlol. ltotnlly ngrec with c·wrything in _\'lllll' 

### emails and vnicemniL"'11 

### (Mot.. 

### Ex.

### .1. ()(:\. 1.\2016.6:

### iJ pm et11ail). 

### As **dcmon~tratcd** by 

### Dr. ljmg'spreserved rcctmls, Inspector 

### Rushton interl'ercd with tl1c Respondent"s right 

### wdiscovery during the initial investigation. 

### Ik prc•cludcd 

### the RespumiL•nt l'rul\\ 

### nbtuining evidence 

### by ndvising lk l.nng 111 keep 

### his pntc•ntial tcstinwny ubllttl the ltcspondcnt secret (Mot.

**II~** Ex..I, 

### Oct. 4, 201(>, **~:]6amcmuil).und** 

### successt(illy pcrsunding Ih. I

**.on~** tn 

### i"Ci'usc to 

### spcuk to the Ftespnndcnl. (hi.) lu uddili<>ll to the direct hann cuuscd lo the Respondent in this l'urticular c:,c. lnspc·r:tnr Jtushtou's conduct is in direct conllict with the 1:1\;\ 

### 1\dministrutor's published go<.ds <>1' l'"imc" li>r the civil penalty **cnl~lrccml'IH** 

### progra111. 'Tlw 1 7

### 1\A in this case has !'ailed to ubide by tl1c 1\mdamcntal cnnccpl. wcll-estnhli,;hctl in 1\mcrkanjurisprudcncc that an accu,;cd person is innuccllluntil pruvcnr>tltet·wisc. and thm such pcrwn has the right ol'accc·ss to discowry. litis collccpt

**w~ts** 

### not Dilly <tdoptcd 

### by the 

### FAA /\dminislmtor whell he cstublislwd the sal'cty

1 '·' **1\·~.:•itlwr** !nsp1 .Til1f **Ru~hiOI\llO!'** Lk Lortg h'pl u **t~lcplwnc n.:~urd**  log **n:g~mling** hiS)Wi..'\01' l{LI4;hlil!1-S vokl,'lnail

**!llt'c;~clg~.** !t

**lllli~\** ht: pn·:;liiHcd. on **bt:hull'ofth~.·** RL's)hmdcllL thutllil' vnil'enwil
**llll':,sa~ .t:**  <:onl<dm:d
**.~intiltu** rUI1lkillll(l(ioll:.: ort!w **l<t:'~pnitdL'nl** <llld \VOrllil1.l:',S ll[)(Jllli.:Oillilllillil'mill):,!. with till.' **Rc:~pllll(l(,.!l\l** Page 22 of41mli>l-ccrncnt program and

**~rcutcd** ito guidclinco, it is ctlso corlilled in both F.!\1\ Ot'tb 21 'i0..1ll 

### ami in the Af.li\ Model 

### Rule.1.51 Sanctions should 

### be imposed. 

### VIII. ALLEGATIO:>O OF PHYSICAL EVWENCIC DESTRUCTION The Respondent's alkg<ttion oJ'physical evidence destruction·'' spnns hoth tlw

**initi~li** invc•stigatinn time period (Scptcrnbcr 20, 2012- Mw·ch 7. 2013) and the cnli>rccntcnl uction time pc·t·iml 

### IMarch 

### 8. 201.1 Decemher 

### 4. 20 14) In its Motion. the Respondent :dlcged that the 1'/\i\ cbtruycd rclc:vaur documc:ntat·y evidence whcnlnspcetur

**l~ushton** Ltikd to prc·scTI'c' his

**c·m<~il** e<>llllllllllkutions with Dr. l.ong, which inclucled (but is not limited to) ettrlicr witness slatctnc•nrs provided by Dr. 

### l.ong. In rcsponsc. till' Fi\1\ aeknowkdged tlwilnspcctor 1\t•shtonlwd

**ckstruy~d** :md/ur lust ccrwin.:lcctt·oni<: inwstigutive mutcriul, induding all(or most) oi'Inspector

**l~ttshton's c~mail**  corn:spundencc with IJr. Long. (Resp. 2). The 1';\i\ llrst urgucd that Inspector Rushton's c·-rmril l't)nlll1LII1ications wt..:rc- not rc!evanL nnd so

**th~ir** destruction ur lo;-;s was not

**rdcv~ml.** ;\ltcrmrtivcly. the 1';\i\ argued lh<tl even
**ii'lnsr~clor** Hushton's **~-muilcotnmunicutions** werL'

**n.:l~JVUJJllo** the cn:->l.', thcil'

**d~struction** wn;-; inadVL'l"lL'nt. J\s

**p~lrloJ'this m~~umcnt.**  **Jnsp~,.•ctnr** Rushton tcstilicd that k had routinely und pcriodicully deleted electronic in/'urmation !'rum his locul computeT dmubltSc hcl(tt·clw transli:rred to the 1·!\,\

### 's Lknver, Colorndo l'ield 

### Ol'llcc in the "l<rll ol'201:l" hccHUsc oi'sizc' limits. (Resp. h. i\.

**I~~** 4 I lie th()ltght k 

### hud Sltwd :dl "relcvunt" material.

**(l~csp, l~x** . . !\.). The F;\i\ <tt'gued that no sunctions should lw irnposctl. because

**th~** cklclion ol'theelectronic cvicknC\' hud been routine and inadvertent. !\, 

### FAA's Goul

**~** 

### Prc.lcrv•1tion of'l{clc\'mlt 

### Evidrncc 1\ccording to the 1'1\i\

### 's ptlhlishc•d cnl(m:emcnt

**guidelin~s,** when usnl'ety cnli.H'ccment 'tcltnn is initiuted_ the· 1:/\.i\ ni'lke cnnducttng the• investigation "obtains an l·:ni(H-ccrnent

.,, Sr'r'. :'.,v.. Mod(.'IH.uks ,d'Prn!"l CoildtK'( 1'. J.H l.'IIH. ("jlj \ f1itt'-L'i-ltl•tr· lr,:·- 1111

**I~"·IWII·.Ii'l:ll\** ul ,r ll!dlr·.tr·r ••I ,11 .]1, 1· ,J 1d '•••i .,iftlj•h lllol 111 ,1;1 .idlrtt';llr.' llrt-. r·nj1<1TI'il•ilil\ l.'iiiTIL''·, \I rllr II '•I'L'l ;(r,

**"1 1:~**  ,rltilfi•• It• -,,_.l •:rlillrt d·.'k:i(Lill! h .il'lrll"•.ktllliiH ,-dilr·,JI Jll\lill' 1'

**ll1i.~** (lL'l'll'iilliOII

**o/\I(:~(I'U)'l'd** lll<idl't11.:l'

**i~i oJh~11**  rd\:nct.J \0

**!\~** ",tpoliatiOil"

**ol\•vid~m-c**..1<1) f. (il\'l!ig &

**.I~Jfr~_\'** S Kir1skr', /-n/r'/'!1/ (·;,.;; Oir·r,tril'\'/:1· Ill/(//)f,yc/w·/1/'l'.

**~** 16: I (.ld

**~:d.** 1015). Poge 23 of 41

### lnvcslig,alivc' l<cport" ("EIR"), 

### which "initiates" the !CIS 

### dui<lhnsc rceol'd; 1 

### lin· the cllsc. (1-i\i\ 

### Order 2150.3Lt 

### Cilnptcr 'JJ(u),) The EIR is the critical "ntcans l'or documenting, usscmhling, organiring, and JWcscnting all evidence und other relevant inlbrmation obtained during un 

### invcstigmion." 

### Flit\ Ordct· :> 151UB, 

### Chuptcr g,l. An l'i\1\ 

### investigator is required to "guther 

### u/1 nw1crial. relevant t'Vidcnw that either prowsor dispn>vcs the ptllcntial violati<>lt." 1:111\ 

### Order 

### 2151JJll. Chapter 4.2(ii). Ptn·suunt 10 l"i\/1 

### Ortb2150Jil. tlw IJR is typically opcnc•Li wilh111 

### 72 hours l'n>111 the <l:11c the violution hccOII1c'S known. 

### i/d. ill 4.2(a). IThcl\'itlkr. dutt1 cntt·ics in" civil pcn,tlly dcliPn "IIlllS\ be mmJc willtin 4H homs oi'

**lit~** 

### oceUITencc ol'tite

**~vcm"** 

### (/d. ill 

### '!Jib)). ilnu llli\lll!Uincd I ill' aminimum period ol'liw

### (51

**y~ur>** 

### alkr the civil pclwlty has been paid (or 

### waived). Fi\A 

### Ortkr 2150 

### .11l. C'huplet· 2. IO(b)(2). 

### In addition. dming all

**phuse~ oi'th~**  

### investigution, the 1:/\i\ i

### 11vesti!!lilot· is supposed to cxer·cise '\;ommon sense lind g11od

### .iudgnwol." (I i\i\ 

### Ordc'l' ::> 

### I511..1ll. C'lwpler 4. 1.1 

### ll. !'reservation 

### Even Before Form:tl Litigation ConmH'nccs 

### The [.'/\1\·s prc.sct'vation guidelines during the initiul investigation. ciS outlim•d in 1:1\;\ 

### Order 2

### I50.]l.l. i'olluws wcll·estublished I i1

i gcttion j1l'l1CIicc: l'hL' duty tu

**prc~L'I-VI..' cddl'nc<.,.~**  m:1y

**<~ltut.:ll** V\'L'll

**hcr\Jr~.:** <lctuul

**!iti)i~llion lw~;** 

**~:tl1111l'IL'1lt:\:d.** ··()1\l.:l' (I p;lrty I'C:i1Sil!Wh!y **il!llici!IUI~'';** IJlitt.<lliOil, il !!lUSt :-:lt-qwnd it,-, mtJili\C dtlUIIllL'Ill **n~tvnthrJli'dl'.lill'ttL'lion polic~**  ilml put ill

**pla~.·t.:** n ·]ilitJ<Ilitrn Illlid' 1,1 r.,:n:-.un..: th\.'
**]11\.'~"''l'V:Itinn** nl·t·('k'\

**~till dn~,.:tltl1L**  **1ll..;.··** lt-

**~~** pur!y

**~~~h..'S** IHll put in pl:tL'L' :1

**"ll!i~~~tinn** hold." !he\

**ri~l~ ~tiiH.:tiPI\,..,**  ii';tll\'

**~..·kclHHiil' 1,_'\'idvn~·v**  **r~.:h..·,·~rlll** \(1 lh-..·

**~·** 

# . ' 

### litigulll\ll i.N deleted <1r ckstr·ov,·d som"ti'm" c:1c11 vvitlll>lrl culpllhtlil). I:.'.

### I> .\111..I

### 111. I 'rtH

### lI<li' I:KIs .1cl I I Origi 11<1IIy 

### puhii sited i11 

### 2111 2) (/'lll>lnotc· 0111i I teLlI. l'hi,, reqllirc'lltcnl i<>rllrcs,:rvatilln c111d di"·lnstll\: ol'cvickncc "!ipplic·s to all [10ientinlh 1\'h 11111 

