U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. H 

IN THE MATTER OF: Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

BIRMINGHAM 

FLIGHT CENTER, INC. 

Respondent 

Case No. 2012S0090053 

COMPLAINANT'S BRIEF 

IN SUPPORT OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF RIGHT 

I. Jurisdiction: Interlocutory Appeal of Right 

The FAA Civil Penalty Rules of Practice1 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 of right is appropriate because the ALJ impermissibly sanctioned Complainant by striking 

portions of the Complaint based on (1) actions by an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) 

during his investigation of Respondent 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 if there 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 of right is whether the ALI exceeded her authority in imposing a sanction? See In the 

Matter of Alaska Airlines, Inc., FAA Order No. 91-54 at 9 (November 6, 1991). 

II. Procedural History 

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. 

Relevant to the ALI's June 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 or hire." See Complaint, -,r II, § 3. 

On April 7, 2015, the ALI issued an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures that 

covered discovery in this 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 brief only addresses the facts relevant to the basis for this interlocutory appeal of right. The fact that this brief 

may not address a particular fact found by the ALJ should not be construed as indicating Complainant's agreement 

with the factual fmding, nor that it is waiving its right to contest the factual finding following an initial decision 

issued by an ALJ at the conclusion of this 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). 

4 For the sake of clarity, Complainant uses the citation format used by the ALl in the Order imposing sanctions. 

2 
August 20, 2015, Complainant filed a motion to extend discovery and set dispositive motion 

deadlines. See Complainant August 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 

going to be continuing to provide each other with information past the close of discovery." 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 attempt to resolve 

any outstanding discovery disputes and, if needed, file motions to compel. I d. (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 tecum for Dr. Long at the request of Respondent. 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. If and when you receive such a subpoena, please contact me (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 been made, and in that the requests appear to seek documentation that is not 

relevant to this case. You and your attorney may, of course, be able to identifY 

5 Dr. Long was the passenger on the September 18, 2012 flight at issue in this case. 

3 
other problems with regards to this request. If you receive the subpoena, you will 

be reguired to comply with it unless something is filed with the court seeking 

relief from the subpoena. 

I d. (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. The FAA 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 of the 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 of Civil Procedure 26 and 3 7, 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 exchanged between himself and Dr. Long during the 

investigation. See Respondent's Motion for Sanctions. On February 22, 2016, the ALI denied 

Respondent's November 17,2015 motion, correctly fmding that the Rules of Practice bar an ALI 

from dismissing a matter for discovery violations. ALJ February 22, 2016 Order (citing 14 

C.P.R.§ 13.205(b)). The ALI reserved ruling on Respondent's request for alternative sanctions. 

I d. 

III. ALI June 3, 2016 Order Imposing 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 and filed documents, 14 C.F.R. § 13.207; (2) failure to comply with a joint 

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 an ALJ may impose sanctions for an AS I' s actions during an investigation, prior to a request 

for hearing and the issuance of a scheduling or discovery order. See id. at I 0-11. The ALJ 

attempted to justify her expansive reading of her sanction authority by making reference to (1) 

statements in the Federal Register about "fairness to parties" in civil penalty proceedings in 

connection with the 1990 Final Rule republishing the Ru1es of Practice, (2) FAA Order 2150.3B, 

and (3) the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. See id. at 10-14. 

The ALJ determined that sanctions should be imposed for the following actions found by 

the ALJ to have been committed by the ASI during the investigation in this matter: (1) pressuring 

Dr. Long to provide a full and detailed written statement regarding Respondent's illegal 

14 C.F .R. Part 13 5 operation, (2) asking Dr. Long to not provide information to Respondent 

about the FAA's investigation, and (3) deleting email correspondence with Dr. Long that the ASI 

did not believe were relevant. See id. at 14-29. Without the benefit of a hearing or any form of 

oral testimony from either the ASI or Dr. Long, the ALJ determined that the ASI "polluted" Dr. 

Long as a witness and "destroyed Dr. Long's potential as an evidentiary witness." Id. at 14-19 

(quotation on Page 19). 

The ALJ also found that an ALJ may sanction Complainant when its attorney contacts a 

non-party witness served with a subpoena duces tecum to see if grounds exist to file a motion to 

5 
quash. See id. at 29-34. Although the ALJ duly acknowledged that no motion to 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 subpoena may be untimely. See id. at 29-34. The ALJ's Order 

cites no authority in the Rules of Practice for the proposition that a party may not discuss with a 

non- party witness the witness's options in responding to a subpoena. Id. Indeed, as discussed 

more fully in Section IV.B. below, such discussions between a party and non-party under the 

circumstances here are reasonably contemplated under the applicable Rules of Practice. 

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 attachedand the FAA attorney's discussion with Dr. Long about the subpoena, the ALJ struck Paragraph 

II, page I §§ (2) and (3) in the Complaint that alleged Respondent operated a passenger-carrying 

flight on September 18, 2012 for compensation or hire and barred Complainant from introducing 

evidence of any facts regarding the two allegations struck from the pleading. 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 ALJ Exceeded Her Sanctioning Authority 

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 because the ALJ exceeded her limited sanctioning authority under the Rules of Practice in 

this case. 

The Rules of Practice do not give an ALJ plenary power to impose sanctions for behavior 

that occurred during the FAA's investigation of a 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 conduct that 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 motion to quash a subpoena duces 

tecum. 

A. The Rules Of Practice that the ALJ Relied on Do Not Allow Her to Sanction the 

Investigator's Conduct as a Violation of those Discovery Rules 

The Rules of Practice apply to civil penalty cases after a hearing is requested. See 

13.20l(a). Furthermore, the Rules of Practice only permit an ALJ to impose sanctions on a party 

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 of Practice permit sanctions in two narrow situations. See 14 

C.F.R. §§ 13.217(£), 13.220(n). Rule 13.217(£) provides that "[i]f a party fails to comply with 

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

may direct that party to comply with a motion to discovery request [sic] or, limited to the extent 

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

may [impose a sanction]." 14 C.F .R. § 13.217(£). Rule 13 .220(n) provides that "[i]f a party fails 

to comply with a discovery order or an order to compel, the administrative law judge, limited to 

the extent of the 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) expressly require that 

a party violate a previously issued order before an ALJ may impose sanctions on a party. See 14 

C.F.R. §§ 13.217(f), 13.220(n). 

Here, the ALJ acknowledged her limited authority to impose sanctions under the Rules of 

Practice, but then 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 the time of the 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 of the 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 the joint procedural or discovery schedule. 14 C.F.R. § 13.217(f). Likewise, Rule 

13.220(n) only authorizes a sanction if a party violates a discovery order or order to 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 of the 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 I st 

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 Order imposing sanctions makes clear that the ALJ sanctioned Complainant 

because she disapproved of the ASI's conduct during his investigation. See June 3, 2016 Order 

at I 0-29. The ALJ makes no attempt to claim that the ASI violated a scheduling or discovery 

order. Id. Instead, the ALJ cites to statements in the 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 of the 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 of the merits of the 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 

Order No. 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 of Practice). 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 Party Attorney May Discuss With A Third Party Witness 

Whether A Motion To Quash Is 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 a non-party witness regarding the options for responding to a subpoena duces tecum. Here, 

the FAA attorney did not violate a joint 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 existed to 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 

Order at 29-34. 

9 
The June 3rd Order imposing sanctions found that the FAA attorney improperly impeded 

Respondent's "absolute right" to discovery by talking 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 a party or a non-party entity served with a subpoena to move to quash or 

modify the subpoena. 14 C.P.R. § 13.228(b). The motion to 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 of the proceeding, or that the subpoena 

is unreasonable and oppressive." Id. 

By authorizing both a party and a non-party witness to file a motion to quash a subpoena 

served on the non-party, and requiring a detailed statement for the basis to quash or modify, 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 information requested in the subpoena is "relevant to the proceedings" or "not 

reasonably tailored to the scope of the 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 "on each party"). The only way a non-party witness will know this information is to talk 

to a party's representative. Likewise, a party attorney cannot always know if the 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 of Practice. 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 it unless something is filed with the court seeking relief from the subpoena." See 

September 30,2015 Email (emphasis added). 

C. The ALJ Effectively Dismissed the Complaint 

And Did Not Narrowly Tailor Sanctions 

The ALJ acknowledged in the February 22, 2016 Order that the Rules of Practice do not 

authorize the ALJ to dismiss the Complaint in this matter. See ALJ February 22, 2016 Order at 

4-6. Yet that is effectively what the ALJ did in the 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 struck from the Complaint the 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 carrying flight for compensation or hire, the Complaint fails to state a claim 

and the ALJ will presumably grant Respondent's already filed Rule 13.218(£)(5) motion for a 

decision on the pleadings. 6 

Although the ALJ agreed with Respondent that this was "the appropriate and proportional 

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 a joint procedural or discovery schedule under Rule 13.217(f) or a 

discovery order or order to compel under Rule 13 .220(n) for all of the reasons alreadydiscussed. 

See 14 C.P.R.§§ 13.217(f)(l), 13.220(n)(l). To be sure, there is no nexus between any of the 

alleged misconduct the ALI purported to 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 of her fmdings that: (1) Respondent obtained the correspondence between the 

ASI and Dr. Long that the ASI failed to retain during the course of his 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 of discovery.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 

of the case as the "proportional response" to the purported "failure to comply." 

V. Request for Relief 

For all of the 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 of the FAA's witnesses and reliability of the evidence without hearing testimony 

from the investigating ASI or Dr. Long or holding an evidentiary hearing. 

7 AU's June 3, 2016 Order at 14 n. 25. 8 AU's June 3, 2016 Order at 31. 

9 AU's June 3, 2016 Order at 35-36. 

12 
Respectfully submitted, 

Patricia A. MeN all 

Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement 

By: 

Rylm M. Landers 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

1701 Columbia Ave. 

College Park, GA 30337 

Tel: 404-305-5200 

Fax: 404-305-5223 

13 
COMPLAINT 
lJ.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

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 of the Rules of Practice (I'l C.F.R. I 3.208). and stale> as t(Jilows: 

I. 

I. On November 19.2014. Respondent. Binningham Flight Center, Inc was advised 

through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty 

in the amount ofS 11.000. On November 26.2014. the Agency Attorney received 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 

a passenger carrying tlight t]·om Birmingham. AL (KBHMi !D Destin. FL (KDTS) 

(hereinafter ·'Flight"). 

3. The Flight was operated f(}r compensation or hire. 

4. At the time of the 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 of Transportation: 

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 of the tC\reguing facts and circ.umstances~ Respondent violated the 

following sections of the 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 of any deviation or exemption 

authority, if issued to that pcr~nn or that 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 the beglnning of the 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 of the 12th 

calendar month bct(wc that sen ice, that pilot has passed a competency check 

given by the Administr;Uor or an authorized check pilot in that class of 

aircraft, if single-engine airplane 1>ther than turbojet, or that type of aircraft .. 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 of a tlight unless. since the beginning of 

the 12th calendar m0nth before that service. that pilot has pa»ed a flight 

check in one of the types of aircraft which that pilot is to tly. The !light check 

shall 

( l) Be given by an approved cheek pilot or by the Administrator: 

(2) Consist of at least one flight over one route 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, or a portion of either of them. 

6 Pur:>uant to 49 U.S.C Sections 4630l(a)-(d), Respondent is subject to a ctvil 

penalty not h> exceed $1, I 00 for each of the violations alleged. 

Under the facts and circumstances of this case. a civil penalty of S l LOOO is appropriate. 

WHEREFORE. the Agency. by counsel respectihlly requests 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 of December, 2014. 

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

PLEASE NOTE: 

Pursuant to Title 14 CFR Section l3.20'l(a). you arc required to !ik a written answer to tbis 

Complaint. or a wnttcn Motion to Dismiss i r appropriate. not later tban 30 days afler the date 

shown on the Ceriiticate nf Service which ti>llows. 
CERTIFICATE 01'' SERVICE 

I hereby ccrtiry that a cnpy of the 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. Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025,43S7 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430. Suite2WHJOO 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue. SW 

W ashingwn. DC 20591 

t Po~P;by Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

DEC 5 2014 .. 

