1 2 3 4 5 6 7, 8 '9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 .41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 JEFFREYM. HARPER FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 1601 LIND AVENUE SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2161 FACSIMILE: (425) 227-1007 

# RECEIVED AUG- 62012 

# HEARING DOCKET

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Inthe Matters of: SkyWest Airlines, Inc.

To: ·The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin FAA Case No. 2011NM060011 DMS No. FAA-2011-0485 FAA Case No. 2011NM060010 

### j::?. DMS No. FAA-2011,-0486
FAA Case No. 2011NM060033 DMS No. FAA-2011-0680 &.0779 COMPLAINT'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL ORDER Judge Richard C. Goodwin



### COMPLAINT'S OPPOSITION TO

RESPONDENT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVEAND/OR CONFIDENTIAL ORDER Complainant, through undersigned counsel, opposes Respondent's Motion for a protective or confidential order pursuantto Rules ofPractice 13.220(g) and (h), and moves to

. deny Respondent's motion.



### Protective Order Respondent has moved under Rules ofPractice 13.220(h) for entry ofa Protective Order.· A party seeking entry·ofa protective ·ordermust show the order is necessary to protect the

Complaint's Opposition to Respondent Motion for Protective and/or Confidential Order In the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486, -0680, and -0779 Page 1 oflO JEFFREY.M.HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2i61; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. l;i 16 17 18 19 ·2o 21 22 23 24 :;25. 26 27 28. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53moving party from "aimoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.".Rule 13.220(h), 

### see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (establishing the same standard). Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 26( c)(1) requires "go0d cause" to be shownbefore a protective order is entered; this generally means a showing that thediscovery request is considered likely to oppress an adversary

or might otherwise impose anundue burden. 

### See, e.g., Iris Corp. Berhadv. US., 84 Fed. Cl. 489,492 (2008); 

### ForestProds. Nw., Inc. v. US., 453 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Respondent does not argue Complainant's discovery 

### request itselfis intendedto cause aimoyance, embarrassment, or undue burden or expense. The relevant discovery requests made by Complainant are:

• Request for ProductionNo. 1, which requests copies ofdocuments relating to assertions

made by Respondent which Respondent anticipates raising inthis matter.

• Requests for ProductionNos. 2 and 5, which collectively request copies ofall

dqcuments Respondent anticipates offering into evidence at the hearing.

• Request for ProductionNo.3, whichrequests copies ofall documents which support

Respondent's affirmative defenses.
Far from being unduly burdensome, Complainant simply requests

### ~hat Respondent produqethe

### materi~l it anticipates presenting inthe course ofthe case. Requiring Respondent to produce its evidence priorto trial is not oppressive, it is the 

### raison d'etre ofthe discovery
process. Resp.ondent indicates that the documents in question are solely relevant to the question of mitigation. Resp'tMot. at 12. The production ofthese documents would not result in undue burden or expense; Respondent has already identified the documents in question and provided copies under seal to the docket. Nor does the mere fact ofcomplying with Complainant's discovery request appear to cause Respondent any annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression; in fact, Respondent expressly represents their desire to comply withthe

### discov~ry requests. Resp't
Mot. at2.

Complaint's Opposition to Respondent Motion for Protective and/or Confidential Order In the·Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMSNos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486, -0680, and -0779 Page2 oflO . JEFFREYI-y1. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11· 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Under the circumstances,there is no need to place any sort oflimitenvisionedby Rule 13.220 onthe discovery process. 1 Complainant's discovery requests are entirely appropriate and
not propounded for an imprbper purpose. They seekto "discover informationthat relates to the claim or defense ofany party

...." Ru1e 13 .220(e). Thus, Respondent's motion for a protective order should be denied.



### Confidential Order Respondent.requests that the ALJ enter a confidential order, for the sanie reasons it seeks

a protective order. Respondent has failedto meet its burdento demonstrate why a confidential order is·necessary for the same reasons described above.



### 1. The documents in question are notof a nature that wouldqualify forprotection under a confidendal order.
A confidential order may be entered for informationthat is related to a trade secret, confidential or sensitive material, competitive or commerical information, proprietary**dat~,** or information onresearch and development. Ru1e 13 .220(g). Complainant is at a disadvantage in responding to Respondent's motion. Complainant does nothave access to the documents at issue
to determine whether, in Complainant's view, they may or may notqualify for protection by a confidentl.al order. Respondent (understandably) provided the documents only to t)le court under seal. A review ofthe summary ofthe documents strongly suggests that some ofthe documents may not qualify for the protection ofthe confidential order.
As an example, Respondent seeks confidentiality for the 2009-2011 Customer Service Training Conference Schedules. Resp'tMot. at 3-5. Complainant questions whether a document, which presumably lists the times, locations,.and subject matter·ofthe training, falls within any ofthe categories ofinformation protectable by a confidential order- particularly where Respondent's Motion goes onto qescribe the subject matter ofa number ofthe