### ilc"I]JS" kt\llWI1 \U i1 r:tl'(), 

### "11llelhe1 ll\' 11lll Sllfljllll'lilc o[' itS cOnltlllit\llei inihtc

**C~lSC:**

### .. ,1;1\

,, llilrsll:1111 ((1 

### r1\ i\ ()rtki' J

**I.~()J** IL CIHlj)ll'l' l).I <IIHI 2(ll), lhC' 1-'(\ !\'s l·:n for'cL'nl!.:lll Inl{ll'll1;1lion S;r.;ll'IH ("I·:

**I~·** ) /:, :Ill :ILIIUI11Likd. ''IWliOilWid..:" il11'nnmHinrll11il!lfl,I.!.VIlll'JI[

**-~)·\ll!lll.** It i'i lhL' [.'/\!\\ "j)l'illlill')' dillilhi\"il,.'" i'ur'
**''[I'H\'hin~** 11\l'ol'\ll\llioll tlboul \..'II
**r()I'L'L'Il1~11l** iH.:l

**illll~."** ill. i\!! h\(\ nrgollli/.al iuns IHIV(' <ll"l;\,!;,) Ill IilL' I:,Is (,_. 1\!\ ()nkr2I)0..11t Clr:1pH.'I-

**~)_** 2(d)). ;\II I;!\i\ u

**llkr;~** ''tiHI\ lwYt; n . **.-glililt~lry l'l~spon"-ibilil**  ics·· IllliS\ 1.1:-ic tilt' I:1,'..; dnt;, r·ccord

**~~'L'f1illg** :-1)'1\L'II), (/tf. (\\

**~~.(11),)** I'age 24 of 41I. I irc'lll8 & .k:i'li\'1 ·'· Kinskt, (ed•wl i '11 il

# /),,,,,.,.,'! und lli>clos/1/'l',

**~** I: 1.)

**I(~:** I Ilei 

### eel

**~Ill:')** it t.:<ll1110(

**h~..: U\'l'I'L.:tnphusi;.~Jd**  tlwl ony Wl'iling or otht!r muflerrelating lo o r.;asi.', whieh is 

### either in the possession or control

# oran adversary, is subject to disdosurc. The type ormatcrittl subject to prcscrvati,>n and disclosure ·'must be lihcrally con.mucd." 27 CJ.S, 

### 2d

**~** 

### 104 (201 I1. l'hi.s obligation ol'u puny to preserve and disclose whal it bus under its conlrul h "h<lscd 1>11 

### andcnt principle> of'equity.'' and is imcndcd to nssist in the li1ir administwli<lll ol'juslicc ld 

### C. ()id thr FA!\ fall tn 

### prcscrvr relevant documentary evidence'' YES. !lased Oil 

### the 1-'i\i\

### 's published record-keeping gUidelines. the 

### 1:11< dilliib(\Sl' l(>r this Cl"L' 

### sll(ltrld htiW been opened (iit the latest) within 72 hours ol' Septemkr 20. :'0I},

**lh~rct~licr.** 

### Inspector Rushton should have uploaded his notes, cn1ail communicutiortt;, witnc" sl:ttemcllts. and other evi1kntiw·y uocumcntution into the I:IR within 4H hours ul\cr· crwaging in an) inl'cstig<>tivc actiOilllltthe case. This incl\tdcs uny invcstig<llivc eonHnunications with Dr. Long or nthcr rmcntiul witnesses. liowcvcr, in i11l' inst:.rnl cosc. this did not happen, lllll'illt; the May :i. 211 

### I(, rvloti1111 l'llilll:rcncc the 1'1\;\ llrully csplaincd thut inuctuul pmcticc. the 1:;\i\ 

### held Oi'licc docs llllt wili;.c 

### ilw I 1

### 1R system Instead, it opens nn Investigative l'ile ("llik''), into whid1 an inspector' who is nnt :1 

### luwycr ·· determines whut qualilks as ··relevant" evidence to prcscrw in the 11-'ilc· l(llltnur'l'litistllion 

### (Muy 5. 20l!•lr, )1:15-IH.I This !File is tlwn poLcntially rcvkwcd by multipk Fi\i\

**~mploy~cs** 

### (uni1kntilicdl !Juring the investigation ot• review process. documents might be atldcd to, or sci<:cliwly

**d~ktcd** 

### !'rom, tlwll'iie. If'the case i:; ultimately

**1·el~ned** 

### to I'Ai\ counseii\H' 1\wmul civil penalty cnl'ureemcnt :tctiotl, ascpatLJIC Lnl<lrccmerlt lnvesligativc Rc•pot'l ("I·:IR")is opened. Jhis scpmiltc l·:llz. which is utili/,cd by counsl'i during the ttdjudicntitHI phase oi' lhe case". rnight (<ll' 

### rnight noll include: all oi'thc preserved ll;ik rnatc•rial. (rvluy 5, 201(> Tr

**4'!:~.-:'2.)** Page 25 of 41**lh~** r:i\1\ 

### lttrthcr orally explained Juring the May 

### 5. 2016 Motion Coni'erctwc that the· 1·;\i\ 

### counsel did not exercise owt·sight

**rcg~mling** 

### whut evidence was prcscrwd hy 

### the l:il'ld

**Ol'lic~** 

### investigators:'" Thus. il'

**lnsp~ctor** 

### Rushton dill not gather

**~111d** 

### prcsct·vc "all c1·icknec ;md other relevant inl'ormation obtu

### incd dlll'ing an 

### invcstigalion" (Fi\ i\ 

### Ordct· 2150.3

### ll. C

### haptcr H. 

### I1. 

### the 1·'/\/\ 

### counsel would he unawnrc 

### ofsuch ornission. (May 5, 20 IGTr. 'i2: 1·1 H.) 

### Inspector i<ushton conllrmcd this when he cxpluincd why he didn't inltncdintcly tell!:/\/\ counsel uhout the missing e-mail cvidenc:c: H. 

### On August 24. 2015 

### attorney Stevenson sctltme an e-mail

**~tsking** 

### il' Iltud documents trnthis cusc (other thun what was in the 

### EIRL I calkd him and told him ihlll 

### Idid ntll hnw w1y 

### docctlllctlls. Itold him this hccnuse Idid not haw any 

### documcIllS. 

### In the instunt case. Inspector Rushton mninwincd multiple 

### c·tnails scpumtcly otr his nlllcc ctrmputer. (Rcsp. 

### 2.) lk "routinely 

### deleted" cmails, making "hard copies·· only ui'tltttse cmails he determined to 

### be "signillcnnt'' in the investigation. 

### (hi.) In response to the 1:!\i\ 

### counsel's inquiry al'ler the Respondcntlilcd its Molion,lnspect.or Rushton testified tiUii 

### he thought he hnd

**s~tvcd** 

### all the "rclcvnnt" eon·rmtltti<:ations l'rum Dr. I

**,on~;.** 

### tlowcvcr. lnspcl'llll' Rushtutt crcknowlcdgcd that he 

### 111ny have mistakenly not st1ved sonte ol' the "n;kv;lltt"

**c·me~ils** 

### he cxchungcd v,ith lk I.ong.'17 

### lie thought he ll()d printed n11t those· c-mnils and s<twd thc·nr. huti1l' '""nut sure whnt had happened and why they WCI'c 

### not in the Field Ol'lkc's IFile•. 

### (Resp,

**1'.~·** !\. :' 1: 

### Ill.I i\nwng othc1· urgumcnts. the 1'/\i\

**u~sertcd** 

### that Inspector Rushton's destruction or evidence was pnrt ol'u routine deletion. bccnusc oi'cmnil storage limiwtions with an old cunrputcr progntm. !'his argument hy the F!\i\ w:1s unpcrsuasivc. 

# __.. ,

# _____ _

,,, l'his

**int~.:nt;\1 di:-;~:ont\~.:Ct**  lWl\NI..'I..'Il FAA

**coun:-;~1** :1ml tilL• FAA inwstigativc st:d'ri·1Pf1L::ll':·; Ill

**dl'vi<~te** fh1111 tn'ol1tllll.'lllkd prnctit;t: in

**l~1ir** advi.!I'SHI'ial

**pt·oc~:l.'dinp.** Sc-l',

**(.:.~**... i\·11hk·l 1\JiiD ili'Prtln ( Di\\luLlt-

**~** s. ,.,,,1 r, .II lei I I' >ill •I d ,·

**IIi~** 1\0il'\\i\l'lh\· th111 ltt:iHlc:r lnsp\:Uur g\IShtun nor f-'1\A

**cuutl~l'l \:v~·~·**  "Pl'l:ilkd which. tl'cltl). uf I)r. I

**.\llr~·,** Jlrl'Sl!I"Vl.'d <:tlwil:.;.lllSfK'l'ltlt' 1\ushtotllhtlltghl

**h~~** hml

**!:it\V~cl** m; "i'l.•kvunl" 10 the L'<ISl'. Page 26 of 41

### ;\II parties to the liligation arc required to prcserw, .. cvidcncc.llwrcrorc ... once the plaintiiThali access to the rclcvnnt inl(mnation, the plaintil'!'nccds to tukc alfmnutiVL' steps to prcscrw the inllll'lmtinnand cannot hlumc the dcl'endcmt il' it is tkslroycd. 12(, 

### i\111. Jur. 1\oo!'ol'l:acls 

### .Jd I(Otiginally publislwd in 

### 20121 The FAA lwd the rcsponsibility..iust a,s the rcopondcnl 

### has during the investigation plHisc,, l<lprcsci'Yc relevant datt\ 1(11· litigation. In the !vlallcr o(Roya/!lviot1il's Svs.. fm . 