Dated 

(original + I copy) 
APRIL 7, 2015 ORDER 
I- .... I .... V"T VI I I •VIIn The Matter Of: 

BIRMINGHAM 

FLIGHT CENTER 

Respondent 

SERVED: APRIL 7, 2015 

U.S. DEP ARTlVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

r-l 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2012S0090053 

ORDER SETTING 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. 

2 0 2016 

On March 20. 2015. the parties tiled a Joint PI'Oposed Scheduling and Discovery Plan. 

On April?. 2015. the parties appeared by telephone for the Rlde 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference. nnd discussed the it· discovery plan. calendar availability. hearing dates. and other 

litigation procedural matters. 

Pursual1t to 14 C. F. R. § 13.205(a)(1 ). (6) and (7). Civ. R. 16. 14 C.F.R. !'i I 3.21 7, 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 

sufticietlt time to address all issues in displtte, on or before April17, 2015 the parties 

shall serve each other with initial disclosures (as described in Civ. R. 26(a)( l)(A)(i). (ii). 

and (iii)) without waiting for a specific discovery request. 

2. On or before April20, 2015: General Discovery lnith1tcd, Pursu<lllt to 14 C.F.R. 

s\3.220(~). the parties may immediately bq;in conducting gcneral discovery. In order to 

ensure full use of the discovery time allotted in this case. the panics shall begin 

exchanging or serving general discovery requests on or before 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 for production of documents; propounding 

interrogatories: requests for admission: etc. 
3. Service of Interrogatories. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13 .220(k)( I). a pm1y shall not serve 

more than thirty (30) interrogatories upon each other. Each subpart of an interrogatory 

shall be counted as a separate interrogatory. 

a. Objcction(s) to Interrogatories. Pursuunt to 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 Limit Discovery upon Receipt of Discovery Request: A party served with a 

discovery request who seeks to limit discovery pursuant to 14 C.I'.R. * l3.220(f). (g). nnd 

(h). shall tile a Moti011 for Relid'within ten (10) d:tys after servi~.:c olthe disputed 

discovery request. 

a. Good Faith Declaration Included: The Motion should include a declaration by the 

moving party. confirming that the movant has alre<Jdy conferred or attempted to 

conl\:r in good faith with the opposing patty regarding the disputed discovery or 

disclosure. to try and resolve the matt~t· informally. priOI' to ~eeking courtr~licf. 

b. Copv of Disputed Discovery: Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § l3.220(b), only a copy of 

the disputed discovery, in support of the motion, should be attached to the Motion 

or the Response. 

c. Response to Motion to Limit Discovcrv: .t..ny Response to the Motion should be 

filed no later than ten (10) days alter s~rvice of the Motion. 

5. Motions to Compel Discovery: A party seeking to compel discovery must tile a Motion 

to Compel within ten (10) d~•ys after service of a ddicient response or after the response 

to the discovery is due. whichever occurs first. 

a. Procedure for Motion: Any Motion and/or Response to Compel Discovery shall 

be filed in the same rnanner as directed above for Motions to Limit Discovery 

(paragraph 4 and 4 (a)-( c)). 

G. Retained/Hired or Employee Expert Witnc~s Disclosures. Ira party retains or hires a 

witness to provide expert testimony. or a party 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 or employee expert witness to the opposing side pu!'S\mnt to the 

timeline below. The expert witness disclosure shall include the name of the witness. the 

witness's expert resume or qualifications. and the witness's written report or statement of 

opinion (i11cluding clisclo~urc of the basis of that opinion}. 

a) FAA Ex pen Disclosure Deadline: M:t}' 15, 2015. 

b) Respondent Ex pen Disclosure D~adline: May 29, 2015. 

c) Expert Rebuttal Reports Deadline: June 12, 2015. 

Poge 2 of 5 
.............. ' .... ' 

0 " ·-~.-.-.__... ' Wf.., 

7. Duty to Supplement or Amend Discovery: Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(i). a party 

who has responded to a discovery request in this case has a duty to supplement or amend 

the response throughout the litigation period. a:; soon as the information is known. 

8. June 19, 2015: Deadline for Issuing Subpoenas/Arranging for Depositions. On or 

before .June 19,2015. the parties shall issue subpoenas and/or mutually arrange for 

depositions of witnesses and e~pet1S as may be n~~essary. 

9. August 21,2015: Deadline for Completing Genen•l Discovery. On or befot·e August 

21,2015. the parties shall finish responding and serving answers to all general discovery 

requests pursuant to 14 C.F.R. ~ 13.220. This includes the taking of fact witness and 

expert witness depositions. pursuant to 14 C. F. R. * 13 .220(j). 

10. September 18, 2015: List of Witncsses/E:<change of E:<hib;ts. On or before 

September 18, 2015. the parties will serve and file. the following: 

a) A list of the witnesses the party intends to call: 

b) A shm1 statement of the testimony expected from each such witness: 

c) The resume or statement of qualifications of each witness who will be offered as 

an expert: 

d) The documents the party intends to offer in evidence (pre-marked as noted in 

paragraph£, infi'a): and 

c) An index cover sheet with a brief description of each 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 or legal issues. and/or that arc agreed Moti011s in Limine. 

\2. Telephone Pre-Hearing Conference: October 28,2015 (10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. ET). 

The parties shall convene by telephone for a Pre-l·Iearing Conference on October 28, 

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: Hearing D: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 of that same day (5:00p.m. EST). The specific lowtion oi'the 

Hearing will be provided to the parties prior to the Hearing. 

B. Discowry Requests and Exch<~nges: 

Discovery ··equcsts and exchang~s need 11ot be 11 led 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 3 of 5 
C. Failure to Move for Timely Relief/Late Service of Discovery: 

The failure to timely respond to discovery requests. and/or to timely move for ,·elief 

regarding. discovery disputes during the discovery period. may result in a linding that the 

party has, through its actions, waived its right to relief. Late service of discovery req11ests 

may also be grounds for denial of a motion to compel compliance with such requests. 

D. Scheduling Motion or Pre-Heal'ing Conferences on the .ll1dge 's Cale11dar: 

Prior to the Hearing datc(s). if a party wishes to scheduk oral argument on any motion. or 

set up any type of pre-hearing telephone confere11ce on the Judge's calendar. the party shall 

first confer with opposing counsel about mutually agreeable alternate dates. The movant shall 

next contact Mr. Cody L. Smith. Attorney-Advisor, at the Office of Hearings (202-366-694\) 

as soon as possible, with at least three (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 least three copies of any documents it intends to 

offer in evidence as exhibits (two for the Judge and one for the court reporter). The exhibits 

must have '10 index cover sheet, nnd should be pre-warked. Complainant's exhibits 

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 be the opportunity for direct examination, cross-examination. 

and 1·edirecl examination of each witness. Only one representative of a party may di1·ect or 

cross-examine a witness on be halt' of that party. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. ~ 13.105 ~nd 14 C. F. R. 

§ 13.222, the Federal Rules of Evidence may be utilized as helpful t;uidancc in determining 

the admission of evidence. 

G. Attorney Withdraw<tl: Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. ~13.218, an attorney who wishes to 

withdraw ti·om representing a party tllliSt file a Motion to Withdraw. 111 this Motion. the 

attorney shall confirm the following: 

1. The date the Respondent was served with written notice of the attomey' s intent to 

withdraw; 

2. The name of the designated agent/lay representative if the Respondent in the action is 

a busi11ess entity: 

3. The current business address. telephone numbc1', and lax number ol'the Respondent 

und ol' its d~sigt1ated agent: 

4. A statement that the Respondent has been notified in writing of the pending hearini:\ 

dates in this litigation, as well as the pending pre-hearing discovery deadlines and 

telephone conferences: and 

5. A stntemenl that the Respondent has been provided a copy of all 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 of Exhibits 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 court reporter. 

I. Requests for Modification of this Order: 

' ... , .... 

Any requests for modification of the 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: 

For cbrifications of this order or questions with regard to tl1e procedures to be followed 

in this case. please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith. Attorney-Advisor. at the Office of Hearings 

(202-366-6941 ). 

Anachmcnt: Service List 

Page 5 of 5 
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!000 1 

Mr. Deitrick H. Johnson 

Complainant's Co1ms~l 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Oi'licc of the Rcl,\ional Counsel. AS0-7 

Southcm Region 

170 I 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: 84 7-724-5520 

!'AX: 815-356-7042 

J udgc J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Ailmini.,·trilliw Law Judge 

01"11cc of Hearings. 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 

1 St:rvicc wns by U.S. Mail. F'or service in person or by 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'S AUGUST 20, 2015 

MOTION 
In The Matter Of: 

IJ.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF' HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

H 

BI!Uvl!NGHAM FUGHT CENTER. INC. 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

Respondent 

FAA Case No. 2012S009005J 

JUN 2 0 2016 

MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDIJLE TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND SET m: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 of Appearance 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~, 

LJ 
Exhibits 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 of the F i\1\ in 

this matter (e.g. discovery responses) and, if so, what they are." ld The undersigned received no 

response to this letter. 

On August I, 2015, Respondent provided responses to a set of discovery 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 l 0, 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. 

On August 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 he 
had 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 of these circumstances, the parties iu this case have only just begun to work 

on providing discovery responses to full sets of discovery requests, 1 but discovery is presently 

set to close tomorrow, August 21. 2015. Additionally, dur.ing the August l 0, 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. 

Summary Judgment 

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 if it 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. 

1 The 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 of Part 135 of the 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, 

but rather a demonstration Hight under 14 C.F.R. § 9!.50 1. Respondent's discovery responses do 

indicate that there are factual disputes as to some of the details of the arrangemems for the Hight. 

However. these disputes appear to be immaterial because Respondent also concedes facts that 

prove that the tligh1 was. as a matter of law, nor a demonstration !light. 

As a result of the 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, of course, requires a significant <·onnnitment of time and treasur~ on the part 

of both pmties and the Court. Where. as here, a case can likclv be resolved on motions, the 

burden of a hearing should be avoided. 

Requested Actions 

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 of witnt"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 of on 
motion. 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 extended period. 

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 

of dispositive motions. 

The remainder of the cunent schedule to be time-shilled to accommodate these additions. 

with the hearing to take place in or after April 2016. 

Based on prinr experience. the undersigned anticipates that the 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.ier hearing. 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 of August. 2015. 

;\ttornq 

Ofncc of the Chief Counsel. Fni()rccmcnt Division. Suuthcrn Team 
CERTIFICATE 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 2Wl 000 

one copy via certified mail and tilcsimi!e to: 

'rhe Honorable lE, Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U,S, Department of Transportation 

1 :!00 New Jersey Avenue, SE (.E 11-3 l 0) 

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 of the 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) 

I an1 writing on several matters concerning the above-referenced case. A.s you are aware, J 

recently took over this 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. if so, what they are. In the absence of any 

such identification, I will presume that my predecessor provided you with all required 

information. 

Second, I wanted 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's copy has simply been mispla<"ed, or 

whether Respondent has riot yet made initial disclosures. 

Third, my review of the !lie does not reveal that any settlement ot1ers had been extended in this 

matter. ·ro the extent that my predecessor may have made any settlement oiTer of which I am not 

aware, and to the extent that any such offer may still be outstanding, any such offer is hereby 

rescinded. Based on my 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 A 
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this case. 