48

. 49 1 The limits listed inthe rule include denying Complai:rit's discovery request, limiting its scope, precluding inquiry 5o into certain matters, or designating a time, place ormethod for Discovery. 51 52 53 Complaint's**Opp~sition** to Respondent Motion for Protective and/or Confidential Order In the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486, -0680; and -0779 Page 3 of 10 JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAA ATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

### presentations presumably listed in

### the schedules? Because the subject matter ofthe presentations

are disclosed inthe unsealed portions ofRespondent's motion, they are clearly not confidential, sensitive, competitive or commercial information, proprietary data, or information onresearch and development-ifthey were, Respondent would have placed that portion ofthe motion under seal.

11 

### 2. 12 

### The documents are not necessary to a decision.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

. 44 

### Rule 13.220(g).provides that ohly materialthat is "necessary to decide the case" qualifies

. for protection; ifthe ALJ determines the material is notnecessary to a decision, the ALJ shall preclude inquiry into thematter

### by anyparty. Rule 13.220(g)(2), Respondent acknowledges that the material in question is only

### rele~ant to possible mitigation;3 

### such information is certainly relevantto the decision, but**i~** 

### does not follow.that all relevant evidence is necessaryto a decision. "Necessary" means "that cannot be done without

... absolutely**required~"** 

### Webster's ThirdNew International Dictionary Unabridged (1971).4


### As evidence inmitigation, the documents in question only pertainto Complainant's Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 10 and Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 5 which generally seek production ofinformation**reg~ding** 

### Respondent's affirmative defenses, evidence inmitigation, and exhibits to be offered. Respondent may choose to present this information at the hearing, but is not obliged to do so, and, were it not presented, a decision could still bereached. Accordingly, itis not necessaryto a decision.
In other words, because the documents are not necessary to a decision, Respondent can make a choice-either seek to have the documents protected from disclosure, in which case it

45 2 See, e.g., Resp't Mot. at 5-6 listing "Conference List ofRegulations Presentation," "Conference Managing Risk 46 Presentation," and "Conference Working with the FAA Presentation" as documents for which the protection ofa 4 7 confidential order is sought. 48 3 Resp'tMot. at 12. 4 9 4 See also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/necessary("absolutely needed"), last visited July 26, 20 12; 50 The American Heritage Dictionary (1991) ("Absolutely essential; indispensable").

. · 51 52 53 Complaint's Opposition to Respondent Motion for Protective and/or Confidential Order In the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486,-0680, and -0779 Page 4 of 10 JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425)**227~2161;** FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 may notpresent those matters addressed inthe documents at the hearing, orpresent.them at hearing, waiving any argumentsthat the documents**~e** confidential orprivileged.

6 

### 3. 7 

### The documents do not qualify forprotection under the Freedom of Information Act. 8 9 10 11 12 13

. 14 15

. 16 Respondent seeks to have the documents pr<_)tected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act5 (FOIA) and the Department ofTransportation's implementing regulations of the Act. Resp't Mot. at 10.6 Specifically, Respondent asserts that the documents are protected fromdisclosure by 5 U.S.C. §§ 522(b)(4) (Exemption 4) and (6) (Exemption 6).

11 

### a. 18 Exemption 4 -·-Trade Secrets and Commercial orFinancial Information.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 FOIAExemption4 prevents the disclosure of"trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidentiaL"
The documents at issue inthis motion are not trade secrets under FOIA. "Trade secret,"

as used inFOIA, means "a secret, commercially valuable plan, formula, process, or device that is used for the making, preparing, compounding, orprocessing oftrade commodities and that can be saidto bethe end product ofeither innovation or substantial effort." 

### Public Citizen Health
30
· 

### Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing H.R. Rep

.. No. 1382, 95th 31 32 33" 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

. 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1978));

### Andersonv. HHS, 907 F.2d 936,944 (lOth Cir. 1990). Since this definition applies to

### thi~gs,7 not services, and Respondent is inthe business ofproviding a service,8 the material does not constitute a trade secretunder FOIA. ·Exemption4 also protects information that:

• iscommercial or financial information;

5 5

## u.s.c. § 522. 6 Respondent Cites to "49 USCS 552(b)(4),(6)." Given the context, Complainantbelieves Respondent means to cite to 5 U.S.C. § 522; Title 49 United States Code does not contain a Section 522.