### C:l'9'JWI'IIII21. 

### 211112 WI. 

### 1114

### 2.10.\. at •3(1:./1

### A /\pt. 15, 

### 20m)(·· 1\

### ltlmuglJ ct letter nI' i nvcstigali1>n docs not "'ti,ly the limiwtitlll period sctl(ll'lh in 49 lJ.S.C.

**~** 

### 46JO I(d)(7)(C) or in 14 C'.l:.R

**~** 

### l.\.20Hidi. it dues notili• arcspondcntthut preserving evidence may
**b~comc n~ccssury"'**  

### citing In the Mulier ufiValc, J:AA 

### Order No. 97-20 at

**~-9** 

### (May 2.1. I91 )71) 

### The l·'i\.1\ 

### has a variety oi'uptions cll\(1 The Fi\i\ also mgucJ that the Jcstmyed e-mails were not relevant. bccmtse they did ll<ll

**dirc~ctly** 

### prove o1· disprove the allcgutions against the Respondent. This argunwnt was also not

**pcr~un:-;ivl:.** 

### Jn !ilignlinn.
**"1\~k\.:tllcc··** 

### is hroudl)
**tOil~lntnL** 11 

### ts
**~tll~·Jllitlg.** lll:ll 

### "lw-.. ill I} lt.:ndo..·lh.'\ 

### Ill lllakc• 111:1ct iliOI'c' ill' 

### lc.ss [ll't>h:thlc." Ieel IC lvid. 41il(u). II is

**illl)'lilill~.** 

### 111i11 "ts

### Pl'cnll''·''ctllc'lic'c i11 cktcrmini11g the 11\:ticllt." !d. 

### nt41ll(h). l{c·kvctlll evickiKC <tlso int:ludcs "hac:kgrtltll\d.. inlllt'llllttion.

**whi~h** IIHI)' hl. .'lp und... ·1·:-.·t<u1d dispUtL·d ISSU\.','t. (/d,. 1\dvi.'HII)' Cotnm!Ht..'C Noli.-'.'>, \lJ72

**llt·tqw~~o..'d l~uksl.**  **link·~;:-, (lLh~..•r\vL..;t,.'**  liml!L·d

**h~·** cnUI"I <lttkr. !ho..·

**:~L'\\1"~<..'** 111\Ji..;cn\l,'l'! indttd.._·:-;

**;lll~** lhlii"J11'1\

**ik~L·d m~tlh**  ..'l' th;lt is I'L'lc\:tnll\1 ciO) pill'!}·.,

**~.:l:lim** 1\1- **tkl'~..·lt"i~.** 1·4 l'.l .1<.

**~** 1

**·~.~.~!)(~,.·)·** 'l't' "lw 

### Ic·tl. I( Ci 1. 

### 1'. :;tJI

### h)( I). II' 1 hl'l'c i.s .':!IIlli' 

### lo!,:icui Wlllll'Cl i1111. 

### ci

### tltc1· dirc·ctl,l I!

### I' 1'1 i1\"'ICI\lc h\.'1\\'VL'Il thL• **t•vid~lll_·t..:** untl :.1 i"ltL"I 1\) hL: )lrD\'Ci.l. tlw L:\'idL'IlCL' !s 1\.'k\;ttl!. St'!T Uuy1l\·

**/u_~** ( o 1 1/rlll/11. 

# X'·' S,\\'.ld HI(> X:'2 i 

### lc.s./lt'IL..Jl;rll:LS 1'!'>:\, II<' 

### 11Tirl. 1,-\ !n:ul\1..' \\ ho :n1tiLiputcs 1K·ing ;1 pllrl_) \II' is :1 pmty 111 (l l:t\\:-Pllil llllt'>l IH\1 di..'\11"\l} 

### lllliquc. rck1:1nt cvidciH'l' tlttJttllighl he usc'i'ul1o il\1 

### ticl\·,·r><lr). While cr li11l::rnt I> tllH.k·t· tHl duty lP 

### k'-.\.:p Ill' t\.'t;lin U\'L'l')' dnl'Uilll'lll in it.'-1 **pns~(..'.'.siun.** . il

**i:--~ un~k:r**  il dllly 

### w
**prL'~-~.:rvt:.'** '\"ll:tt 

### it knov-.:--;, m t'i..'iJ.-;unahly

**:~lmuld** knm\, i:-: rclt·v:mt in

**lh~.-·** :tL'IiPtt 

### i-.

**!\':1.\~l!Whl) C~lil'Uhtkd**  l\l h.':H\[u \)h.: diSl'(.)\l'l) u(
**Hdlllh~..;ihk** L'ViliL:"IIL:l'.

**I~** t·,::t.,lnwhl: likL·I: tn h:

**l'L'Lj\H:;~\cd** during dl:u:c(lVt.:r\ und/1)1" is \lh:

**:.-uh·l~l'L** nl· u

**j"'ll..-'lldill~ di!iCU\-'CI·~:**  I'L'\,.]liL';;\, Page 27 of41Thtl'-.**~Hl)'** I 1\i\**L'~l11tJil** COlll!lHIIlication:-; wilh ;1**pllklltialwitn~::-;~**.. \\hil:h Jn\td\1..'**<Ill~ \IJ:-.clJ~-.:ioll.**  i11quiry ..**~Wil'lllL"I'll.** (ll' rcspnllsl.' 1\ .. 

### •gw·ding IilL'**ill\'L';..;tig~l!iun** !lt·thL'**p~.,:opk** 

### im\ll\'1..-'d 111 till·**in\\.'"ili~alion.** i:-; rl'k\·unl und :.;huuld hL' prcwn'!...'<.L This dttl)**oJ'prcsL'I'\'~ltiun** i. ..; pHr!icularl: 

### illll'"l'i:nll 11hcn 

### the**individu:~l** 

### tnskcd ''it.h l<rl'S''I"\ ing 1111: c\·idc'tle\' i·: ncitlwr**e~** 

### I:J\\ \clll<tr**k~:dh tr~.1iJIL'd** **louttdcr~tUJllilhL'** hl'llnd**.~t;opc l.l!'cvid~11liury** **'~du~.:** (holh ill(.:\llplll<ll') dllliL'\L'til[l<!\nr:) 

### that <Hl,\'**~m·h ~:omlllllllkutiun~** **mi~ht** 

### lwlll. l!**i~** 

### t:ritkal 111**)'JI'l'Sl'l'V~** 

### :;uch t.•vilil'l1l'l.! 

### l(q·**litig~lli(li'\.** V"[X't'i:lily \\IK·n 1111**(lppo~lng** purty might scL'k to mldn.:ss !lw**111\ltiv~Jiion.'-'. pol~.:nlinl**  hia.-.;. ;llld,..nt· LJ'L•dihilit.' u\':1 potL'Jlliul \\,..itlll'S,'1. 

### This prl:SGl'YLltlon rcspo11sibilily is tl**~;;ornursllHil]** o!'ourjudicial 

### system. whose goal is to lind the lntth through hotwsl and orderly production oJ'c,·idcncc umkr csl:tblished discovery rules. <Jrenig &Kinskr. supm.**~** 

### I: II.**lti.'I'C:ct<~r** 

### l<uslitlitl·s liid oi'tt'<llllitlt' i.s c"lidct\1 whcll he slltk'.s th:tt h,· didtl t ,.,.,tlt;c 

### ltts nllil!ipk·**<~ml :..;uh:,t~ltlti\~.,** **1** \,>lll(li! i..'OI1111HIIlic:.t!i\!llS \Yith IJr. ),(lilt}. 111ihdll**h~..·** 1111por1nn1: 

### Ictnnol he sure oi'what actually llltppcncd, hul :tithe time' Ideklcd these emuils. {II'Ohohl,r• 

### vilhvrdidnolrcali:e /needed /o 

### ki'<'J' !hem, or ilwughl Ihad £:Iready primed them oul. and tlwn (kicted I hem notreulizing that there was'"' hardcoi'Y· lksp.. All. A. Dcdaralion ol' Yancey Ruston, 2,1110 (it:.tlics added),) 'i. 

### Ihave reviewed t.he ponions oi'tlw emails between Dr. I.ong and Ithat arc printed in I he •·;vtotion lhr Sanctions." Idid not inclt."k those o·mnils ns ltc:111s orPmol"in I he EIR hccausc, in myjudgment. I he -··nutils where• ICltCliUntg,· 

### llr. l.ong to tell the whole truth uhout the llight didn't prove or dispi'Ovc c:nything £thoutthc case". nnd Dr. Long"s tnilial wnltc•n .statctlwnt W<.i' 

### inclllnpklc**~111d** 

### duplicntiw ofhis more complele. l<tlcr written stulcmcnl. We do noIinclude every singk e·tiH:il exchange os Items ol' l'rooi'inuur !,:IRs, only those ih:tt add somclhittg to the evidence. !11 tiJ'' instlltll "'"'· givtnthc evidence ,,ubmilted, this ('ourttm:sl lind thai lns11cctor Rushllln sdccliwly prcscrn:d in llw !File only nwlcriul thul strengthened lhc case he WitS pttt'stttng**<~guinsl** 

### the Rcsponcknt aud lhnl he believed 

### "'seemed important" to the F;\A"s rrooi't>l'**~.!! ~~~ISl'd**  l'll1lii..' r't:(,'nrd, I! i:, unknown wlloH l.:!·nwil cotl!lllUilirlllions (if;tnyl lilspeL'tor· Ru-.;hltlllldtint;J(c!y did**pr~·~t:I'V\..'** ;u1d**iltdud~..·** in Ihe F.!H :1s "t·elt,·vllllt' rmlt.:riid, Page 28 of41

### ilw cusc, (l<csp. 

### h A. I

## 1i 2.) Thus, Inspector J(ushton l(likd In i(kntil'y ond preserve ellIrcicv<llll 

### cvidc·ncc, particularly exculpatory or background inl(mnutinn thntmight h11vc been hclpl'ul 

### wthe nppnsing side.

**,)'~c.** 

### e.g,. ABA Model Code Ruks JA 

### and 5.3. Tlwrelbrc. it must be 

### aS>umcd on hchnli'oi'lhc l{cspnndcnl·--lhc disadvnntngcd pal'ly !hill Inspector 1\uslllnnmny hnvc sckctiwly withheld other· relevant invcstigntiw ini(H'IllHiion l'romthc J·:m us well. which is still unknown or which may never be recovered. Sunetions should be imposed. IX, ALLEGATION OF DISCOYEHY OHSTIHICTIOI'\ 

### l'k Respnmlenl's ullegalion oi'discovcry ohsu'rlctinn occurs during the i'orrnal adjudication time period (December 5, 2014-- prescnl), In its Motion. the l{c:ipnndent

**allq~cd** 

### thutthc "behavior tmd wnduc:l"

**ol'th~** 

### Fi\/1 counsel "cnmplctcly compmrnisc'd the intcgriry of' the cusc'." tMot.. II.) i\s pun ol'thc support 1(11' lhio <rikg:ttion, the Respondenii(JCuscd <111 

### e-mail corn;spondcncc'. preserved hy l.k Long, in which the 1:1\A counsel initially bkrmcd the Respondent l(>r :r delay in the discovery process, inferred wmngdoing hy I he Rcsp(111dcnl in oht:rining tire subpoena. and advised llr. I.ung to 

### consider how he 111iglit avoid disclosinL< inl[lrmation rc:qucstcd by tk Respondent's subpocn;r, 1:orcxampk, 011 

### August 21, 2015. the 1:/\A allorncy notilied llr. l.ong viu c-muil th:.rt cvm though discovery "technically ends todny" the parties were going to continue lo "provide· cachother with inl\mnalion past the close ordi scovct'y." (VIot.. l·:x. M, August 2

### L 201 (> 4: I0 pill c·-nr<ril.l ,1\,s p<rrt ul'tili, e-mail nolilkarion. the 1';\;\ :ulorncy spccilic:rlly l'itullccl lhc Rcspundctll 1\>r this dclayutl ami ongoing discovery exchange, (hi.) 