Sincerely, 

CHRISTOPHER R STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Cnunsc\ 

rl 

.Jl 

· · ostal Service'" 

~ERTIFIEO mesllc 

MAIL<~> RECEIPT Mail Only 

1 

I 

I 

I 
Stevenson, 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 a her my predecessor, Deitrick Johnson, left this office. Shortly after 

taking over the case at the \:leg inning of July, I called vour office and, as you were unavailable, I left a message asking to 

speak with you about the case, including whether the 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 of the 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 contact you- tf you believe there are any outstanding obligations on the 

part off the FAA, please let me know what they are I apologize tf this was diScussed with my predecessor, but in 

reviewin-g the fHe, I do not see any prior correspondence discussing uny delinquent obligations on the part of the ~AA, 

and I cannot work to provide you with the information if I do not know wha lit is you seek 

Thank you, 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the 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. 

800 Waukegan Ro,1d 

S Ult< 2()1! ! 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

i B 
Glenview, [L 60025 

Dtrect: 847-809-9520 

Office: 80(1578-5512 

Fax BlS-35(,.7042 

p rbCiiJ bJrnctclcgaL c;;)J11 

1\labama Office 

460 I East Lake BtlUlevard 

Hangar # 29 

Birmingham-Shuttlesv.mrth International Airport (KBHM) 

Birmingham, Alabama 35217 
CERTIFICATK OF 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 (8 I 5) 356-7042 

Legal 

~£liN~ 

Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Dated 

us Postal Service~ 

c'eimFIED MAJL® RECEIPT 

m stlc Mail Only 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

(__ 
-

DATE, TIME 

FAX HO. /NAME 

DURATION 

PAGE(S) 

RESULT 

0 

•. CHECK READABILITY r 

MODE 

TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT 

87/07 12:53 

91815355 704 2 

00:02:47 

05 

Of~ 

TRANSMITTED PAGE(S) ~fANDARD 

FAA 

TIME 

NAME 

FAX 

TEL 

SER. i 

Southern Region 

Office of the 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 [ I Yes 

Fltm 

To 

Firm 
LISPS 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 

Track Another Package 

Trac~!ng (or ra-uipt) numbctr 

HELPFUL U!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, jl 600.95 

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 

Nutianal J.'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 up for My USP-S. 

Available Actions 

To:xt Updales 

Emall U pdato.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 CHAIN 
Alan long. M.D. 

~rom: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Dr. Long, 

Chris .Stevenso n@fa a.g ov 

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 other with Information past the close of discovery 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

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'm working on gett:ng this all out to 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, 

> 

>Christopher Stevenson 

>Attorney 

> Office of the 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 I FAA) 

.> 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 OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM 

FLIGHT CENTER, INC. 

Respondent 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

Case No. 2012S0090053 

ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO AMEND, CONTINUING 

THE NOVEMBER 2015 HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 2016, 

AND GRANTING OTHER RELIEF 

On August 27, 2015 an Order Setting Motion Conference was filed. 1 

On August 31,2015 the parties appeared by telephone for the Motion Conference, and 

presented argument on their motions for relief. 

Short Background Summary: 

The parties appeared for a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference on April 7, 2015 

and agreed to a litigation plan, which was codified in the April 7, 2015 Order Setting Litigation 

Dates and Procedures ("Order"). As part of this litigation plan, the parties agreed to immediately 

begin conducting discovery, and conduct all discovery and any needed motions within a short 

four and a half ( 4 'l2) month period. 

During the April 7, 2015 Motion Conference, the parties were asked if they wished to 

schedule time for dispositive motions. If so, then the case would be scheduled in the year 2016. 

If not, then an earlier November Hearing date that had recently opened on the court's calendar 

would be available. (4/7/15 Tr. 8:8-19.) The FAA expressed uncertainty as to whether it would 

file any future dispositive motion(s), because discovery exchange had not yet been conducted. In 

contrast, the Respondent asserted that no such motion was needed. (4/7/15 Tr. 8:22 -9: 12.) 

1 The 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 might be needed in this case, the FAA agreed 

to schedule the pre-hearing litigation process without any dispositive motions specifically 

calendared. A pre-h,~aring litigation plan was then agreed to by the parties, which included 

identifying all expert witnesses no later than May 29, 2015, scheduling depositions and issuing 

subpoenas by June 19, 2015, and completing all depositions, discovery, and motions by August 

21, 2015. (Order, 2-3.) The parties also agreed to try the case in on November 18-19, 2015. 

(Order, 3, A (13).) 

On April 17, 2015 (i.e., ten (10) days after the April 7, 2015 Motion Conference), the 

parties exchanged initial disclosures, pursuant to the April 7, 2015 Order. (Order, 1, A(!).) 

Three (3) days later, on April 20,2015, the parties served each other with general discovery 

requests. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220(d), the responses to such discovery was due "not later 

than 30 days [after] ... service." Thus, each party should have filed its responses to the April20, 

2015 mutually exchanged discovery requests on or before May 21, 2015. During this time 

period (i.e., April21, 2015- May 21, 2015), any party unhappy with the served discovery had 

the option (if needed) to file a motion for limitation relief (Order, 2, A ( 4).) In addition during 

this time period (i.e., April21, 2015- May 21, 2015), the parties agreed that the FAA would 

disclose all expert witnesses, on or before May 15,2015. Two weeks later, on May 29, 2015, the 

Respondent would disclose its expert witnesses. (Order, 2, A (6).) 

According to the April 7, 2015 litigation plan, and assuming all general discovery 

responses were served on or before May 21,2015 (the 30th day), a party unhappy with discovery 

responses (or the lack of discovery responses) had the option to file a motion to compel 

discovery, "within ten (I 0) days" after lack of discovery or service of deficient discovery. 

(Order, 2, A (5).) Thus, absent an agreed extension of time, a party unhappy with served 

discovery, or the lack of discovery, would file a motion to compel no later than June I, 2015. 

(Order, 2, A (6).) Thereafter, any depositions of witnesses were to be scheduled by June 19, 

20 I 5, and completed before the August 21, 2015 discovery deadline. (Order, 3 , A (8-9).) 

Brief Discussion: 

The FAA seeks to amend the April 7, 2015 Order by continuing the November 2015 

hearing date, extending the time to exchange discovery, and setting dispositive motion deadlines. 

Page 2 of 6 
The Respondent asserts it has completed discovery responses, and that the FAA has failed to act 

diligently in adhering to the litigation schedule. The Respondent objects to a continuance of the 

hearing and to scheduling dispositive motions, but also moves to compel discovery. 

The purpose of the April 7, 2015 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and April 7, 2015 

Order, was to ensure that the parties organized their cases and proceeded as expeditiously as 

possible. See, 6A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1522.1 (3d. ed. 2015)("the scheduling conference ... is 

directed toward organizing the [litigation] process ... [and] setting deadlines for the completion of 

the various pretrial phases."). A scheduling order is a "critical path chosen by the trial judge and 

the parties" to secure the ')ust, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every 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 established by 

the court in the order, are binding on the parties. See, 6A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. §§ 1522.1 and 

1522.2 (3d. ed. 2015); Marcum v. Zimmer, Id at 253 ("a scheduling order .. .is not a frivolous 

piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril" citing 

Goewey v. United States, 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's motions, the Respondent correctly identified the good 

cause standard of review for considering a party's motion to amend or modify the binding 

litigation schedule. (Resp. 4.) In essence, the "focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's 

reasons for seeking modification." Johnson v. Mammorth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9'h 

Cir. 1992). "If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. (!d.) 

/ I ) ~.' I' 

[I]f the party seeking relief can show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite 

the party's diligence, relief may be given. Similarly, relief may be granted if the court 

finds that the movant has not unduly delayed the action and that the opponent will not be 

prejudiced by the modification. When the modification is necessitated by acts of the 

opposing party or by the opponent's failure to act, relief also has been deemed 

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's Apri\20, 2015 discovery requests. However, the Respondent's 

Page 3 of 6 
argument that the FAA's motions should be denied, because the FAA had failed to act diligently 

on the case, was not fully persuasive. 

As specifically discussed during the August 31, 2015 Motion Conference, the original 

April 7, 2015 litigation plan had been an ambitious, short-set plan with strict deadlines, to allow 

the parties the opportunity to utilize an early hearing date available on the court's calendar. 

Unfortunately, there was a mutual abandonment of the litigation schedule by both parties after 

exchanging general discovery requests on April 20, 2015. It was undisputed that neither party 

served timely responses, on or before May 21, 20!5 (the 30th day), to the April20, 2015 

discovery requests. Neither party filed motions to limit the requested discovery within the thirty 

day discovery window (i.e., Apri121, 2015- May 21, 2015) after receipt of the requests. 

Immediately after May 21, 2015 deadline, neither party filed a motion to compel discovery, 

"within ten (1 0) days" after the lack of receipt of discovery responses. (Order, 2 ,I A (6).) 

Neither party identified expert witnesse's in May 2dl'5 pursuant to the litigation deadlines. In 1. ' .,, ' 

addition, neither party contacted the other to schedule any depositions of witnesses on or before 

the deadline of June 19, 2015. 

As noted by the parties during the August 31, 2015 Motion Conference, part of the 

abandonment of the litigation schedule occurred because the FAA's original attorney left the 

FAA on June 25,2015 to accept another job. Approximately six (6) days after this original 

attorney transferred to a different federal agency, the case was reassigned to a new FAA 

attorney, who did not receive a complete file. Although the FAA's new attorney acted promptly 

to file a July I, 2015 Notice of Appearance, and immediately contacted the Respondent to try 

and complete discovery exchange, communications between the parties took time, and did not 

result in discovery completion before the deadline of August 21, 2015? 

There is no doubt that the Respondent took 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's April20, 2015 discovery requests on August I, 2015 (i.e., over two 

2 The details of the parties' communications between July I, 2015 and August 21, 2015 were fully discussed during 

the August 31, 2015 Motion Conference, and will not be reiterated here, 

3 As noted in the August 31, 2015 Motion Conference, the newly assigned FAA attorney propounded new discovery 

requests on July 7, 2015, because it did not have copies of the earlier April20, 2015 FAA discovery requests, 

Page 4 of 6 
months after the May 21,2015 due date), provided supplemental disclosure on August 17,2015, 

provided courtesy copies of its August 1, 2015 responses to the FAA on August 19, 2015, and 

provided new disco-,ery responses on August 21, 2015 to the FAA's July 7, 2015 propounded 

general discovery requests. 

In contrast, as of the date of the August 31,2015 Motion Conference, the FAA had not 

yet filed any responses to the Respond~pt's ApJi\~R~,2015 discovery requests. While this is not .. commendable, it is not, as the Respondent asserted, solely because of a lack of diligence on the 

part of the FAA. Instead, it is the result of a mutual abandorunent (for a time) of the discovery 

schedule by both parties, combined with the disruption of an attorney substitution on the FAA 

case under unusual circumstances, and the lack of immediate communications between the 

parties after such substitution occurred. This combination of factors, in this particular case, is 

sufficient to support a finding of good cause, and to grant the FAA's Motion to Amend the 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 relevant caselaw, regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The FAA has established good cause to support its Motion to Amend the April 7, 2015 

Order setting the litigation schedule. 

2. The FAA's Motion to Amend the April?, 2015 Order setting the litigation schedule is 

granted. 

3. The November 18-19,2015 Hearing set in Birmingham, Alabama is continued to 

September 13-14,2016. 

4. On or before September 30,2015 the FAA shall serve the Respondent with responses to 

the Respondent's April20, 2015 discovery requests. 

Page 5 of 6 
5. Between now and October 15, 2015, the parties shall confer informally to discuss a 

mutually convenient schedule for filing a dispositive motion, response, and reply, as well 

for a recommended telephone Motion Conference for oral argument on such motion. 

Such Motion Conference should be proposed for at least sixty (60) days prior to the 

September 13-14, 2016 Hearing (i.e., on or before 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 submission of witness lists and exhibits (and other deadlines) needed before the 

September 20 I 6 Hearing. 

7. Between now and October 30, 2015, the parties shall confer informally to discuss and 

attempt to resolve any disputes regarding requested discovery. 