. 1See, e.g., Appleton v. FDA, 451 F.Supp. 2d 129, 142 and n.7 (D.D.C. 2006); Herrick v. Garvey, 200 F.Supp. 2d 1321, 1326 (D.Wyo. 2000), aff'd298 F.3d 1184 (lOth Cir. 2002); Heeney v. FDA, 7 F.Appx. 770 (9th Cir; 2001). 8 Respondent holds an Air Agency certificate and is engaged in the business ofproviding air transportation under 14 C.F.R. Part 121. Respondent's Answers**at~** II.I, 14C.F.R. § 1.1 (defming "Air Carrier" and "Air Transportation"). Complaint's Opposition to Respondent Motion for Protective and/or Confidential Order In the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486, -0680, and -0779 Page 5 of 10 JEFFREY M. HARPER,FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425)227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 • obtained from a person, and is

• privileged or corifidentiaL Complainant concedes the documents constitute commercial or financial information

. obtained frorri a person. Under Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, the test used to determine whether information is confidential hinges on whether its productionto

# an agency was requirecd or if production was voluntary. 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (en bane). Where production is required, the test for confidentiality is found 

### inNat'! Parks & ConservationAss 'n v. Morton,

16 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Critical Mass· at 879. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 National Parks, 

### inturn provides that information is confidential ifdisclosure would 

### "(1)

... impair the Govemment's ability to obtainnecessary information in the future; or (2) to

cause substantial harm to the competitive position ofthe person from whom the information as obtained." Nat'! Parks at 770. While Respondent is free to choose what arguments to present at hearing, having made that choice, Complainant's discovery requests require Respondentto produce the documents ifrelevant to those arguments. Thus, Respondent is required to provide the documents to the government, and theNational Parks test applies. Prong (1) is inapplicable. As discussed above, the infomiatitm at issue here is not necessary information because it is not necessarjtp a decision. Additionally, because prong (1) applies to voluntarily submitted information; the rule in CriticalMass now governs in situations where prong (1) would have applied. 9
Likewise, prong.(2) is also inapplicable. To meet prong (2), disclosure mustbe "likely

... to cause substantialharm to the competitive position ofthe person from whom the information

was obtained." Nat'! Parks at 770 (emphasis added). Respondent has made no showing that
42 · harm from disclosure is likely, or, ifit were, thatsuch harm would be substantial. These cases 43 44 relate to Respondent's Weight and Balance program; indeed, a number ofthe documents address 45 46 47 48 the calculation ofweight and balance or discussions offederal regulations. Resp't Mot. at 4 and

4 9 9 Ifthe**info~ation** is voluntarily produced, Critical Mass applies, ifit is required to be produced, production will 50 not inipair the Government's ability to obtain the information, as production will still be required. 51 .52 53 Complaint's Opposition to Respondent Motion for Protective and/or Confidential Order In the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486, -0680, and -0779 Page 6 of 10 JpFFREYM. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 9 10 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4!? 46 47 48 6. Federal regulations are a matter ofpublic knowledge, as are means ofcalculatingweight and balance. 10 As Part 121 applies the same requirement on all Part 121 carriers;the ideathat the revelation ofan air carrier's practices in calculating weight and balance would somehowplace it
at a competitive disadvantage is a specious argument. Respondent also argues for recognition ofa self-appraisal privilege under th'e privilege portion ofExemption 4. Resp't Mot. at 11. The recognition ofthe privilege is disfavored, and, where recognized, has significant limits placed upon it, such as requiring a showing of extraordinary circumstances, a showing ofspecial need, or finding it inapplicable in the context ofan government agency administrative investigation. See Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Textron, Inc., 157 F:RD. 522, 525-26 (N.D. Fla. 1994) (discussing the extent the privilege is recognized and the Circumsta:hces under which is applies). Respondent has shown no extraordinary circumstances or special need. Additionally, as Respondent states, to the extent the privilege is recognized, is intended to allow businesses to engage 

### in self-appraisal without "creating evidence that may be used againstthem in future litigation."Id. (emphasis added). Here, the documents in question are**mitigati~g,.and** will not be used against Respondent, but for Respondent's benefit.
For the reasons discussed above, FOIA Exemption 4 does nqt apply to the documents at issue in this motion, accordingly, the ALJ should deny Respondent's Motionto enter a ·confidential order on those grounds.

b. Exemption 6 - Personnel and Medical Files

.
FOIA Exemption 6 prevents the disclosure of"personnel and medicai files and similar files the disclosure ofwhich would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion ofpersonal privacy." 5 U.S;C. 

### § 522(b)(6). A review ofthe documents listed in Respondent's Motion reveals that none ofthe documents are facially personnel ormedicalfiles, which would qualify for protection under FOIA.