### llowcvct'. as the record in thi:; c<roc' rcllects, this l':nrll-11rllling of'the

**R~splllldcnl** 

### w:rs not :rcc:Linrtc('" nor w<rs itneccss:rry. 1\ppmxirnatcly nne month lutct·, on Scptcmhct· 11. 

## :w15. IIW 1:!\,A, 

### lieuring Docket l'lc1t 

### pr\>jlcriy issued aCivil l'en1rlty Suhpocmrto lk

**Lon~S** 

### at rhc Rcsponcknt's request pursu:rnl lo 

### 14

''1

'Tlw n.:col·d dl'llWilSli'<!H:.S that

**~IJOrtly** allcl' the 1:1\1\ Sl.'lll

**it~ !\ugu~t!**  I' 2016 \!llllliL this CotII'\ l'Ulllld 111!11 hntll p:tnit..'S il<ld 11liiiU<Iily

**<lhl\lldon~..:d** thl' April 7. :WI) ()nkl'

**S~ttill!f.** I.itigtltiUil I)/Ill'<; and PrncL'dllfC:- '.Chedull' rur p.cr·ipd (li'liiiiL' l'lw r(,'cord nl)lu

**d~lllOil:-ilnlti.'S** tlwl prhw

**1~1** the F!\1\'s 1\i.IJltiSI 21. ]0

**I~** l'umnlli,l i)r. l.llrt!:;'. tl11.'

**i{l.'~pnrldL'III** 11ud hJ,'I'Yt.'d n.'sjWIISl's to \hi,' 1·';\;\

**'~** tllllltipk

**discov~·ry n.:qul~S\~**  1111 July IJ.

**~0 I~,**  **/\ti~Ui~t** I. 2015. <JJHl 1\ugu-;1 I(),

**~~DI** ). lltl>'t-evct·.

**<l~** tll'

**A1rgtt~l** 2I, 1015, it wns the FAA who slilllHtli 1wt

**y~tn:spondc:J** ltl tlw

**HL·spntHknl'~** /\pi il

**~!L** 101 ;J

**db~.:ov~ry** !'cqucsts. See,

**((.J~., S~ptL'IIlber**  I,

## :w 15 ()rJl·r lJrntttlng

**th~;** :VIc.llion to 1\. llWI\ll. CoJttim1lng till.' t\'nvl'l\lhl'l' ?.0 I:'ll!ew·i11g lll S<.:ptumlJer 20 I6. :111d (}J·;mtlnl:', Other

**l~clicC** Page 29 of 41C. I...**H.~** I

**J.12.~(i1).** 

### This Subpoena included nRide,·, requesting Dr. I

### ,ong t<l produce l·m the Respondent all rckvanl documcnwlion in his posscsoion. (Mot.. 

### Lx. II.) 

### Tlw subpocnu did nut provide a spc•cilk date li.ll' Dr, Long to 

### respond to the Ridcl'. (/d.) 

### Seven (7) 

### days later. on September 30.2016. the 1:!\A 

### unor11ey ini1iated contact (via c

### nwi\J directly with llr.l.ong. In this Scpt.cmbcr30. 201fl e-mail, the J:A;\ lltlonwy notit'1cd !Jr 

### Long that ihc Respondent had requested 

### asubpoena. The 

### I'A;\ attorney then opined thuttlic 1\cspondcnt was acting improperly in seeking the subpoena. The 

### FAA anorncy recommended to lk l.ong that he and/or 

### hi.s attorney might look i'or wnys touvoid answering the· subpoena 1111 

### llliillipic )!.I'Ollnds: 11: and whotr you receive such a

### subpoen:r, please eomactmc (or 

### huve yOI.II' attomcy 

### conw<:t me). 

### The requests appear to he 

### imprupcr in wlwk or in pnl'l. in that we me past the point in this litigation whe-re IWW discovery n.:qucsts hnw hec•rrmuclc.

**~111d** 

### in that the requests appeur to seck dllcumcnl:ltion thut is not rckvantto this ccrsc. You and yom allorncy 

### muy. nt' course:. he "blc to idcntilv other problems with regards to this l'cqucsL II'you rccc:ive the subpoena. you will be 

### rcquil\:d In 

### comply with it unless something is llkd 

### with the couri seeking relic!' lhnn the subpoena. !Mot.\.'.\. N. Sept. JO. ?015 7:5X l\1.11 c-muil.) 1\licr thi.s cnmmunicatinn. the record rcllcct.s thilt the FAA did not lilc 

### any 111otinns wilh this Coul'lto quash or limit the subpoc:nll pursuuntto 14 C.F.It

**~** 

### ll2n(b). Apfll't>Ximntci)' one n1unth lllter. till 

### Oetobcr 27,2015, 

### Dr. l..ong reported to Fi\A counsel (pursuant to the[.';\;\ llllonlcy':, Scplc:mhcr :lO, 

### 2016 

### e-mail request) thai he had received the Rc·spOiHknt's .suhpuc'l111. Ik attached :1 l'ilJlY ni' the subpoena. and opined thm the Rcspollllcnl WIIS 

### <1ski11g ltll' "a lot ni' illlcll·mution," (Mot.. 1:s. K: Oct.17. 2015 10:00 

### um c-muil). \'hut sumc duy. nn (ktobcr27. 2015. 

### the FAA ullOI'tll'Y t·cspondcd to I lr, l.t'ng. llw 1·;\A

**<~tlnroey** 

### criticil.t:d the l(c'Spol1(knt's action in obtaining the SLthpocna. tmd rc-rcconlmendcd th:tt llr. J.ung nr liis attnrney cot"idcravoiding answering I he subpcrcnu on nlllllipk gi'OtiiH[" Iwuuld like tn spcttk with you andint· your attorney (at your op!iun) uhoc1l responding In this subpoena. As Imentioned the last lime we intcnrctccL discowry wn:< closed in

**thi~** 

### case (:md was t:loscd even bcl(nc Respondent obtuirwd the stibpocna, which !note is dmed lrlmosl a month hcl'orc it wcts sc,·vcd). M;my ui'tlw questions seem overbroad 11s 

### well. but Icun't speak :IS 

### l<l Pagt! 30 of4l

### lww

**burdcnsom~ th~y**  

### would he withnut.your input, 1\n objection and/or lllotion to quash to some ornil ol'thc

**rcqu~sts** 

### cwt cmnc lium my qtl\cc or directly !'rom you (prcsunmhly through your ltltorncy), Please give me acall (and/or have your <tllomcy give men cull) and we can discuss what response iohjcction. motion. ctllll[.llin111;c, orMherwisc) is <tppmprintc. 1 

### Mol.. h. K, 

### Ott, 27, 2016. I

**:~0** 

### p.m.. l';\i\ 

### e-mail.) llr. Long in11ncJiatcly responded. and conllmtcd that his attorney (".luck") would cot1luct the I'AA attot'ncy thm sornc day. on October27.2015. 

### (Mot..
**F~x.** 

### K, Oct. 27, 2016 

### I:23p.m. lk 

### I.ong c-rrwil.) 

### lkrecord docs not rclkct whether Sttdt cnntact occurred, und il' it did. wh:ll inl\>nuation wa.s cxc:lumgcd, Seven (7) duys

**lat~t·.** lk l..Clllg's 

### attomcy (Mr. Monk. Ill)

**scrv~d** 

### the Rcspo11Lknt with all documents ciS 

### dc111undcd in the Rcspomknt's Subpoena and Rick:r. (Mot.. h. 1.) 

### In response• trl this nlkgntion ol'discowry obstruction. the l'AA asserted that it had done nothitlg itnpropcr. The I';\;\ u.<'ct·tc:d thut the Respondent's request and service ol' the sctbp<ltllll on IJr. Long wa.s untimely, and in violation

**ol'th~** 

### Court's dtscovery dc;tdline.s. It ;trgucd lhatthc "dcudline 10 

### issue subpoenas" Wets 

### June 19, 2015. 

### (Rcsp. 4.) The 1';\;\ 

### nrgttcd that it hud actc·d Ill 

### cn.,urc cotrq1liam'c with the court's discnwry orders. It nlsn 'irgucd that it had every t·iglnto prm·tdc advice to its own witnesses. Did the FAA

**cng:~gc** 

### in discovery obstml'lion'! Yes. l'irst.. it should he noted tlwt during the 1·';\;\·, 

### emnileschungc's with Ill'. long. lite· I/11\ 

### CPntitlll''d to uc:c:usc cllld blutnc the Respondent. As noled earlier. this is nnt nnly lllllteccssan. it is contr:try il> both the Fi\/\ 

### Administnllor's

**publi>h~d** 

### goals oJ' lttirness in administering the

**pro~rum.** 

### as well Hs 

### tn well-cstublishcd ;\Ill\ standnl'ds ltll' ensuring dLtc process l[tirncss in m\vL:rsuriul

**liliM~ttiun pradi'.:~.**  

### Sc'cond. as discussed during both tlw April 13. 

### 20I(> and M:ty 5. 201 

### I> Motion Conl'crenccs. thi.s Coul'l cannot nwce with the 

### FAA's a.sscl'\ion that the August 21. 

### 1012 dc,tdlim: lilt' c·sclntnging disctll'et·y. established by 

### the April 7. 2015 (

### lrdcr (Order. 3 11 1 )). 

### renwinl'd in c:ITc1

### ·t ui\ct· tlw issu:Htce rll'thc Scptcntbcr I, 21! 

### 15 Order. Rather. the September I. 

### 2015 Order l'rllltinucd I ill' 

### hearing l(ir lCII ( 

### 10) 

### 11llll11hs (i.e.. J'mm November IX. 

### 2015 til

**s~pl~mhcr** 

### I,1, 20 Ill) Pagr• 31 of41

### tn allow the panics to c:ompldc discowry exchange\ lite' and c1rguc ;1ny

**n~cdcd prc·hcmin~**  

### ntotintts. nnd ltl 

### pmposc

**cln~w** 

### litigation plan regarding nny <.lulsl<111dittg. dclicictll disc·llvcn issue'S and otlwr

**111illl~rs.'"** 

### As tlotcd by this Court on IVI<ty 5, 101 (L 

### the partic.s still had nnl liktl anyj11int litig;nion plan, although the FA/\ did lile an untimdy unilmcral plun, whkh the Cout·l has lllll 