8. On or before October 30,2015, either party may file (if needed) a motion to compel 

discovery. If such a motion if filed, it must be accompanied by a Rule 37 Declaration 

identifying the party's efforts to informally resolve the discovery dispute with opposing 

counsel. 

9. For any procedural questions about this Order, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, 

Attorney-Advisor at the Office of Hearings (202-366-6941). 

Attachment: Service·List 

Page 6 of6 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

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. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Respondent 

424 3 East Lake Blvd. 

Birmingham, AL 35217 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by 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 OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

CIVIL PENALTY SUBPOENA 

In the Matter of: Docket No.: 

Binnin£h~m Flight Center. 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 of the Department of Transportation 

at: 

in the city of -----------on the 

at _____ am 

D To appear and testify at a deposition to be conducted by: 

at: 

in the city of ------------on the 

at _____ am 

------ day of ________ 20 ___ , 

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

fil To bring with you andorQduc~ the fol1owing documents, records, papers, books, and tangible items: ~ See attacliea naer. 

If you have any questions about this subpoena, contact 

at this address and telephone number: ----------------------------

Hearing Docket Clerk 

Authority: 14 C.P.R.§ 13.228; 49 U.S.C. §§ 5121 and L47U)(1), or49 U.S.C §§ 46104 and 106(g)(l) 

ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT OBEY THIS SUBPOENA IS SUBJECT TO 

FINE OR IMPRISONMEl"H OR BOTH UNDER 49 U.S.C § 46313. 
' 

RETURN OF SERVICE 

I CERTIFY that a duplicate I at origina (circle one) of this subpoena was served on the 

person named in the subpoena 

by: us e.ec+r+. 'ral Ma: I 

at: ¥1 2 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'<---------

on the .21/~ day of Oclabv: 20 J.i_ , 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC 

IN RE: Bimlingham Flight Center, Inc. ) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Respondent. FAA Case No, 2012S0090053 

SUBPOENA RIDER 

(J. Alan Long, MD) 

Please produce the following documents: 

I) All memoranda, e-mail transmissions, correspondence and documents 

received from Aviation Services Group and its agents and employees (including but not 

limited to Bob Kent and Rhonda Masters) by J. Alan Long, M.D. for the period of 

January 2011 to and including December 31,2012. 

2) All memoranda, e-mail transmissions, correspondence and documents sent 

to Aviation Services Group and its agents and employees (including but not limited to 

Bob Kent and Rhonda Masters) by J. Alan Long, M.D. for the period of January 2011 to 

and including December 31, 2012. 

3) All memoranda, e-mail transmissions, correspondence and documents 

received from Birmingham Flight Center and its agents and employees by J. Alan Long, 

M.D. for the period ofJanuary 2011 to and including December 31, 2012. 

4) All memoranda, e-mail transmissions, correspondence and documents sent 

to Binningham Flight Center and its agents and employees by J. Alan Long, M.D. for the 

period of January 2011 to and including December 31, 2012. 

5) All memoranda, e-mail transmissions, correspondence and documents 

received from Premier Group (including but not limited to its employees and its 

President, J. Steven Allen, Jr.) by J. Alan Long, M.D. for the period of January 2011 to 

and including December 31, 2012. 

6) All memoranda, e-mail transmissions, correspondence and documents sent 

to Premier Group (including but not limited to its employees and its President, J. Steven 

Allen, Jr.) by J. Alan Long, M.D. for the period of January 2011 to and including 

December 31,2012. 

7) All memoranda, e-mail transmissions, correspondence and documents 

received by J. Alan Long MD from FAA Employees, Yancey Rushton, Pat Bruce, Clay 

Perkins and David Hargett, for the period of January 20 II to the present. 
Sender. m 

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

~ GLENVIEW, lL 60025 

~ ::: 

$6.96Q 

US POSTAGE 

FIRST-GLASS 

FROM 60014 

OCT 21 2015 

. ·~ 

J. Alan Long, MD 

3512 Old Montgomery 

Homewood AL 35209 

1, 11

1

1, )>II •J•l 111 1 •11

11" 

11nml, !J .. I "II 
SEPTERMBER 30, 2015 EMAIL 
Ai.?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 30,201.5 7:58AM 

To: Alan Long, rvl.D. <along@skindxgroup.corn::o 

Subject: 81rmingham Flight Center Hearing 

Dr. Long, 

f wanted to update you on the status of the hearing concerning Birmingham Flight Center. Whc:n we h.ad spol(en before 

that hearing was scheduled for November 2015. The hearing has now been continued, and will not take place in 

Novembr:;r 2015. The hearing was continued to allow for resolution of discovery disputes and for the filing of motion 

that may resolve tl}2 case without hearing. The hearing is now scheduled for the wee!< of September 12, 2016 

t\dditionally, Binningh;nn Flight Center has requested that the Judge in this case issue subpoenas to you (and Avl·ation 

Services Group) to produce certain documents in this matter. If ond when you receive such a subpoena, please contact 

me (or have your attorney contact me). The requests appear to be improper in whole or in part. in that v.}e are past the 

point in this litigation where new tliscovery requests have been made., and in that the requests appetlr to seek 

documentation tha: is not relevant to this case. You and your attorney may, of course, be able to identify other 

problems with regards to this request. !f you rec€ive the subpoena. you will be required to co mph; v.J!th it lmless 

sornelhing is. filed with the court seeking re!ieffram the subpoena. 

Christophe!" Stevenson 

i\ttornev 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division- Southern Tearn 

(404i 305-5208 
OCTOBER 27, 2015 EMAIL 
From: 

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, October 27, 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: scan user 

Sen~: Tuesday,. October 27, 2015 9:50 Ar\·i 
To: Alan Long, M.D.< 

Subject: Attached Image 

> 
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS. WASHINGTON. DC 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

Docket No. FAA-20 I !:it~~i i 

.Judge .1. E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No. 2012S0090053 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

Now Comes the Respondent. Birmingham Flight Center_ by its attorneys. Barnett 

& Borth. LLC and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26 and Rule 37 

moves this Court to impose sanctions upon the Complainant and in support states as 

follows: 

I. Factnal Background: 

From the inception of the 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 of the Enforcement Investigation Report (FIR) concerning this 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 consisting of 50 pages. 

Subsequently the 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 I 
On 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 of the 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 Cat p.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 of the 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 Administrator to 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 serve the Respondent with responses to the 

Respondent's April20, 2015 discovery requests." ld. Respondent's Requests fix 

Production pettinent to the instant motion include: 

21 

2. Complete copies of all statements (oral. written. or 

transcribed, signed or unsigned) by parties or witnesses to 

this matter. including but not limited to individuals who: 

has or claims to have knowledge of any of the facts 

specitied in the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. 

(See Exhibit Eat #2). 

7. All written documents, materials, exhibits. 

diagrams. plats. photographs, records, films. and the like to 

be used by your experts and witnesses to prepare for 
testimony or create 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/or the 

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 of seven (7) additional pages 

of documents. the Administrator did not produce any fut1her documents responsive to the 

above referenced Requests for Production. The total number of documents 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 Department ofTranspot1ation Hearing Docket clerk 

signed a subpoena duces 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 of documents #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 of e-mails and other pertinent infot-mation responsive to 

Respondent's subpoena rider requests numbers 7 through 10. (See Exhibits .I and 1<). 

31 
According to the cover letter for Dr. Long's subpoena compliance, the 

Administrator's counsel, Chris Stevenson. was also provided copies of these documents 

coincident with Dr. Long's disclosure of the documents to Respondent's counsel. 

However. an e-mai I of Dr. Long to FAA attorney. Chris Stevenson. dated August 21. 

2015 indicates that the same or similar documents 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 subpoena compliance it cannot be 

confirmed one way or the other if or on what date the document referred to in Dr. Long's 

August 21 e-mail were provided to Mr. Stevenson. 

It can be confirmed that Mr. Stevenson did provide 7 pages of documents to 

Respondent's counsel on September 18.20! 5 and that these documents were among the 

87 pages of documents provided by Dr. Long in his subpoena compliance of November 

3. 2015. The documents disclosed by Mr. Stevenson on September 18.2015 are identical 

to and in the same sequential order as some of the 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 

the judge in this case issue subpoenas to you (and Aviation 

Services Group) to produce certain documents in this 

matter. lf and 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 

that we 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, of 
course, be· able to identify other problems with the 

regards to this request. If you receive a subpoena. you 

will be required to comply with it unless something is file 

with the court seeking relief from the subpoena. (See 

Exhibit N)(Emphasis supplied). 

On October '27. 20! 5. Mr. Stevenson sent an e-mail to Dr. Long that stated: 

I would like to speak with you and/or your attorney (at your 

option) about responding to this subpoena. As I mentioned 

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 of the questions seem overbroad as well hut I 

can't speak as to how burdensome they would be 

without your input. Objection and/or motion to quash 

to some or all of the requests can come by way of 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. or otherwise) is 

appropriate. (See Exhibit O)(Emphasis supplied). 

Respondenfs counsel's urging of Dr. Long to move to quash Respondenfs 

subpoena was preceded by his urging ofRespondenfs counsel to drop the subject of 

seeking any documents generated by Mr. Rushton or the other FAA investigators 

involved in this case. 

When the 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 

51 
the basis that the request covered documents that. if they existed. would be covered by 

the deliberative process privilege, no particular documents were withheld on this basis 

beyond portions ofthe EIR." (See Exhibit Pat p. 2) 

The conclusion that may be drawn from Mr. Stevenson's e-mails is that he did not 

want Dr. Long to fully comply with the Subpoena. The conclusion drawn by 

Respondent's counsel from his October 6 letter is that the Respondent had already 

received from the Administrator of all discoverable documents other than those that are 

cloaked with attorney work product privilege. Clearly. the subject documents are not 

privileged. But tor the issuance of the subpoena to Dr. Long. these documents would 

never have seen the light of day. 

h. Sequestered Documents Discovered in Dr. Long's Subpoena 

Compliance. 

While the EIR that was produced in this case does contain selecled emails, 

statements and documents. a significant number ofemails 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 of documents. A comparison of the documents contained in the FIR and 

those produced in Dr. Long's subpoena compliance for Rider requests numbers 7 through 

I 0 bears this out. (See tor comparison. Exhibits G and L). One wonders hmv it is that the 

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 

of documents produced by the respective individuals. Almost all of the documents 

61 
sequestered by the Administrator are of particular signillcance to this case.' Some 

examples of the signillcant sequestered documents arc as follows: 

A statement written 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 (including the aircrati used tor the 

subject demonstration flight). the fact that the Respondent sent Dr. Long operating cost 

projections for the model aircraft used lor the demonstration flight (among others). Dr. 

Long's prior interaction with Premier Group (the aircrati broker that arranged the 

demonstration flight with one of its clients who was selling the airplane used in the 

subject demonstration flight). Dr. Long's prior discussions with the Respondent 

concerning using the subject airplane or similar jet 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 of it. Later 

that night I received an email from Steven Allen Jr. thanking me lor the demo flight. It 

was at that point I assume that this was the demo flight that we had been talking about. 

(Sec Exhibit J at pp. LONG 441-443 ). 

Documentation respecting the cost projections that 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. According to the Inspector's 

Statement of FAA 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. 

71 
Respondent's Supplemental Request for production seeking that document was countered 

by Mr. Stevenson with an objection that the request was untimely. (See Exhibit QJ. 

The Administrator answered Respondent"s request to produce statements by 

stating: ··,LUI statements in the possession of the FAA were included in the EIR and copies 

were previously provided to the Respondent." (See Exhibit Fat p.2). Dr. Long·s 

disclosure of his October 1. 2012 statement and the accompanying cmai Is 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 

request to produce #2 is patently false. In addition. Respondent's request for production 

asked for "All correspondence and e-mails sent to 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 that this request appears to seek 

documents that would primarily be in the possession of persons other than the FAA (or 

its employees). and that the FAA makes no representations as to what documents third 

pat1ies may possess ... (See Exhibit Fat# 18). 1fthese e-m ails drafted by Mr. Rushton 

were outside the definition of"all correspondence and emails sent to or h·om Dr. Long 

they were surely the 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 

concerning this case include deliberative process privileged materials. such as the abovereferenced opinions in the EIR. as well as internal discussions between FAA personnel 

81 
about 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 of the 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 by the 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 of a citation jet and the background facts 

and his impressions concerning the subject demonstration flight. (See Exhibit J at 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 of documents. The October 1. 2012 statement of Dr. Long was buried by the 

Administrator. But for the diligence of the Respondent in secking documents from Dr. 