49 10 See Code ofFederal Regulations;**FAA~!J-8083-lA** Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook; FAA Advisory 5o Circular 120-27E Aircraft Weight and Balance ControL 51 52 53 Complaint's Oppositionto ·

. ·Respondent Motion for Protective and/or Confidential Order

In the.Matters ofSky West Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486, -0680, and -0779

· Page 7 of 1 0

. JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-10071 Even ifthe documents do refer in passing toparticular individuals, the individual privacy interests protected by Exemption 6 can be realized by the redaction ofthe individuals' personally 4 2 3
5. identifiable infomia:tion. Dep 't of the AirForce v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 380-81 (1976) (affirming
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21

. 22

23 24 25. 26 27 28

. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3.6 37 38 39 40 a Court ofAppeals order that disciplinary case summaries beproduced for in camera review and redaction ofpersonally identifiable information). Respondent's request to protect the entirety of the documents is overbroad:
As the documents do not qualify for exemption from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. §§ 522(b)( 4) and (6), they should not be protected by a confidential order on those grounds.


### Respondenes Motion is Unsupported by 

### Facts. Warranting the Requested Orders
Rule 13.220 requires the party making the motion showthe requested order is required. Bare assertions are insufficient to meet this burden. $eeIn Re: SamuelJoseph Latham, Order Denying Respondent's Motion for Protective Order; FAA DocketNo. CP10WP009, 2011 WL 216213 (January. 21, 2011). To meet its burden, a movant should be required to make a particularized factual showing that it will suffer harm ifthe protective order is not entered. See, e.g., Iris Corp. Berhad at 492. Likewise, Respondentclaims entitlementto the protections of Exemptions 4 and 6 ofthe Freedom oflnformation Act as'implemented at 49 C.F.R. § 7.13Y Resp't Mot. at 10. Underthat section, a submitter ofinformation "will

... provide a detailed
statement ofany.;. objections. The submitter's statement shall specify all grounds for withholding any ofthe information. The burden shall be onthe submitter

... to persuade the agency that the information should notbe disClosed." Respondent has made a statement, but not

a detailed one.

41 Respondent has submitted no evidence inthe form ofexhibits or affidavits demonstrating
42

· that either order is necessary. The motio.n merely asserts that Respondent would suffer an 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 adverse effect from public disclosure ofthe documents; it does not explain what specific harm might accrue from the disclosure ofspecific documents. Respondent's.motion speaks in broad

50 115 

## u.s.c. §§ 552(b)(4)**~d** (6). '51 52 53 Complaint's Opposition to Respondent Motion for Protective and/or Confidential Order In the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486, -0680, and -0779 Page 8 of10 JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAATtORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

### generalities; it does notprovide the ALJ**~y** 

### particularized evidence which would warrant the entry ofa protective orconfidential order

..Itlacks detail. Respondent fails

### t~ carry its

### burd~n.
Conclusion
The confidential orprotective orders sought by Respondent are meant to prevent harm to Respondent. Here, Respondent acknowledges that, far from being harniful to its business

. . 

### interests, the information is helpful in mitigating the proposedpenalty. IfRespondent is truly 13
· 

### concerned about harmfuleffects to it stemming from public disclosure ofthe documents, it can 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### fully address those concerns by opting not to present that information inmitigation. If, instead, it believes it is better served by making those arguments, it should bear the costs ofthat decision it believes it will face. Itcannot have itboth ways.
Because Respondent has not met its burden to demonstrate the necessity ofeither a protective order or a confidential order, Complaint moves to deny Respondent's Motion

..

Datedthis 27th 

### day ofJuly, 2012

# /~.~ Jetfey Harper Counsel for Complainant

Complaint's Opposition to Respondent Motion for Protective and/or Confidential Order In the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-20 11-0485, 0486, -0680, and -0779 Page 9 oflO JEFFREYM. HARPER,

### PMATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-10071 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 

### I hereby certify that theForegoing Complaint's Oppositionto Respondent Motion for Protective 4 

### and/or Confidential Order has been served via facsimile and Certified Mail- Return Receipt 5 

### Requested this date, to the following: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 -18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M:-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, 

### Rm E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2139 FAX:**(~02)** 

### 366-7536

- · Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk,AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. SW. Washington, DC 20591 FAX: (202) 493-5142 Todd Emerson, Esq. SkyWest Airlines 444 S. River Road St. George, UT 84790 TEL: (435) 634-3530 FAX: (435) 634-3505 Michael Dworkin, Esq. Michael 

### L. Dworkin and Associates 465 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 TEL: (415) 421-2500 FAX: (415) 421-2560 DATED this 2ih day ofJuly, 2012.

Complaint's Opposition to Respondent Motion for Protective and/or Confidential Order In the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486,-0680, and -0779 Page 10 oflO JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007