### ;tdoplccl, Third. tlw h\t\

### ·s argument thai the l<csponcknt's subpoemt kll outside tilL' cou1'1·s .lone 

### I•J. 

### 20I

**~** 

### dcnclline to "issue subpocnns" (Rc•sp. 5) was a bi'Olld misreading o

### I'the i\

### pril 7. 201 5 Orde1'. In 

### l[trt, the .lune 19, 2015 

### deadline wns provkkd ll1r the panks to "issue subpoenas lind/or 

### llllttually arrnnge (i11· 

### rile deposirions f!ltl'ilncsscs andexperts" prior lo the Novemhc'r IH. 20

### I) I

**karin~.** 

### (1\pril 7, 1015 

### Clt'ller, 

### .1 

## 119 (illtlics

**aclcl~d)).** J:wn 

### il'the 1:1\i\ ·,

### ;t;;.s\rtnption lhotthio April 

### 7' 2015 deposition dcudlinc survived us 

### purl

# orI he September I. 

### 2015 Order WclS COITCCt, it wns imtpplicublc to the issue here. J'ourth. this C'nurt would disugxcc ihaitlw 1:1\i\\

### ohligulinnto UliHply with n c!ltll'l 

### Prtkr allowed it 111 

### encourage third puny witnesses In iJVoid 

### responding to uluwfully issued stthp<le'nu. 11: 

### the• lA!\ bc'iic:wd thntthc Respondent hml violuted an August 

### 21. ]015 disl:ovcry ueadlitlc wlwtt the· 1\c•spomknt asked the 1:1\1\ I

### lca1·ing Docket Clerk to issue the September 2:>. 

### 211t) subpoena. the 1:/\1\ 

### lutd a responsibility to 

### lirsl inlill'mnlly di"·u.ss its wnccrns with the• Rcspunde•nt. Ifdiscussion with the Respondent did not rc·solvc the matter. then the 1:/\i\ 

### should h:tvc immcclintely lilcd an nhjcction or mol.ion. with supporting !bel and legal ,ruthority, with this Court. l:inh. the l·i\1\·s discoVL'ry de;tdlinc cu·gllii!CI1h urc nred herrin". hccmtsc these·

**<u·~unmlls** 

### miss the actual issue. The Respondent's service ora subpocnu on 

### llr. Long w:r.s ilL'i a 1

### ioluti<>tl of :1 

### wun discovery deadline. It was not an unlimdy uttcmpl to sc:hcdulc nLkposilion with llr. l.ong. 

### l'hc subpoena was nnl dit·cctc•d to ilw FAA nt· uny employee or agent ol'thc· 

### 1·.1\;\. l'hc suhpoecnnw(ts not nll.ctnpting to c:oii1Jlclihc I:

### A!\ Ill "disgm-g<; whttlcver l[tds" 11. lt;td its "posse·ssiotl" as pnn ol':ttimcd discovery exchange. /li<'klllll/11'. 'fr1ylor.

**32~** 

### II.S. 495,507 (I '!47).

**~;-:pklliliel'** L 20 I:'i OrdL'r. 6

**~~** 6: ;111d 1\ugu:·P 31 20 l(l Tr, 111 6.J: l:l-17 and 70: 1-3. Page 32 of 41

### ln.slcmL

**th~** 

### Respondent w:ts

**cnga~cd** 

### in independent inwstie;ation and hct g:llhcring fi'llm 

### two (2) third party 

### witnesses, \Jr. 

### Long and 

### Aviation Services Uroup.''' 

### The Respomlc•tH's subpoctJ<I \llt' \Jr. 

### I.ong was obtnincd ll·om the \learing Dodct Ckrk on Sq1tcmber 2.1, 21115. which was only three• 

### 0) 

### weeks alicr the Court hud 

### continued the 'Jovcmhcr 2015 I

### karing to Scptcmhc·r 2016, and directed the panics to enmplck their Jiscowry.'' 1 

### lhc• suhpocnn WI!.' 

### served 1111 

### Ur. L1111g 

### on 

### October 21, 2015-approxinwtcly eleven (II) nwnth.s bdorc tk 

### newly set September l.l, 2016 lkming, and within the gcneml time lhtmc allowed by the September 

### I. 

## ell 15 Ot·dcr 1\H· 

### the panks to complete any discovery prior to the newly set
**S~rt~mbc1·** 20

### I6 

### II ' ,,,

!.''-Inng. 

### The 1·'11/\'s 

### nrgtnnentl< ignore tile l(tct ibm independent invc·siigulit>n nml lite! gttthering is :tn absnlutc right hdcl hy ead1 pany in both civil penalty
**~nJ(,rccmcnls** 

### and in general lhleral

**ltli~ation.'''** i\S 

### pallc>l'thutrighL each pnrty may cunducl its own invcstigtllil>ll. and tkntil'y its uwnlcgalthcol'ics ami arguments. 

### 'l'he Work /'rodlll'l 

### !locrrine, I>X Corndll.. Rev. 7611.

**7R~** 

### (IIJR,\). 1'"

## "1T]he advet·sury system li.Jl<ters uwmpetiti

### w relntionshi p tbut nwtivutcs

**v~uch** 

### purly I

### o marshalalltlw law and !'acts bcnl'licinlto its case." (!d.) ld.::llly. us thl' F/\i\ J\dministt·utor has
**ru<.:o~J,nizl:d,(' 7** 

**t:~1ch p~1rty·s**  **inlkpcnd~:nt** 

### itll·cstignlion should sWrt 

### early to allow lctr !\til and C<trly disclosure ol'maturialto tlw oppol<ing side See ulso, Oit•ersi/iecl !nduslt'ies, Inc, 1'. 

### J',;/uredith, 572 1'.2d 596, 604 (Xih Cir. I1

### !77) t"l'rutknl parties anlicipute litigution, unJ beg.in prepmution prior to the time suit b lt\l'llwil!
·< ThL'

**fh'~pondl.!IH** lwd u!Ju.lined illld

**~~~·v~d** l\VO {2)

**subpo~lliiS.** lhl' :-;(lllpo-:11<1

**S1.T11~o.:d** onAvi:tti(lll

**;-;~,.'I'Yh.:L'"** (it·uup, ilild its

**I'~~Sp011til;** !O

**til~~** S\ibpiit,;IHI, WnS ll(l! ttl

**i~SU\'** in \hill IIHlli\lll.

**t>~** (\, tl\111.'1.! ()y till" Colin 111l M<ty .\ 201 (J. the pw·tit:.'l

**w~:n:** dir.;clt•d In lik 11jt\in! pt·opml'd pla11 un

**~~r** hr.•ftl!'\' ( h..'lllhl'l' 1 

### s.

**~(J** 15,

**~nth;!lll** tH:w joitlt prtlCl'dttral

**ord~r** migli\

**b~.· ;_,su,~d.**  lit!I !Ill)' f<dk•d (II du 'ill. (S(.'pL I.]() I(1 ()r·dcr. (J

**~~·** "'i,) "-1i\ d\n;tilud

**di:;~:\tssiou** or t]ll;' partk•s· nnl!ttill llbligat illn 1\l

**umdtt~t** fo.t<.:\ual in

**,.,~:-,tiH,ntron:-.** i"

**<.:llll(Hitl~:d** i11 ltr/11 I !'I/(· .l/11 iuh'lllll'l\'<' and
**!~nginl!l'rini.!,** S('.'/'\'ice.\, F/\A

**Dncl\~~1** F1\

**i\~20 ~** J-0291 (Onll.!l'

**D~t1yi11g** Rl..'spur'!tknt 's Mt1tion lt 1

**Collll"~~,:l DiscllV~ry**  Ill' I,'I\/\ AUOI'IIL'y', Wor!-; Pl'oducl) (Aug. Ii), 1014). ''''!"lit._' lf'otk' (1nllhn'f /)nc"!l'i!1l' [:.; l.l **I.:Oillpl'L.:~wmiv~;** 'i\lldy ortbl.' hiSlOI'J' and
**~h:vclopnH:Ill** uf!IH.: Wtll'k pi'OciUCI docll'illL' 1111d ti·IL'

**~tppl i~..;<1l**  iort uI'

**1~**uk .?6(h)(3 ). !h1111 r.:Oilltll<Hl Iii\.\' \(\ jl)H,1 (1111.: tltltc Dl'pubIicorlitIll). Whlk· rHl! l'ull;

**l..'on1jH'~hl'll** !i ivl.' I(H' toth1y's t:nst'S in JO 16, il renwin:; u vahmbl() resnun.:c 1\H' pn11.:1it

**itl!l~l·s.** Page 33 of 41**cnll1!1lL~lltL~LL").** It i.e.;
**rc~ogni1..ed.** hovv'CVCL. that invcstig::ttit'lns may he nngoin!},. In ;.;w.::h 

### circ·umstc\IK'CS, the pctl'lics have 

### an

**oblig~ttion** 

### to suppie111CI1t di.scovc<t'y disclosure

**~IS** 

### suun w; 

### pmcticabk. 14 

### ii IJ.220(i); see ulso, 

### Fed. R. Civ. t'me. 2f>(c): and lhtickcr-McKw. ct ttl.. Sl!f!l'll. ell K41. 

### In nddition, lltimcss intlw aclvcrsnrial system requires luwycrs In 

### not only conJuctthcir nwn indcpc•ndcnt invc•stigations. but also to af'lirmntiwly pmtcctthciropponent's right to <'<llidttct an indcpcnclcnl invcstigntion. Model Rules oC 

### l'rorl Condurt at r. 14(u). 

### The AllA MockIRules spccilically mnndate that a lawyer "shall not,., counsel Dr 

### assist'· anyone (uth,·r th<tn" client) to "reti·11in l'rn111 volunl<trily giving rckvant evidence to a11othn pul'ly." 