Long. these documents would never have been unearthed. 

In addition to the revelation of Dr. Long's initial statement. a number of c-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 of FAA Order 2150 were uncovered in Dr. Long's 

subpoena compliance. These emails of Mr. Rushton were dratied and sent to Dr. Long 

to! lowing a meeting that Mr. Rushton had with Dr. Long at Dr. Long"s medical ot11ce on 

91 
September 21. 2012. The tenor of that meeting can be gleaned by reading the opening 

portion of Mr. Rushton's record of conversation 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 I would just 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 or that he owned an aircraft. After 

Dr. Long realized that I wasn'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 of Dr. 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 of the pertinent cmails sent by Mr. 

Rushton to Dr. Long follows: 

10 1 

October 3. 2012 (clj 7:49am: 

Thanks for your time last night. I was wondering if you 

knew who your insurance carrier was for the airplane 

and if you have a copy of the 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 J at p. LONG 444 )(Emphasis 

supplied). 

October 3. 2012 ({j! 8:21 am: 

Even if you sign something. I give you my word that you 

will be left out of this. You are new to aviation and are 
II 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 at your wife and eight kids and think about what 

could 'vc happened to you, your practice, and your 

family. Thanks Doc. I know you don't want to be 

involved and I will keep you out of this 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 doing the right thing. It takes a strong 

man to do what's right sometimes and I appreciate 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 risk will not be tolerated. That is 

what occurred here. This was not an innocent case of a 

misunderstanding. BFC knew what they were doing and we 

are going to prevent this from happening again. It's not 

pleasant to see kids in innocent people burned 

/mutilated /and injured and especially unpleasant when 

you know it was all in the interest of chasing the 

almighty dollar. (Exhibit J at p. LONG 451 )(Emphasis 

Supplied). 

October 4. 2012@ 3:36pm: 

I guess that should tell you something about the manager of 

your aircraft. You think you would have been covered 

had something happened?? Good luck. Please keep all of 

this to yourself to help us. Pickett does not need to know 

what we know. (Exhibit J at p. LONG 458)(Emphasis 

supplied). 

October 12. 20121GJ 10:57 pm: 

Doc: You do whatever you need or feel like doing. I would 

just say. he knows the hammer is about to fall and you 

just need to remember that he flew your wife uninsured. 

allow Justin to tly uninsured. and used your plane (New 

Orleans) for his purposes. not yours. I am all about helping 

people and understanding mistakes. This case is not about 

that. This is about greed, and a complete lack of concern 

for others and safety all in the interest of making a 

buck. He proved to me that he doesn't care and that's 

why he needs to be taken down. He knows he was wrong 

and he wants to talk and make you feel sorry for him. Do 

what you want and I don't care, but understand this, this 

is not his first rodeo. If he walks he will do this again to 

somebody else just like you. He played with your assets 
and your family's safety. He put it uninsured 

unqualified pilot in a plane with your wife and family. 

Remember that I represent you and him and I have no 

interest in winning anything. I care about lives and safety 

and I see a lot of horrible deaths from people that are 

qualified and fly planes they shouldn't be flying. 

Mistakes are one thing. Willful acts of negligence are 

another. Good night. (See Exhibit J 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'm just trying to protect you, your wife, me, 

and the random person on the street. This was careless, 

disrespectful, and self-centered. It wasn't a[n] innocent 

mistake it was calculated and deceitful. (See Exhibit .I at 

LONG 468) (Emphasis supplied). 

Mr. Rushton had no evidence that there was no insurance coverage on the 

demonstration airplane, had no evidence that the Respondent's pilot \vas not qualified. 

had no evidence that of crashes in similar situations. had no evidence that the Respondent 

had any prior violations or that the Respondent was engaged in ··systemic" violations. In 

fact. the ElR compiled by Mr. Rushton contains no information or documents that would 

suppoti any of the 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 of a number of the witnesses in this case. one would think that Mr. 

Rushton sought and received most if not all of these documents back in 2012. Theemails were quite obviously in the Administrators possession years before the Respondent 

requested them. Another email that came to light in Dr. Long's subpoena compliance 

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 ago 
implying that I have done nothing about the school in 

question or the individual. I don't think her assume you 

would write such a letter but you might know the people 

who did write this letter. If so. please pass on and 

understand that I'm doing alii can within the structure of 

the system and I think 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 of proof is 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 people that 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 of cards will fall too though I think you 

will sec the results you are hoping fi.,r. Bottom line. if you 

are talking with people who wrote me that letter two days 

ago, this FSDO is aware of the 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 of the Administrator and his agents in this case has demonstrated that 

the integrity of the FAA. the enforcement process and this litigation has been damaged 

past the point that could be considered an objective investigation or advocacy in a civil 

penalty action or any FAA action. 

a. Violations of FAA Order 2150.3 B 

According to FAA Order 2150.3 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 encompass the right of an apparent violator to be 

given objective. evenhanded consideration of all circumstances surrounding the 

allegations before final action is taken. It also requires good faith efforts to understand 

the apparent violator's position and take it into account .... " FAA Order 2150.3 B Ch. 2 

131 
, g. The introductory remarks concerning the creation of an EIR state that: .. The 

Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) is the means for documenting. assembling. 

organizing. and presenting ali evidence and other relevant infiJrmalion ohtained during 

an invesfigation. L'.A Order 2! 50.3 B Ch.8 ~ ! . (Emphasis supplied). 

In this case. it is apparent that the 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 set forth 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 of the EIR. To make matters worse. these documents 

were never disclosed by the Administrator's counsel when they were clearly part of the 

FAA· s corporate memory and were subject to disclosure. Instead the Respondent 

received a selective. incomplete set of documents that had been cherry picked prior to 

disclosure. Numerous other dictates of Order 2150.3 B were also either disregarded or 

were patently violated. Some of the relevant examples are cited and explained below. 

FAA Order 2150.3 B dictates that: ·'FAA investigative personnel's role in an 

investigation is to gather all material. relevant evidence that either proves or disproves 

the potential violation that precipitated the investigation ... FAA Order 2150.3 B Ch.4 ~ 2 

a. (Emphasis in original). The records and other documents guidelines contained in FAA 

Order 2150.3 B provide. in part. that: .. Records and other documents are perhaps the most 

common type of evidence gathered by FAA investigative personnel. FAA investigative 

personnel gather and obtain all documents that are relevant to matters that are being 

investigated ... FAA Order 2150.3 B Ch. 4 11 I 0 (c) (I 0). Obviously not all materials that 

may serve to disprove a potential violation was included in the EIR or disclosed. It is not 

141 
for the investigator to decide to leave potentially damaging information out of the EIR 

and it is not for the Administrator's counsel to leave this information out of discovery 

compliance. 

The evidence provision of FAA Order 2150.3 B dictates that: ""Evidence includes 

all the means by which any alleged fact tends to be proved or disproved . .. If FAA 

investigative personnel are unsure about the relevance of a piece of evidence. they secure 

and preserve the evidence and consult legal counsel." FAA Order 2150.3 B Ch.4 ~ I 0 a. 

(Emphasis supplied). Here a wealth of relevant evidence was buried. To state that this 

new found evidence is not relevant to this action strains all notions of credibility. 

The communications with counsel provision of FAA Order 2150.3 B dictates that: 

FAA investigative personnel share information and communicate as needed with legal 

counsel during an investigation and the processing of enfi.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 answer to this 

question is unknown. 

The witness interview guidelines contained in FAA Order 2150.3 B provide that: 

No promises ofcontidentiality may be given without prior consultation with FAA legal 

counsel. .. Do not discuss with witnesses any possible sanctions ... The report of 

interview must not contain personal opinions of the interviewer. . FAA Order 2150.3 B 

Ch. 4 ~ 10 (c) (3). Many of the investigator's statements contain personal opinions and 

surely some of the emails that Mr. Rushton sent to Dr. Long included promises of 

contidentiality as stated in one of Mr. Rushton's October 3. 2012 emails: "l give you my 

word that you will be left out of this ... Thanks Doc. I know you don't want to be 

IS I 
involved and I will keep you out of this ... (See Exhibit J at p LONG 445). ··Please keep 

all of this to yourself to help us. Pickett does not need to know what we know."" (Exhibit .I 

at p. LONG 458). 

The preparation of witness statements guidelines contained in FAA Order 1150.3 

B provide. in part. that: "FAA investigative personnel do not dictate the content of the 

statement.·· FAA Order 2 I 50.3 B Ch.4 4 ~ I 0 (c) ( 6 ). Perhaps Mr. Rushton did not 

dictate the content of the statements tiled by Dr. Long after October 1. 2012. but he sure 

went out of his way to influence the thinking of Dr. Long by bringing out visions of plane 

crashes and greed. There was no accident or incident involved here and there is no 

evidence that the Respondent somehow profited from the demonstration flight. 

The copying of records an authenticity of rel:urds guidelines contained in FAA 

Order 2150.3 B provide. in part. that: FAA investigative personnel exercise care to 

assure that documentary evidence obtained is current and applicable to the time of 

the violations in question and that prior or later versions of documentary evidence 

that may be important to 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 B dictates that: ··Portions of the electronic evidence relevant to the 

investigation are printed out on discovery and included in the EIR."" FAA Order 2150.3 B 

Ch.4 ~ I 0 (c)(29). The electronic documents provision of FAA Order 2150.3 B dictates 

that: ··For electronic documents. FAA investigative personnel identify a witness who can 

testify the printout is a correct reflection of the 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 Order 2150.3 B Ch.4 11 10 (c)(30). The email provision ofF AA Order 

16] 
2150.3 B dictates that: ··For e-mail messages. FAA investigative personnel identify as a 

possible witness the recipient of the e-mail and include in the EIR as an item of 

proof a signed statement from that witness stating the 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 the original message 

and all replies, as well as the routing information. FAA Order 2150.3 B Ch.4 ~ I 0 (c) 

(31) (Emphasis supplied). 

Where are all these emails contained in the EIR? The Administrator did leak a 

few out by way of the EIR and some were disclosed in discovery but all of the 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 implementing changes to 49 CFR 821.19. the 

NTSB tlnalized an amendment to paragraph (d) of that section that provides: 

(d) Failure to provide copy of releasable 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 

Administrator fails to provide the releasable portion of the 

EIR to the respondent by the time he or she serves the 

complaint on the respondent. the respondent may move to 

dismiss the complaint or for other relief and. unless the 

Administrator establishes good cause for that failure. the 

lawjudge shall order such relief as he or she deems 

appropriate. after considering the parties· arguments. 49 

CFR 821.19 (d). 

As demonstrated above. the Administrator failed to provide Respondent with all 

releasable portions of the EIR and cannot meet any of the criteria for exception to the 

provisions of 49CFR S21.19 (d) setfo11h in49 CFR 821.19 (d)(2). No good cause 

171 
exists tor the Administrator"s violation of this rule. Accordingly. this Court should 

dismiss the Administrator's complaint with prejudice. 

b. Violations of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26 and Rule 37 

This Court entered an Order requiring the Administrator to comply with Rule 26 

and to 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 not fully investigated 

the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another 

party's disclosures or because another party has not made 

its disclosures. 

Rule 37(c) provides for alternative sanctions in addition to. or in lieu of. the 

sanction of exclusion of the non-released discovery. The alternative sanctions are set up 

to provide relief for the present situation where preclusion of evidence is not an effective 

incentive to compel disclosure of information that would benefit the party to whom it was 

not disclosed. Where. as here. the Administrator possessed evidence that would tend to 

support the Respondent·s position: excluding such evidence would not punish the 

Administrator or afford a remedy to the Respondent. Therefore. in addition to the 

automatic preclusion of evidence. district courts may impose other appropriate sanctions. 

In addition to requiring payment of reasonable expenses. including attorney fees. 

caused by the failure to disclose. these sanctions may include an order that 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 1 
case it is warranted as bad faith is present. Dismissal may be "imposed only if the court 

concludes that a pat1y's failure to cooperate in discovery is due to willfulness. bad faith. 

or fault.'' Reg'! Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co .. 842 F.2d 150. !53-54 (6th 

Cir. ! 988). Deeming certain 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 of pleadings or poriions thereof is also a sanction that may 

be imposed in a case such as the present one. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. v. 

American Body Armor, Inc .. 177 F.R.D. 633. 637 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Dismissing or 

entering judgment as to part or all of the 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 !rom the date of the signing of 

initial disclosures and responses. Rule 26(e) requires the Administrator to supplement. 

which in this case is rather moot in light of the fact that the Administrator possessed the 

subject documents even before this I itigation began. 

The Court may sanction the Administrator for failing to do so under Rule 3 7. The 

rather severe sanction of dismissal is also appropriate when the nature of this case is 

considered. Being a case governed by the principles of administrative law. had this case 

been tried with the cherry picked EIR that the Administrator provided. the administrative 

•·ecord would be devoid of all of the newly unearthed information and evidence and all 

appeals to this action would be reviewed on a bogus administrative record. Based on the 

191 
facts 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 proper and just 

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 1 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have sent via FedEx the foregoing RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue. S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W I 000 

Washington. D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings. M-20 

lJ .S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE(Eil-310) 

Washington D.C. 20590 

1 hereby certify that I have sent via e-mail the foregoing RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS addressed to: 

Christopher Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Olliee of the 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' t i ! ~ ~al. ~~~~ll_!_ 

21 I 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS. WASHINGTON. DC 

In the Matter of: ) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER. INC. ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

Docket No. FAA-20 I 4-0867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No. 20 12S0090053 

RULE 37 CERTIFICATION 

I hereby 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 of documents and the Administrator failed to 

provide a complete copy of the releasable portions of the EIR. The representations 

concerning discovery and the EIR are contained in the Exhibits attached to the J(:>regoing 

brief and include. Exhibit F. P. and Q. The subject matter of this 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 (84 7) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 
FEBRUARY 22, 2016 ORDER 
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: February 22, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT O.F TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket Ko. FAA-20 !4-0867 

BIRMINGHAM 

FLIGHT CENTER. INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 20 l2S0090053 

Respondent 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DTSMISS 

AND RESERVING RULING ON OTHER SANCTIONS 

On November 18, 2015, the Respondent, Birmingham Flight 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"). 

On December 16,2015, the Respondent filed the Respondent's Motion for Protective 

Order and Request to Delay the Filing of a Reply to the Administrator's Response [sic] 

Respondent's Motion for Sanctions. 

On December 17.2015, an Order Granting the Respondent's Request to 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 Striking the 

FAA's Response in Opposition to Motion f(lr Sanctions (''Reply'} 

A. Short Summa!)' of Dispute 

Only ce11ain matters will be highlighted in this discussion. which addresses only the 

Respondent's Motion for Dismissal as a sanction. Other requested sanctions are reserved. and 

will be addressed in a separate Order. 
The Respondent generally alleges that "[i]rom the inception" of the FAA's investigation 

in this case, the FAA has engaged in "improper, sanctionable conduct'' (Motion, I, 111.) The 

Respondent more specifically-asserts that the FAA has violated the following: a) the FAA's own 

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 of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 26 (Motion, 18, ~II (b); Reply, 1 -3.) The Respondent requests 

dismissal with prejudice as a sanction, or in the alternative, other "s<mctions as the Court deems 

proper and just.'' (Motion, 20.) 

ln response, the FAA asserts that it did not engage in most of the behavior that the 

Respondent has alleged. Further, the FAA argues that even if it were proved that it failed to 

follow some of its own internal guidelines for investigation of a civil penalty case, such error 

would not be grounds lor either dismissal or ahernately plead sanctions. (Response, 1.) 

B. Authority for Dismissal and Sanctions 

In FAA civil penalty proceedings, a pany may 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 

of such a motion has the bmden of proof: 14 C.F.R. § 13.224 (h). 

In addition, the FAA's Rules of Practice ("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 agreed joint schedules, 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 

In its request for dismissal, the Respondent acknowledges that none of the 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 3 7, (Motion, 1 ); b) the Conn's inherent authority to nmnage litigation 

Page 2 of 6 
(Reply, 9); and, c) by using as guidance decisions issued by the National Transportation Safety 

Board ("NTSB'') (Reply, ll ). 

In response, 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 supported by its materials. (Resp. 16.) 

D. Discussion 

All pleading and arguments submitted by both 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 litigation practice that H court has broad discretion 

to impose discovery sanctions, either for violation of discovery rules or orders. or under the 

court's inherent power 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 

3 7(c). This may include sanctioning a party who violates court orders designed to enable judges 

to control their dockets and manage the flow oflitigation. 33 Am. Jur. ProofolFacts 3d 459 § 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, 83 I 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 conduct and assure that it will not profit from it; 2) to compensate the other 

party(s) for the expense and/or dif!iculties caused by any impropriety: 3) to specifically deter the 

offending party from future misconduct, and secure its compliance with a particular court order 

and/or other litigation duties; and, 4) to generally deter others hom engaging in litigation abuses. 

33 Am. Jur. ProofofFacts 3d 459 § I (Dec. 2015). 

2. Authoritv of Administrative Court in FAA Civil. Penaltv Case~ 

The authority of this Court to regulate proceedings in FAA civil penalty cases originates 

ti·om Section 556 of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA''), 5 U.S.C. § 556. The APA 

Page 3 of6 
provides in part that a U.S. Administrative Law Judge presides over administrative adjudication 

"[s]ubject to published rules of the agency and within its powers." The "published rules of the 

agency" governing this and all FAA civil penalty proceedings are the FAA's Rules of Practice 

("ROP") found in 14 C.F,R. Part 13. Subpart G. These rules arc binding in FAA civil penalty 

proceedings. 

When the FAA promulgated its ROP in J 990, the FAr\ wanted to maintain a ''less 

formal" administrative process. 55 Fed. Reg. 27563 (Jul. 3, 1990) (Discussion of Final Rule). As 

a result, it declined to adopt as controlling the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. /d. at 27563. 

However, the FAA Administrator explained that its ow11 rules regarding discovery. 

although not as detailed as the Federal Rules, were "already roughly parallel ... [to] the Federal 

Rules .. , I d. Thus, adding additional discovery safeguards, as urged by commentators, was 

um1ecessary. The FAA Administrator also assllfed the public that the Federal Rules--and case 

law construing them,-would be "instn1ctive" in administrative 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, Tokyo Air Cargo U'iA, FAA Order No. 2004-7, at 5 (Sept. 22, 2004); 

KDS Aviaticm Inc., FAA Order No. 91-17 (May 30, 1991) (Complainant's reference to Federal 

Rules "does not change the fact that it is the order itself~issued pursuant to the authority to 

"[r]cgulate the murse ofthe 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)-that is binding on the parties). 

As noted briefly above, both parties agreed that under the Federal Rules, dismissal may 

be utilized as a sanction j{}f discovery violations" Generally. in imposing sanctions, the ·'com1 

need not find that the party or its counsel acted willfully or in bad faith ... unless the sanction is 

dismissal of the complaint or entry of detiwlt judgment." 33 Am. Jur. Proofof Facts 3d 459, §§ 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 of 6 
Rule 37: and Wallace v McG/othan. 606 F. 3d410 (7'h Cir. 2010).1t is also well-established in 

general federal practice that dismissal of a 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 3d 459 § 21 (Dec. 2015); Montblanc-Simplo GmbH v. Colibri Corp., 

692 F. Supp. 2d 245 (E.D. N.Y. 2010.) 

a) FAA 's ROP Limitation Regarding Sanctions 

However, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13 .205(b), the FAA's ROP limit the types of sanctions 

U.S. Administrative Law Judges may impose when presiding over FAA. civil penalty cases. 14 

C.F.R. § 13.205(b) provides in part: 

The administrative law judge shall not issue an order of contempt, award cost to any 

party, or impose any sanction nut specified in this subpart. If the administrative law judge 

imposes any sanction not specified in this Sllbpart, a party may t'ile an interlocutory 

appeal of right with the FAA decisioumaker pursuant to § 13 .219( c)( 4) of this subpart. 

!4 C.F.R. § l3.205(bl. 

As noted earlier. sanctions arc speeiiicd in the ROP in four ( 4) separate sections. The 

Respondent has idcntiticd all four (4) sections in pleading f(>r relief: (Reply, 9.) However. the 

ROP has expressly limited the use of sanctions. and dismissal as a sanction is not specifically 

allowed. Thus, even if a 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 default judgement), the specitic limitation language under 14 C.F.R. § J 3.205(b) prohibits 

dismissal or dispositive relief as relief. 

b) Recenr F;J,j Administrator Decision···· Dismissal not Allowed as 5'anction 

The issue of dismissal as a discovery sanction was recently addressed by the FAA 

Administrator in the case of Gamache-Wonman. FAA Order No. 2012-4 (May 22. 2012). ln this 

ca>e, the Jll(ige "incongruously'" dismissed the respondent's request ic>r hearing fLS a discovery 

violation sanction, and simultaneously entered a civil penalty finding and j udgmcnt for S2,500 

based on the allegations in the FAA ·s complaint. The FAA Administrator reversed both 

decisions, holding in part: 

Page 5 of 6 
The Rules of Practice in Civil Penalty Proceedings do not specify that an ALJ [sic]may 

dismiss a respondent's request for hearing as a sanction for a respondent's failure to 

respond to a discovery order or order to compel. 

I d. at 6. 

The FAA Adminisuaror also 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 Controlling or lnsrructive 

The Respondent's alternate argument for dismissal based on decisions issued by the 

National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") must also be rejected. (Mot. 17.) The rules 

governing proceedings at the NTSB, or other administrative forums, do not supersede the FAA's 

ROP. It is also noteworthy that, unlike the NTSB rules (e.g .. 49 C.F.R. § 821. I 9), the FAA's 

ROP do not place an a11irmative duty on the FAA tc1 provide the releasable portion of the 

Enforcement Investigative Report to a respondent by the time the FAA serves a complaint 

E, Conclusion 

Although the FAA· s ROP are "roughly parallel" to the Federal Rules. there are some 

exceptions and differences. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § I 3.205(b), the FAA Administrator has 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 as a sanction is denied. 

2. The Respomknl · s Motion for alternate sanctions is reserved. and a further Order will 

issue shortly. 

Attacbment: Service List 

Page 6 of 6 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue. S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2W!000 1 

ONE COPY 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant :v Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional CounseL ASO-7 

Southern Region 

J 701 Cohunbia Ave-nue 

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 

U.S Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey 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 ORDER 
In 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 I 8, 2015, the R~sponcknt. l.lirminghnm !'light Center. Inc .. I! led the 

Rcspond~nt 's Motion llw Sanctions ("Motion''). which inc ludcd n rcq ucst l'or a\ kmatc sur1e t ions. 

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 Con l<orcncc wus tiled. 

On /\prili12010.thc parties convened I(Jr· a Motion 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 a Suppkment<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 u Complaim on the 1\<.'spondcnL a flight school 

opcmting in llinninghnm, Alubnmu. In this Cornplaintthc I:AA cdlcb(cd that on or about 

Sqttcmbcr I K, 21112. the Rctspondent had opcrnwi u pusscngcr llightl'or compcnsution or hire 

without n ccrtil1cd 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 u lkcvmber I H. 21114 :\n,;wcr Hnd cknicd the rtllcge~ti<>IJS. 