### M <tl 

### r 1.4(1). 

### Thc•rc is nothing in the FAA Administrtllor\ publi:;hcd wmmcnts. guidelines. and f!Oals th:tl is inconsistctll with this wclkstublishcd stnndard. In

**ar~wing** 

### it has a right til "give mlvic(' to its own witnesses. the 1-';\i\ is only

**panit~lly** 

### coiT<XI. Cerwinly a lawyc1' 111Hy rcnde1· "candid ctdvke--to his own client. Model Rule-s ol-l'mt-1 Cond11ct r. 2. 

### I (/\m. llnr Ass'n 1983). llowcvcr, the h'\;\'s ability to provide counsel to its tn>.n client, m· to its own clllployws, is· dilkrcnt li'<.lllt il:; Llhility to ol'!erHdvicc to athird pmty

**\.\'itn~,.,~.;s.** In th11t

**circums!:-uH.:~. ~~**  bv ..,ycr must he "(n\!hl'ul" whL'n intt:I'Ucting v..ith

**non~t..:li~.·nts.** /d. 

### atr. 4. I llowcw1·. a luwycr sl10uld never obstruct the opposing pany·s access to third party witnessL'S or cvidl;'tKC. 

### littltc' inslllnt cusc. the FAA !iiiled to 

### pmtccl and support the Rcspondcnt'.s right to imkpcndently investigme and I'Licl 

### gather. hoth nl the inilinl and adjudication stages <li' lhi.s procc·eding. The FAA was iihonlutely in error

**wh~n** 

### it wni<Kkd 

### Ill'.

**l.on~-** 

### uthird purl) will\c'"- tocriti<:i;c the Rcspndnenl. imply ihut. the Respondent was eng1tgcd in wrong-doin!l. and then rce<llttmctl\ltnlk Lllng and his attorney thattlwy wnsidcr nvoiding the suhp<lena by ohjc·eting In it or nwving to quush, busc·d on the multiple gmunds olkrcd by 

### I:A;\ c·nunse'l in support nl tltul put·po,se. Whik ih<' Fi1A's ci'l\n·ts to obstruct the 

### Respondent !'rom ohtuining evidence II'<lin Dr. l.nng were notultmwtcly o\ICt:cssl'ul_ it was hannl'ul. both lothe Respondent's perception of' L•ime:;, and by 

### the notHOntplinncc with the wl'il·estuhlishcu slundmds rcq11iring <tdvcrsariul cnllnsclt() support !itir pmcecdings. Sunl'lions should be lilljlllsc·d. Page 34 of 41

### X. ALLI·:GATIONS OF OHlER lllSCOVEii.Y VIOLATIONS A. l>id the FAA counsel ddihcrutcly withhold relevant, disclosahlc documents on or August 24, 201 S'? 

### Not Proven. llw
**l~csponcknt** 

### nllegcd thlll FAA counsel
**dcliher~Hely** 

### withlwld physicul evidence in hi.s po"cssion during the• limnal itdjudiculion time pcrind (lkecmbcr 5. 

### 2014 present 

### 1. As pan oi' iiS Motion. the Respondent alleged that cwn il'tlw 1:1\;\ 

### cmmscl had been ignorunt oi'lnspcctor Rushton's earlier· destruction oi'rdcvant cvickncc. Dr. Long provided his email records to the 1:/IJ\ by 

### i\ugust24. 

### 2015. <tnd the Fi\f\ !(,j[cJ 

### to disclose those records. (Mot.. Fx. M. Dr. l.nn{s 1\ug. 21. 

### 20 I(•. 

### 5:04pm cmuil). ·rhc Respondent's argument regarding what the F/\1\

**uttol'li~Y** 

### knc·w. tJnd/or· had in his aetutll
**poss~ssion** 

### i'rnm Lk I.nng
**h~twecn** 

### the dates or1\ugust 

### 21. 2015 through appl'o\llllatcly lktohcr 27. 

### c015, is bused on LirTumstllnlial evidence <Jnd tlssumption. In essence. the Rc·spondc·nt tlrgued that the 1:1111 

### ·s suhscquc·ntilttcmpts to pcTsuudc· Ilr. Long to avoid uttS\\erinl,' the subpoena. on hoth
**Septemh~r** 

### 30, 

### 2015 and October 27. 

### 2016. presumptively indicutcd that the 1:1111 

### kncw.11s nrAugust 

### 24,2015. the dmnaginb( content ol'lk l,ong's preserved material. lnr·csprlllSc. the I'll/\ 

### asscncd that IJr. 

### l.ong lwei not disclosed to it alltlw dt•cumcnts tlitil Llr. I,ong possessed. lnstcnd, on or about August 24. 20 

### IS Lk l.ong had provided only eleven (II)

### dncumcnts. seven (7) 

### ol'which the FA/\ deemed relevant and

**disdos~d.** 

### (Rcsp. 1.\x. 

### l.l. I

**~15** 

## ) The 1:11/\

### 's e<tunscltcstilled that he did not haw
**knowlcdg~** 

### or posocssion ol'llr. l.ortg's additionalnwtcriuls during this time. (Rcsp. 

### 1:.x.ll. I 

### 1111.1-5.) Once the· 1'/\/\ 

### attorney r·ccc'ivc•d the· subpoenaed materials rrom Dr. Long's allonlc·y. he did not rc·ad then\ until he received tilL' Rc·spomlcnt's Motion for Sanctions. lhis leaves the question ol'why llr. l.ong hild not provickd 

### 1'/\.<\ counsd in 1\ugust ]Ill.\ ,,itlt the· volttllll' lli'nwtcrinls he produwd in rcstoottSc'to the **l~esJoomknt's** 

### >t.thpoenu in November 

### 2015. The Respondent asserts tlwt F/\!1 counsel !'ailed to make "rcasDntlhlc inquir·y"

**rc~mdin~** 

### the documents. (Supplement. 5.) 

### Tlwrc is r1writto this argument.

**ll~rscd** 

### on the lA/\coun.sd's te.stimony. it appears he l!·amcd his i\ugust10

### 15 discover.\ request 10 

### Dr. J.ong to limit rnatcrial. Spccilicully, his rcqwst to Dr, Long wus rwrrowly i<lctts(d Page 35 or41

### on obtaining "emails about the 

### llight" (R"sp. 

### Cx. 13. 1115), instead ot'his 

### mnre expansive request Ill 

### lttspcctur l<ushtun (unci others), asking li1r "any 

### statements taken about the cnsc. uny 

### c·tn:tils I<> 111' J'mm 

### lk ;\lillll.t>ng. and any documents crcntcd ... ;thoullhc cnsc:." (Rc·sp. Is. 

### ll. I ,].1. h 

### I'). Shonly 

### thcrcal'ic•l'. Dr. 

### I.ung spoke with FAI\ 

### counsel on 1 he tdcphonc about the 1'!\!\·,s August 21116 

### rcqucst.''x (Rcsp. 

### E.x. B. I 

### 115.) [k Long then submitted only ckvcn 1

### II) pages nl' IIWtc'l'ial. Ciivcn the record in this

**cas~:.** 

### it is undcrst;tndahlc why 

### the Respondent mil(k 

### ccrwin :tsslllll(ltic>ns. Ih1weWI', uhscnt any other cvidciiCC 

### by the Respondcrll. this ('ourt :1cc·cpts the I·;\A's cc>unscl's lesti moninl statement us 

### dispositive on this issue. nnd the Re

### spondcnt·s nlkgatiell1 is deemed not 

### proven. 

### B. Did 

### thr FAA 

### fail in its tluty lo ohtnin 

### and provide complete evidence 

### fr111n Dr. Long and/or

**lt1Sp~·ctot·** 

### Ru.1hton? 

### Yes. l'imtlly. the Respondent IISSertcd thut the Fi\A hnd lililcd in its duty to nbtnin e<illlpktc c·vidence i!·mn eitlwr Dr. Long or lnspcct.,,r Rushton alkrthis ('ourt bud issued two di!H:rcnl di.•:wll'I'Y Ordel·s'"'umlthe "'"!'\lll!knl h;td propt>unckd 111\tltipk discover) request;, In 1·csponse. the I'Ai\ nssertcd thut all "rclea.snblc" portions ol'Inspector Rushton's preserved LIR (i.e.. the materials \hut Inspector l<ushton cho.sc to preserve) hnw tWice been rclc•trscd to 1 he Responden 1: 

### I)sn111L'Iime· (clntc unspceilied) 11

### licr recci pt ol'tlw Respondent's it>l.(ll'lll;rl Murch 

### 1(>.201.1 request (i.e., tiled c:·ighl 

### 1ndays at\cr the issuam:c

**ol'th~** 

### Mlu·ch

**~.** 

### 2111.1 Ni'C

### 1'): and. 2) nn April 17. 2015 

### <IS pan oi'the Fi\i\'s discovc·ry response. (Rcsp. 2.) In additicm, thcl·i\A cm1nsd submitted a l)cclumtion identil)'ing the Augl\sl24. 

### 2015 discovery rcques1s he made to both Inspector Rushton and llr. Long. und the unswcrs he• recc·ivcd. IRcsp. l.s. IL I 

### 11'! l-'i ) 

### The lircttlhitthe I'Ai\ counsel pi'Ovided to the Respondent only ccrwin (l<ll'lion.s ordutu thutlnsjwctor Rushton c;lwse to preserve in the 

### 1-:11< is nol dispositive, The 

### 1'1\;\ is rc.sponsihk to preserve and L'l·idencc in its [1os>c·ssion !'or suhscque111 disclnsure. lt,pcclt>r RushtOll tt1ilc:d to

1''1 ,)'('('. !\p1·d 7. ;:o15 Drdl't' Sc!11'ng l,itigiltion D<ltl.'>r nnd Pl'\)l.'l.;'ilunJ.<;; <tllLL lilt:

**SciH~.:mh~..:r** 1. 2015 Onk·r· (imntilt!!- tltl'

**\~\llio11** 10 ;\mt..:IHL C\inti!luing Ihe

**Novt~lnb'-!r** 2015

**llemin~'·** !o

**SL'pt~'lnh~.-·r·** 2016, und Cii'iJII\illg ()thi..'r

**lh~licf** Page 36 uf 41prcscnc n:kv:mt cvidcm;e. 

### He nlso !'nikd to promptly apprise counsel. ut any time prior tr1 being mlviscd uboutthc Respondent's :-Jovetnhcr IX. 2015 Motion. which crH1tllitwd :ill oi'IJr. l.ong·s

**prr.::~..::rvl'd** t:vldl.!nt.:e thallhe

**l'~w;on h~**  "did nol huvc any rcsponsivr,.; documr.:nt:-;" in

**unsw~.:r** !P IIH.' Respondent's requests l'ordiscowt·y 

### (Rcsp.t:·:x.ll. I 

### ,14) was because 

### k had already sckctilcl} dcstmynl (or lost) such nwtcri:tl. There:ilkr, is not surpt·ising thut FJ\1\ co\lnsd. who was not involved in the 1·1\;\·, collection und prcscrvntion ofevidence in this cusc. did not know abort! all the missing dttttt. Tlws, I;AA C:i.H111Scl 