B. Short Summary of Respondent's Motion 

The l(cspondcnt's November I H. 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 or the "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(lf llismissrtl w;IS 

rh ~~ /\ jni! 1 ,\, 20 I 6 U!'lkl' ~·non~ously idr.;n\1 Fii.!d dtL' dDt!:: nr l lie Mot ion Conlt'r'l.!l'\~~ H'> "!\ pl'il I 6, ~0 I (J " ( r\ pt·i I 

1.~. :.10 1(, 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 ur ScndL'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. u third-party witness 1 Mot. 

0.13 ); and 

b. l·ai led 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. n third 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 11di i.:J\l ion tWfllld in c iv i I 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 I hi" 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 

Jlll ssess ill IL 

C. Short Summury of FAA'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, I 0·1 J. I The 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 I J. Subpart U ("I';\;\ Rules"). Th~ Ft\i\ Rules 

spcci 11cnlly address the imposition of' sanctions in l(ntr ( 4) eli rterent sections .. , Tlw llll'l~C I 3) 

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', Ill HI 

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 a party should "eon1ply with a motion'' or wilh a 

"discovery request": 

(I') Suncriunsjorjitihfl·e 10 c<lllllliV wirhjoim schedule. If" n runy lltils lo comply 

with the ndministmtivc law judge's order cst<tblishing a joint schedule'. the 

:tdministrmivc ktwjudgc mny direct lhnt party ro comply with a morion /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 law JUdge 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 a court 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 u I'Ctjllc.stto the· 

cnurt. usually subn1iltc•d in writing, that sceb an order.") However. <l cottnordcr issued :ti'tcr 

considering and ntling upon a motion 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 ..: I k r· tilL' dOl'UII1l.'lll( ~) a!'\:: ·-\,-llllSISil'lll" \\· i t!l till' ru k·'l ()(' pnll..'l in· ( 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 of 41 
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 I 6 ("Rule I (,"), 111 and Fetkml Rule ul'l'i1 il 

l'roccclurc· 3 7 ( '"R u k J 7"). 11 i\ com p<ll'isolt 11 I' tk· si 111 i I ill. languilge 1 J bet ween 14 C. I·. R. ~ 

I \217( I) und Rules 16 and 37 dcn1onstr<tk thai the most r~usonahle interpretation or the 

['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 11 j1tint schedule. tile 

udtninistrative law judge 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 ~ I J.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. It Civ. P. l(l(h)( 1 H2)_ 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~~ C J'. IC ~ I~.~ 17(!1 H d), 

Page 6ol41 
l4CJR~ J:UI711)(1) ·(4). 

l'unher. any s:~nction(.s). i I' imposed. 11 should k "limited to tlw extent or the 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' no joint 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 a dhcovcry 

<mkr. or when a purty 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. ~ I 3.2 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 a discowt')' <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 or mnlion 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 111 C'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' (4 I "'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 CHill ply will I :1 

l'!\111'( tH'dt:l'dirl.'cting: discovery. f·'d. It Civ, P .. 17(b): J) nliling (tl disc loS(..' 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 41 
Ill. DATE 01<' COMMENCEMENT OF 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 I 5. 2014 l'ornpluinL 

As pari nl' its Rcspnnse. the FAA generally usscncd that discovery withheld or los I 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 n result. 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 September 201 2012- FAA lnvcstigution 

l'ursuanttll F;li\ Order 2 I 50Jil. C'hnpler ?J(e). ctll l'i\A civil penally investi~<>tiotl n1usr 

hc~in "promplly." In the inst<llll case. the idlcgcd September I 8. 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 

I he F/1;\ invcsligation when he rllCI with ML Kent. pmsuunt to FA;\ Orlb 2150J ll. 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 !

1i\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\' s September 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('(' 111

11\'(.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 spcci llcally idcnti lied the date that the r:;\1\ hml iHSliCd its N t'l'l'. I 1\c'Hfl. l.t H.t 

llnwc'wl·. the Rcsponucnt did ill tach a copy 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'l ion "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 !I ling 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. I H. 

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'l karing 

("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\ I kuring 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. / 1

11; ·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 of 41 
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 Cum plaint. 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 N I'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 

coli cellon and pt·cscrvllt ion o I' evidence during tlw in vest i gat i Vl' slagc:s or 1 he l'itSC was :: 111 ut ual 

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 of 41 
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· a need 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\lor nlso 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 or it.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, a bricrovcrviL'W oCFc~ir udvt..·r~arial pro~css, ulilit.ing 

matcriul in 1:1\1\ Order 2 I 50.313, 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 nf Fuir 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(~.). I his 

i'airncss polky in<:ILtdcs: 

Ill he right ol'an appurent violator to be given objective. evenhanded 

n>nsidcmlion nl'~tll cirl'lllllstllnccs sUITnunding the Ill legations 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 of 41 
I .II A Orckr 2150.313. 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 ami com!'letely I'VJI0/'1 <!l/fitcrs ... in rtll unhia.ler.lund focused 111iil1rlcr." 1:;\i\ Order 

c ISIIJIL 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 .I 0( c)( I )-( 11). lluri ng nil p h<IScs o l't he 

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 c 151Uil. Cl\l\pler 2 .. \(g). 

C. FAA Go:li- lin biased 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 4.1 0. i 1· wilncss slttlctncnts me obi;Iined h:v ell I 

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> u wilnc'"'' 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 

·; ]11 '.: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 12 of 41 
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 till II 

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' lit I H.' 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' Pro I" I Conduct 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 or c1ssociuted with the 

prosecutor in a ct·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 I lie· 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. a third 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 1 i.e' .. 

ScptCI1thct·] 1.11117 through October 1:1. 20 12). During this time Inspector Rushton was sec~ in~ 

Ill'. I ong"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 I H. 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{ s ul'liw on s,,ptcm hc·r 11. 20 12. ''' I tvlr \1 .. I .. \ .. I .. c;ept. 2 I. 21112 cmui I. 1 1\ccrml in g to I Jr . 

. , 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 I he 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 til ken pi;Kt:. 

Page 14 of 41 
LLrng\ recovered c-mails.27 

n second 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 us ked llr. l.ong J'or n second 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· I by 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 or the "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 a shun 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 oft he ''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 of 41 
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-mni I.) Dr. Long i rnmcdintcly responded by c·mai I with 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.. I O-Il: l'.x. J. I Jet. l. 201 li. l:D pr11 

t:·mili I): 

The Respondent's ;tel ions were• ··"11·ckss:· '"tlisrcspc·ctl\rl." "sci kcntcrcd ... 

"cakulutcd ... ami ··deceit l'ul." l Mot. I 2: I :x. J. Oct. I 2. 201 (,, I I :I 0 :un c-m:r i I): 

J. lhc Respondent wns u repeat 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. I O:S7 arne-mail): 

Page 16 of 41 
5. The Respondent ncc,kd to be ··wkcn down." (Mot.. l':x . .1. Oct. 12. 20 I !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-mai I). 

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 n result, 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· I II. 2012 conwrsntion between l.lr. Long nnu the two 1-',-\;\ cmployc·c·s. hccnusc .. the 

hcttcr c;rsc I cun 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' of the 1'1111 's CiiSC, 11nd e~ddcd il 

to the 1:/\fl's investigative Iii c. (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 ), }II I 6lr 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 a wiurcss to provide~ a l'ull and complete stutcmcnt of" events." (Rcsp. 12. I lnspccl!ll' 

Rushton echoed thi.s po:<itinn in his testimonial statement. by describing his c·llltlils as "the cnrails wkr·c• I eneour1rge 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 Apri I I~. 20 I(, 

:rml \1uy 5. 2016 Motion Conli::rcnccs. In response. ilw FI\A argued: I I the ('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 pi nee. 

This ('ourtugrecs that !nsrcctor Rushton did not c;ngagc in ads ili1HIIIlllin>' lu crimin«l 

witness t<rmpcring. llowcvcr. the lkt thutthc 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. I It: lklih<:t'lltc:ly 11r1d 

pcr·sistcntly condcrnncd and viii lied 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 I X. 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 Lti w [)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~. I H l.!.S.C. ~ 15 12 (20 I-I l. 

Page 18 of 41 
I 17/"+Co; 

administered ll1irly und objCl'tivcly 37 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 toj udgmcnl, and repeal eli I y ex pt·csscd wndc 11111 i ng j ud gmcnts :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, n witness. 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 Mock I Rtilcs.'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 w the 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'f shnuld "stt1t~ a pt;r.~onal opilllon n.s 10 tiH.~ justne~s {lr u ~: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 lit II"• 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 of 41 
VII. INITIAL INTI<:RFERENCE WITH RI~SI'ONBENT'S HIGHT TO 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 or this .. I 

know you don't want to be involved unJ I will keep you out or this!.! 

Moi..l:x . .1, Oct.l2012 e-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. I tis 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 1 L 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 of 41 
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 of ilK' 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 

1.1mg 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'. Ill tlw :\Juifl'f' of Hu_l'al .·h-·ioll/(',\' ,\)•.r .. I/!('. CI 9QW!JO()~ I. 200~ WI. I 0~2JOJ. <II '"I ( ;\pr· 1.\ :!002) 

( -· !\ lthuugl t (I kllc'l' u I' !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 · _ S d(J,\{1! ( d I( 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 or 41 
lnsp~ctor Rushton. also subtly warned Dr. l..ong thnt there could he negative 

c·onscquenccs i r Dr. Long spoke to the Respondent: 

Do whnl you want ;md I don'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 a guilty 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's preserved rcctmls, Inspector Rushton interl'ercd with tl1c 

Respondent"s right w discovery during the initial investigation. I k 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 I h. 

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

71\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 of 41 
mli>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 I March 8. 201.1 Decem her 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'the electronic 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 u snl'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, 

organ iring, 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 prows or dispn>vcs the ptllcntial violati<>lt." 1:111\ Order 

2151JJll. Chapter 4.2(ii). 

Ptn·suunt 10 l"i\/1 Ortb 2150Jil. 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). I Thcl\'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' 

a minimum period ol'liw (51 y~ur> alkr the civil pclwlty has been paid (or waived). Fi\A Ortkr 

2150 .11l. C'huplet· 2. I O(b)(2). In addition. dming all phuse~ oi'th~ investigution, the 1:/\i\ 

i 11 vest i !!lilot· is supposed to cxer·cise '\;ommon sense lind g11od .i udgnwol." (I i\i\ Ordc'l' ::> I 511..1 ll. 

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 I 50.] l.l. i'oll u ws wcll·estubl ished I i 1 i gcttion j1l'l1CI icc: 

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 Ill lid' 

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 l I <li' I :KI s .1cl I I Ori gi 11<1 II y pu hi i sited i 11 2111 2) (/'lll >lnotc· 0111 i I teLl I. 

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 r 1\ i\ ( )rtki' J I.~()J IL CIHlj)ll'l' l) .I <II HI 2( ll ), lhC' 1-' (\ !\ 's l·:n for'cL'nl!.:lll I nl{ll'll1;1l ion 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\ll ioll tlboul \..'II r()I'L'L'Il1~11l iH.:l illll~." ill. i\ !! h\ (\ nrgollli/.al iuns IHIV(' <ll"l;\,!;,) Ill I ilL' I:, Is ( ,_. 1\ !\ ( )nkr 2 I )0 . .11 t 

Clr:1pH.'I- ~)_ 2( d)). ;\II I;!\ i\ u llkr;~ ''tiHI\ lw Yt; n . .-glililt~lry l'l~spon"-ibilil ics·· Ill liS\ 1.1:-ic tilt' I :1,'..; dnt;, r·ccord ~~'L'f1illg 

:-1)'1\L'II), (/tf. (\\ ~~.(11),) 

I' age 24 of 41 
I. I irc'lll8 & .k:i'li\'1 ·'· Kinskt, (ed•wl i '11 il /),,,,,.,.,'! und lli>clos/1/'l', ~ I: 1.) I(~: I I lei eel 

~Ill:') 

it t.:<ll1110( h~..: U\'l'I'L.:tnphusi;.~Jd tlwl ony Wl'iling or otht!r mufler relating lo o r.;asi.', whieh is 

either in the possession or control or an adversary, is subject to disdosurc. The type or matcrittl 

subject to prcscrvati,>n and disclosure ·'must be lihcrally con.mucd." 27 CJ.S, 2d ~ 104 (201 I 1. 