### was unuwl1rc 

### he netxkd 

### to press Inspector Rushton I(H unswers about the 111issing ini(JrnllHion. and FJ\1\ counsell[lilcd to adcquntdy

**rhrus~** his

**disc<W~t'Y** requests to 

### lk Lung to t1·y 1111d obtain such missing mntCI'i:d, Neverthekss. the 1.-J\1\\ <.\ttorncy's ignomnc'' <thout the dal<! created. collcctc·tl. tlncl thc11 withheld ll·on·t the 

### J·:IR hy lnspc<:tor Rushton docs not cxntSc' the 1'1\1\ from its discovery t·csponsihilitics. lhc 1:1\1\ cun<H>l escape "metions hccuusc· it kept its own c:ounscl ignor:llll ol· its uctimw. lnstL>ud. the 1:1\J\ attorney's.inh simply becomes harder. bee«usc counsel cannot help pt·ci'Cnt the hidden perils

**cr~atcd** in the case by his own client In the instant Cilse. tl1l' l:i\1\ lhikd in its duty to obtain complete evidence l't·om either Inspector Rushton <ll' l.k Long al'tcr this Court issued discovery orders and the Respondent propounded multiple discowry requests. Sanctions should be imposed. XL SANCTIONS l'hc Respondent hus requested the ill1position <ll'scll1ctions under nwltipk 1:1\/\ Ruks. based in 

### purl on both discovery vinlutiot\s al'lerC<>lll'l Orders wcr'' issued :111d 1\rr g.cncrul diSl'(lVl'I'Y **!HlJ1~(,.'011lplian~\!.** It is wcll"cst<tblishcd th;rt the imposition oi' sam:tions l(>t· discovery vinlutions or l(tilures is "cxtr,:mcly 1\rct sensitive."

**(ireni~** and Kinsler. 

### su;mr.

**~** 12:1. It lllllsl he done ()ll :r casc"hyc:t.-.c b:ISis. :md rcsrs in the sound discretion oi'thc courL ld

**~~I** :'!6. 12..1/norckr In he ci'lectivc. sttm:tions must 

### be upplicd diligently t.o pcnttlizc those whose conducr warrunts such Ltction. 

### /d.

**~** I2: I Page 37 of

**~1**

### In <ldvcrsariallitigution, sanctions may range lhH11 merely drawing w1 

### adverse ini'l,renl:c lh>lll tlw wppt·cs.,ion o

### I'the cvidenee to wry serious prcclusions. i nclucli ng dismi ssaIn

## r1 he nl'i'mding pat·ly'scclsc7 "



### /d.~ l:ll:sL',·u/.vo. 

### 27 C.J.S. 2d



### ~~ 104-117 (2011). II'discovery sanctinns me impnscd. short ofdismissal orthe case. such sanctinns tu·e gcncmlly not rcvicwtlbk until the end nrthe pnKccdings. Grcnig & 

### l(inslcr, ·''UJII'a, R 

### I:96. llcll>rc <IWtll·ding sunclions. the courtl1ll1Y look nt many dil'i'crcnl

**l~tctors.** 

### including (hut notlimilccltu) the l(1llowing: I) whether the

**ol'l~nding** 

### party acted innocently. can:ks.sly.

**~russly** 

### negligent or wi\11\i\ly: 2) the dlicacy 

### ol'lcssc>' snnclio.ns: .1) 

### the imporlanw ol'thc inlcll'lnutiotl sought in
**di;;cov~ry:** 

### 4) whether the ol'lcnding 

### party evct· prodw;ed the inlrJrmHtion and how: 5) tlw public policy aspects ofthe litigation: and 6) lite• remorsd\i\ncss o1'1he ol'l\)nding party and/m it.s counsl·l. (ircnig & 

### l<inslcr. SIIJ!I'O.

**~12:3.** 

### In thl' instant cltSL'. the lkspond<:nl scebilll Clrdcr striking ccrtuin pkading:<. which '"'uld c'>Scllliully preclude the l;i\i\ !'rom pr'\li:cCding with its prosecution. Sinw

**p~rhlie** 

### polii:y pn>nH>tc·.s ck\:iding '""'"on tlwir lllcrils, striking pleadings th<tl would clh:etivdy prcciuck the <letion should he· used "cuuliDu.sly." 

### /d § 

### 1.1:9. llowever. striking pleadings is a wc\1-cstublished "llllliol1 imposed 1(11' 

### disoiJcdiencc or C(lCII'I 

### orders. 71 C..I.S. 2d

# * 6H3 

### I20IIL Obviously ccrwin e-m<lils exchanged bctwcc·n lnspc·c:tor l(ushton nnd J)r. l.ong. although

**d~stroyc:d** by

**ln~pccwr** 

### Rushton. huw been t·c·wwred ll·om Dr. 

### l.ong via subpoena. II'the recovery ui'this data wus

**th~** 

### only pmblem. striking

**th~** 

### plcadin[ls would 11<\l he warranted hc<:<iliS<: 

### the evidence has hce11 round. Sec. 

### Fed. R. Civ, P. 37(c): see. also. 

### lluickcr-ivkKcc•. l'l <il.. 111/I!'U, 

### at 9R4-H7. 

### llowcwr. Ill¢ ultinutlc recovery this c·vidcncc•, in t·csponsc' Ill

**lh~** 

### Rc•spnmlc·nt·,

I , I' II I' . . I' I . 71 :ill )))OCI'lLI.

**~~** 110\ U 

### yl IS]lOSJliVC 0 l 'h.!

**I~SUC.** :\s 

### prc•viously discussed herein. i)r. Long\ preserved l'·lllnils dc·monslt'lllc ilw i'oliowing: 1) the· l'i\i\ 

### i'uilcd to abide 

### hy acomcrstonc tenet ol'uur,iudiciul systc•m and ils own o:ivil pc:nalt)

....

# _ ...

# _,__
.,, lluoVI.'VL'I'. w.; tHl!!2d **cadi~r·IJcr~~in,** th\,.' I;AA

**f{Jllt:.~** i11

**~ivi[ p~IH\Ily**  prnr:{,'L'dings do 1101 Llllnw **diSilli.L>~i:JitJi'tlw t:<l'>~'**  **:1~;** ill:llll:liul\ S(·'V, Sll/)!'11.
**S~l'lion li.l"~gal**  Authority JiwS<1nc!im1s

' 1/\lthu1 1 gl1

**nl'ilh~:t** pnny
**!bn1~~:d** on

**thi~ is~uc.**  it should be nnt1..1d that this l..'lllail rGi:OVI.:.'I'Y
**o~.:curTL·d** thl'l'L' (.1 J )l.!<lr.'l ulki' illl .. '

**l'lliU(I~ \Vel\~**  **1.!~\~hang~,-•d"** lor1g ;dl0r lhl· **l{~sporHI<:ll('** ,"i \lppOI'lUility Ill gir!lwr "l'rL',c:h" illld compk'k

**cvid~:rlr.:l'** dming **!llt•irJv~s~iguli(\ll** pliust' hml 1:xpin.!tL Page 38 of41**cnltHc~I11Cnl** 

### program-to trent tlll (tCcuscd 1\tirly and obicctivcly throughout ull

**~ta~cs** 

### n!'a

**pm~~c,ding: 11**  

### 21 the' 

### FAA will!tdly inlluctKcd 

### nnd tainted the pcn;cptions and bclicl's 

### oi' I Jr. J.png, a pl'im:ll")1 willH.:.'-i:-1. 

### in nn 

### elTon wobwin dt.lll11.1ging

**~vidc..•ncc** againstlhL·
**Rc:-;pond~nl.** 

### l) thL' 

### !·/\;\ willi'ully intwkrcd with and blocked

**th~ R~spondent's**  

### righttc> Jiseovny during the initial

**stag~s** 

### ol'the investigation: 4) 

### the Fi\1\ 

### investigator Jcslroycd rclevnnt cviclcncc during both the investigative and cnlirrcerncnl stages oi'thc pmceeding: 5) 

### the Fi\i\ 

### willi'ully and pc·rsistcnt.ly conLil-111tlcd uml dispmngcd the Rcspnndcntli·mn the initial invcstil,llltt'on

**slll~c** 

### thrnu0 

### 'h the wljmlication

**phas~** 

### oi'this action: und. 6) 

### the 1:!\!\ 

### activc,ly obsu·ttcled discovery durin(;lthc adjudication phase ui'tlw proceeding when it encouraged Dr. 

### Long and his ttllorney to avoid answering the
**Respondent·~ ~ubpoenc1.**  

### The entire record also demonstrates that the 1:;\!\ 

### l>tikd tu 

### wkc nccessnry precnutitms to 

### ensure tlw preservation 

### or, and the i'ull disclosure ol·. rckvunt

**~vidence'.** 

### luken LIS 

### awlwk, these 

### me notjust individual dist:ovcry 1;1ilurcs in non-cumplinncc with Cot1rt orders and discovery requests. they at·c u

### dctnOI1Strtltion o!'willi'ctlnon-eomplimwc with the mltninislmlion o!'juslicc. which should be 

### suttc:tinncd undc'r buth Section I3.2171 !') <111d 

### ScTlion 1_1210tn), l'his Coun is l'ully aware oi'thc enormity oi'thc 1:/\i\'s

### task to cnl(ll·cc its rcgulutillns, LIS well as tlw Fi\/1\ 

### dtrlilengc:; itt working with awide swuth o!'husincss partners in the• tlvi:11ic111 wnllt1unit) -·IIHilly or

### whom either ig.l1<1t'U1Hiy nr willingly try Ill uvllid compliance v,·ith scti'L'I-' regul:1tiom .. It is udil'ilculttnsk. llttt it is utusk thut is possible toucco1nplish without violating nr circumventing the due process 1\timcss standards ibm are the bcdt·ock of'both tile 1:!\!\ 

### J\dministt·utor·s cn!(trccnwnt prognun and li:lkrullitig:ttionas whole. ltmighl be' ll<\pc·d thllltlw i'uel.s ol'this p:u·ticul:lr c:1sc highlightttn iSJtlmcd incidc·nt :111d rurc c.xcq1tiun in the 1·/\J\ 

### inwsligntion l:ic'IJ O!'llccs. instcud pJ'a 

### hiddcntl<lrm. llr>wewr. the 1'1\A's casual dismissal

# or Inspector Rushton's conduct und commttnic:ttions us "nccessury" tl<csp. II. l'n. 4). its arguments that Inspector Rushttl!t's problematic cotntmtnictttions with Dr

It ')hnulll

**ul~o** lx notcJ. 011 bchalrortlwRespllttd(;ll!.lilal otll:l.' Dr.
**[,ungHdupt~,;d** ltl:;pcclOI'
**Rtl~il\ton·., !lplni\!11~** 