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. :'0 I}, 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 I11R system Instead, it opens nn Investigative l'ile ("llik''), into whid1 an inspector' 

who is nnt :1 luwycr ·· determines whut qual ilks 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, a scpatLJIC 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 i nl'ormation obtu incd dlll'i ng an invcsti gal ion" ( F i\ i\ Ordct· 2 150.3 ll. C haptcr H. I 1. 

the 1·'/\/\ counsel would he unawnrc of such ornission. (May 5, 20 I G Tr. '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' I ltud 

documents trnthis cusc (other thun what was in the EIRL I calkd him and told 

him ihlll I did ntll hnw w1y docctlllctlls. I told him this hccnuse I did not haw any 

doc um c IllS. 

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 I File•. (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 2.1 0.\. at • 3 ( 1:./1 A /\pt. 15, 20m)(·· 1\ ltlmuglJ ct letter n I' i nvcstigal i1 >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• a rcspondcntthut preserving evidence may b~comc n~ccssury"' citing In the Mulier 

ufiValc, J:AA Order No. 97-20 at ~-9 (May 2.1. I 91)71) The l·'i\.1\ has a variety oi'uptions cll\(1 

The Fi\i\ also mgucJ that the Jcstmyed e-m ails 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." I eel 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 II HI)' 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 I c·tl. I( Ci 1. 1'. :;tJI h)( I ). II' 1 hl'l'c i.s .':!IIlli' lo!,:i cui Wlllll'Cl i 1111. c i tltc1· d i rc·ctl,l I! I' 1'1 i 1\ "'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 of 41 
Thtl'-. ~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 I ilL' 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 I Jr. ),(lilt}. 111ihdll h~..· 1111por1nn1: 

I ctnnol he sure oi'what actually llltppcncd, hul :tithe time' I deklcd these emuils. 

{II'Ohohl,r• vilhvr did nolrcali:e /needed /o ki'<'J' !hem, or ilwughl I had £:I ready 

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. I have reviewed t.he ponions oi' tlw emails between Dr. I .ong and I that arc 

printed in I he •·;vtotion lhr Sanctions." I did not inclt."k those o·mnils ns ltc:111s 

or Pmol" in I he EIR hccausc, in my judgment. I he -··nutils where• I CltCliUntg,· 

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 of his more complele. l<tlcr written stulcmcnl. We 

do no I include 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 I he F.!H :1s "t·elt,·vllllt' rmlt.:riid, 

Page 28 of 41 
ilw cusc, (l<csp. h A. I 1i 2.) Thus, Inspector J(ushton l(likd In i(kntil'y ond preserve ell I rcicv<llll 

cvidc·ncc, particularly exculpatory or background inl(mnutinn thntmight h11vc been hclpl'ul w the 

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:or cxampk, 011 August 21, 2015. the 1:/\A allorncy noti lied llr. l.ong viu c-muil th:.rt 

cvm though discovery "technically ends todny" the parties were going to continue lo "provide· 

cac h other with i nl\mnal ion past the close or d i scovct'y." (VI ot.. l·:x. M, August 2 L 201 (> 4: I 0 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. :w 15. IIW 1:!\,A, lieu ring Docket l'lc1t 

pr\>jlcriy issued a Civil 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 Cot II'\ 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 I J. ~0 I~, /\ti~Ui~t I. 2015. <JJHl 1\ugu-;1 I(), 

~~DI ). lltl>'t-evct·. <l~ tll' A1rgtt~l 2 I, 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 I 6. :111d (}J·;mtlnl:', Other l~clicC 

Page 29 of 41 
C. I ... H.~ I J.12.~(i1). This Subpoena included n Ride,·, 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 cnwi\J directly with llr.l.ong. In this Scpt.cmbcr 30. 201fl e-mail, the J:A;\ lltlonwy notit'1cd !Jr 

Long that ihc Respondent had requested a subpoena. 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 co uri 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. 

I k 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 (ktobcr 27. 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"idcr avoiding answering I he subpcrcnu on nlllllipk gi'OtiiH[" 

I wuuld like tn spcttk with you andint· your attorney (at your op!iun) uhoc1l 

responding In this subpoena. As I mentioned 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 I cun't speak :IS l<l 

Pagt! 30 of 4l 
lww burdcnsom~ th~y would he withnut.your input, 1\n objection and/or lllotion 

to quash to some or nil ol'thc rcqu~sts cwt cmnc lium my qtl\cc or directly !'rom 

you (prcsunmhly through your ltltorncy), Please give me a call (and/or have your 

<tllomcy give men cull) and we can discuss what response iohjcction. motion. 

ctllll[.llin111;c, or Mherwisc) 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 October 27.2015. (Mot .. F~x. K, Oct. 27, 2016 I :23p.m. lk 

I .ong c-rrwil.) lk record 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 no led 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. 20 I(> 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,tdl im: 

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 I X. 2015 til s~pl~mhcr I ,1, 20 Ill) 

Pagr• 31 of 41 
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 

any j11int 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. 20 I ~ dcncll i ne 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 and experts" prior lo the Novemhc'r I H. 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 or I 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 u luwfully 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. If discussion 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 n red 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 n Lkposilion 

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 \lea ring 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 I 6 

II ' ,,, !.''-Inn g. 

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

'" "1 T] he advet·sury system li.Jl<ters u wmpeti t i w relnt ionsh i p tbut nwti vutcs v~uch purl y 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. I 1

!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 11 jt\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,) 

"-1 i\ d\n;tilud di:;~:\tssiou or t]ll;' part k•s · nnl!ttill llbl igat illn 1\l umdtt~t fo.t<.:\ ual in ,.,~:-,tiH,ntron:-. i" <.:llll(Hitl~:d i 11 ltr/11 I !'I/(· 

.l/11 iuh'lllll'l\'<' and !~nginl!l'rini.!, S('.'/'\'ice.\, F/\ A Dncl\~~1 F 1\ 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. I i), 1014). 

''''!"lit._' lf'otk' ( 1

nllhn'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 u I' 1~ u k .?6( h)( 3 ). !h1111 r.:Oilltll<Hl Iii\.\' \(\ jl)H,1 ( 1111.: tltl tc Dl' pub I icorl it Ill). W hlk· rHl! l'ull; 

l..'on1jH'~hl'll !i ivl.' I(H' toth1y's t:nst'S in JO 16, il renwin:; u va hmbl() resnun.:c 1\H' pn11.:1 it 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 I J.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 pmtcctthcir opponent's right to 

<'<llidttct an indcpcnclcnl invcstigntion. Model Rules oC l'rorl Condurt at r. 14(u). The A llA 

Mock I Rules 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'!er Hdvicc to a third 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 !iii led 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 lot he 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 or 1\ugust 21. 2015 through appl'o\llllatcly 

l ktohcr 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· I lr. 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 nr August 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 or 41 
on obtaining "emails about the llight" (R"sp. Cx. 13. 1 115), 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'). Shonl y thcrcal'ic•l'. Dr. I .ung spoke with FA I\ 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. I h1weWI', uhscnt any other cvidciiCC by the Respondcrll. this ( 'ourt :1cc·cpts the 

I·;\ A's cc>unscl 's lest i moni nl statement us dispositive on this issue. nnd the Re spondcnt · s 

nl kgatiell1 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 alkr this ( '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 

rc lc•trscd to 1 he Responden 1: I ) sn111L'Ii me· (clntc unspce i lied) 11 licr recc i pt ol' t lw Respondent's 

it>l.(ll'lll;rl Murch 1(>.201.1 request (i.e., tiled c:·ighl 1n days at\cr the issuam:c ol'th~ Mlu·ch ~. 

2111.1 N i'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. I Rcsp. 

l.s. IL I 11'! l-'i ) 

The lircttlhitthe I'Ai\ counsel pi'Ovided to the Respondent only ccrwin (l<ll'lion.s or dutu 

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 Rush tOll 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 I he Novt~lnb'-!r 2015 llemin~'· !o SL'pt~'lnh~.-·r· 2016, und Cii'iJII\illg ()thi..'r lh~licf 

Page 36 uf 41 
prcscnc 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 of evidence 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 "met ions 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'ler C<>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/n orckr In he 

ci'lectivc. sttm:tions must be upplicd diligently t.o pcnttlizc those whose conducr warrunts such 

Ltction. /d. ~ I 2: 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 cv ide nee to wry serious prcc lusions. i nclucl i ng d ism i ssa I n r 1 he 

nl'i'mding pat·ly'scclsc 7

" /d.~ l:ll:sL',·u/.vo. 27 C.J.S. 2d ~~ 104-117 (2011). II' discovery 

sanctinns me impnscd. short of dismissal or the case. such sanctinns tu·e gcncmlly not rcvicwtlbk 

until the end nr the 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 of the 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 sceb illl 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 I 20 I I L 

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 . 7 1 

:ill )))OCI'lLI. ~~ 110\ U y l 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 a comcrstonc 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 1gl1 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 of 41 
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 w obwin 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 a wlwk, these me not just 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 I 3.2171 !') <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 a wide swuth o!'husincss partners in the• tlvi:11ic111 

wnllt1unit) -·II Hilly or whom either ig.l1<1t'U1Hiy nr willingly try Ill uvllid compliance v,·ith scti'L'I-' 

regul:1tiom .. It is u dil'ilculttnsk. llttt it is u tusk 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 wit II 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 I h ... · thl\.'e (llld ;I 

IILdi'(:\.~) )"<..':IrS ~iJKl' lhl' ii1Vl:Siig:\tioll o!'ll\i:; cnst: nrsllX'gHil, 

Page 39 of 41 
Lnng were simply purl ol'any F/\1\ invcstignlor'sjob when "c1sking !I Witness lo provide a l'ull 

and complete statement of events", (l{esp. 12), its litilure to preserve relevant cvidc1wc. its 

pcrsistCil\ vililkation ol'thc Respondent during a pending <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 othctvl ioc·. 

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 of the 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 or litirncss 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 u whok. 

l'his Court has cngnged in u very 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·ly J .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(liHpl ii\11(:1,:'. Modt:l I{ uks or [l(of I Cond~ttl 1' . .1. H. 

Page 40 of 41 
ah<l tu deter uny 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, case law. 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'f occur aguin. 1\s a result. this Court u~;rccs 

With the l~cspondcntth:tt the appropriate and proportional response tnt he discovery violations 

;rnd miswnduct hl>rcin is to strike the applit,ablc portion or the 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 case law, 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 [\>I lowing portions or the 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 41 
llockct 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 A venue. S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

1\ttcntion: llew·ing Docket Ckrk, ACIC-··4.10 

Wilbur W1·ight lluildin!! Suite 2W I 01111 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 A venue 

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. I LC 

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-J I 0) 

Washtngton, DC 20590 

11:1.: 202-3M·6941 

1'\X: ~'.IJ:l,:\66-75.111 

ONE COPY 

llirminghun1 I' light (\:mer. Inc. 

II esponde 111 

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 

A 1·i:rtl011 ,ll,dm inlstr111 ioiL 600 I ntkpcndcn(;~· A V01lltc, S. W,, \Vi I hnr· Wrigh1 Hui kling -- Sui~<: 2 W I()()(). W w·;h int:tun, 

I)(' 20.'W I·. t\ncrrtioJl'. I k<tring Dockl'! Clctk. 1\GC Jl30,