**~\h~wttlle Re.<;pond~·nc**  it

**we\~** higltly

**li~0ly** that D1'. Long would shun.· !host"

**opinion~l** with ulhcrs, t:spt)t'i<llly ;ls l1c Clll,sultcd witII dll'l'crcnt counsel and lhl!lntnmslbnuJ his

**busin~J~s inten.!~t~**  **~.:lsrwhen.J.** It

**1.~<11111\l\ b~.:**  **~..~ulculalt.:'d** !\Uw Jllll11) pcopk li1!Vl: 11\JW lwtlrd .'WillC lt(\!'iottion orlnspl.!i,.'\01'

**Ru~h\on's** vilirktuion

**ol'thl~ l{~spmH.lenl,**  ill Ih...· thl\.'e (llld ;I

**IILdi'(:\.~)** )"<..':IrS

**~iJKl'** lhl' ii1Vl:Siig:\tioll o!'ll\i:; cnst: nrsllX'gHil, Page 39 of 41Lnng 

### were simply purl 

### ol'any F/\1\ 

### invcstignlor'sjob when "c1sking !I 

### Witness lo provide a l'ull and complete statement ofevents", (l{esp. 12), its litilure to preserve relevant cvidc1wc. its pcrsistCil\ vililkation ol'thc Respondent during apending <tction, its ongoing ;·lltcmpts to 

### obstruct tl1c lkspontknt\ right to disccwcry. and its lack ol'uny ltcknowlcdgcmcnt that its actions suhsttnllitilly deviated frontwclkstilhlished due [li'OLTss standnrds. may imlic:Htc othctvlioc·. When the [:/\/\ published ito; Rules in 1990, the Fi\i\ i\dministriltot· expressed ltigh hopes thm the aviation comrnunity and members ul'tlw public. who had likd written cuncc'l'ns <thou! an 1:;\/\ inlern<iliy administered progrtlln, would be won over with the 1'/\/\·s ttdministt'lllion ol'a lilir civil penally enltliWillent progmm: ITihc agency believes the civil pen<tlty assessment illrthority has been administered lrlirly and in good f'aith l'rom its inception, and l'ully expects to 

### win the conl1dencc ofthe nviution enmmunity, us well c1s the gcllcl'al public ... ).II 

### cd.

**l~cg.** 

### 2754S. 27551 (.luL 

### J. 1'!'10)

**(llisctr.~sion ol'l'inull~tilc).**  

### The 1'/\/\ i\dministrtnor's cxpresocd hope' did not 111Hlel'ializc in this panicular case. Tlw I'1V\s "no lwnn". it was "nccc."ttl'y''. it was the l{cspondc'ni's

**l~nill.** 

### it wusiust routine d('strucllon. and nthl'r argu1m:.:nL'-' d!.'li.:ltding

**Hb'-Uinstth~·** allcgutions in

**till~ cu:-;~,**  and :1rguing

**aguil~>l** 

### sanctions. wne not persuasive. In short. the l't\i\'s actions in this case were eompktc·ly cnntnuy to holh tile 1'/\;\ i\dminislralor's published goals orlitirncss in udministcring the prnsrt11n. 11 

### c1s well as to

**wcll~cstablishcd** 

### /\Ill\ standmds ltlr ensuring due process i'aimc>s in litigatioiJ. 71 

### llannlias occurred. both to the iodividucli> involved in this Cllsc. und llllhc l·i\1\'s 

### snkly cnl(ll·ccmcnt pmgrumlls uwhok. l'his Court has cngnged in uvery carcf'ul consideration ol'thc record 10 determine wh<rt

**s<~nclion(.s)** 

### would he propnrliorwlnnd

**nppropri<~tc.** 

### not only t,, uddrcss the proven lllisconduct hut
--, SL'l.'. l'.J:t., 1.-AJ\

**Ocd~.·1·** .'.I

**.~O.Jtt** L'hupwr

**~.J(g}** (<m <H.'t:uscd has <I ''right" to bt.:

**trcnt~.:d** lllit·lyJ.llld \'> l·'t:d.

**I(!.·~~** 275cl0,

**]"/)~I** (.lui.\ 1990)

**(l)i~t:us.sion** oi'Fi11al Rlde)(tllc

**n.·~pondi..!ill's** l'ights oJ'Ihit'tlt.:ss Hnd due

**proce~s** hu!J,.ills ill till' inr.\·ptin11

**of'lhl~** l-'1\1\'s

**illV(:~IiL~n\inll** :.1nd

**continut.!~** tl1n'tlgl1 to lite

**llnnlr·~:!;oltill\ln** ol'<my

**:t~.:cusati\111).**

**''.I;\~** liOll'd !.:i!rlkr

**h~,•J'citl,** lhL' 1:1\1\ ;tssLTtcd til;11 1·/\i\ COUil'it'llwd nnly <I 111\!l'gilltil rok iltli'IL' fA!\ I:kid

**om~,.·l"-:**

**)ilVL'~tig:uitnl pl'i1~:1il.·l"i.**  C\Tl'pl to <lei i\), till Pr(.:m;iOIH\1

**~(l\1sultmtL (M~ty**  \:;nIh T1·.

**~;;,** ·l··I K)

**1\'>'itllllill!llhi~.** I·'•

**,,~·L:mutt.'< illlll'<UJ.~**  \h!llllli.! I'AA t.JIII\)rct·m.:11l pi'Ogl'l!tn dm:s

**nnt~.;Jl'>UI\.'** ucrurale dtllu

**rlllk~lhlil** in

**pr~pa1'<111(tf\** r·or· lid):!illi\11\, und il dol.'s 1101 l'ollnw 1\B/\ t'L'COillllWildi.!d

**IL\~aluv~~n:>igbl** b.v 1-'AA c.'Ll(lti\L:l ol'ils

**iltv~:-.tigutiv~.; l'!liploy~·l",**  Ill

**<.:1\~;\11\'** dm· ]11'0VL;'Sii C(liHplii\11(:1,:'. Modt:l I{uks or [l(ofI

**Cond~ttl** 1'. .1.H. Page 40 of 41

### ah<l tu deteruny ltrturc miscondutt ora simil<tr mtture. /\II 

### the l'w:ts in this case. the wcllcstnb\Lshcd ie8cd and prol'cssionul stnndards in the litigation pmccss, 

### caselaw. kgal somccs. and tht: possibility of'

### imposing various less severe sanctions have been 

### reviewed and considered in depth_ !'his Courl hus also conskkrcd the seriousness ol'thc wnduct. the impllctthc conduct has 

### hud nn both the ct1se 

### and in the administration ol'jrtsticc. and wlwthcr there· wus a pattcm ni' wrongdoing tht'ottghout tht: proceeding. As ckwilcd fully in this Order. the I'i\i\ 

### has cngogcd in diswwry miswnduct. This misconduct should llllt have ocuiiTt:d. It should nc\'C'foccur aguin. 1\s aresult. this Court

**u~;rccs** 

### With the
**l~cspondcntth:tt** 

### the appropriate and proportional response tnthe discovery violations ;rnd miswnduct hl>rcin is to 

### strike the applit,ablc portion orthe l'i\1\

### 's pklrdings. Pursuant to 14 C'.F.R.

**~~** 

### 13.217(1)(I) and 13.220(11)( I). the inslt'ltctivc guidance ol' Rule 37. und atlcr reviewing all relevant caselaw, rc-gulatic>n. statutory authority. and being rully

**t~dviscd;** 

### IT IS HEREBY OIWEHIW: I. 

### l'lte Respondent's Motion 1\>r ultcrtwtc Suncti<HlS is granted The [\>Ilowing portions orthe 1,.1\i\\ Dc<:Ciilher 15. 2014 plciidings arc hct·chy strickc'll liS 

### a """'tion!<H·thc Fi\1\'s misconduct in this case: l'amgmph II. pngc I

**~~** 

### 121

**and(~**

### I. No ntcts n;g;ll'ding. thCSl' two Sti'UCK p\cmdings \Jlil)' 

### be inti'OdUcc;d into cvidc\1<:0. ). Upon 

### receipt nl-this Order, dthcr party may move i(H· 

### additional

**r~lict'**

### .

. >\tlachll1cnt: Sc'I'Vil'l' 

### l,isl Page 41 of 41llockct No.

**1-'AA-21114·11~(>7**

**(Civill'~nalty** ;\<:tiun) 

### SimVJCE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONK COI'Y 

### l'cdwil Aviation Adminislt'tllion HOII I

**nd~p~nucnec** Avenue. S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

### 1\ttcntion: llew·ing 

### Docket Ckrk, ACIC-··4.10 Wilbur W1·ight lluildin!! Suite 2W I01111 1 

### Mr. Christurhcr R, Stevenson ( 'ompluinanl '.v ( 'mmse/ l'edeml;\vintion Adminisii'Htion 01'/ice 

### ol'the 1\cgional

**Coun~el,** t\S0-7 

### Southern Region 170 I Columbia Avenue Colkge i'<Jrk, CiA 30.137 

### Ill: 

### 404-.105-5200 1·/\X 

### 404<105-5221 lvlr. l'au!IC 

### llorth Nes;Htndent ':.· ( 'o11nsel llanwtl & 

### Bonh. ILC HIIO W"ul;cgun Rom!. Suite 200 (:knview. IL

**()()025-4:1~7** Ill: H47-724-5520 1;\X:

**~15-15<,-7042** 

### Judge .1.1'.. 

### 'lullivru1 I/.\'. Adminislmlil·'(' /.all'

**.fur(~<'** Ol'licc· ui'llcnrings, M·21! li.S,

**J)cpartm,~nl** 

### oi'Tntnsponntion I:2110 t-;cw .Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E 11-JI0) 

### Washtngton, DC 20590 11:1.: 202-3M·6941 1'\X:

**~'.IJ:l,:\66-75.111** ONE COPY

llirminghun1 I'light (\:mer. Inc. IIesponde111 

### 424J l.'ast 

### Lake l.llvd. llirmingham, AL 35217

1 S0r·vicL'

**Wi.l~** by U.S. M\dl, For srrvkt.: in

**p~r:-,.lnur·** by

**t','ifX'dit~:d** .;;ouril.'r,

**u~~..·** th(.! f'oll,lwillg ilddn:ss:

**l:l'Lkr~d** A1·i:rtl011 ,ll,dm inlstr111 ioiL 600 I

**ntkpcndcn(;~·** AV01lltc, S.W,, \Vi Ihnr· Wrigh1 Huikling --

**Sui~<:** 2W I()()(). W w·;h int:tun, I)(' 20.'W I·. t\ncrrtioJl'. Ik<tring Dockl'! Clctk. 1\GC Jl30,