jflPARTiv^NlOF 

.. J •;i(\HS^|}TAllO^ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

!>.;i...f..bl UrrnMMUI^lb OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

20!i CCi - 1 A SMU 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

DEAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

RE' 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2011 -0069 

FAA Case Noa. 2010SO190256, 

2010SO190260 

Judge Sullivan 

MOTION TO COMPEL. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND RESPONSE TO 

MOTION TO AMEND LITIGATION SCHEDULE 

As previously discussed in the FAA's Response to the Amended Notice of Depositions, 

Respondent has lailcd to cooperate in or comply with the discovery process. As a result of 

Respondent's discovery failures, there has not been a reasonable and appropriate time to conduct 

depositions. Rather than correciing its failures and permitting the depositions to be scheduled, 

Respondent now asks the Judge to order the FAA produce its employees at an unreasonable time 

and place, and to again postpone the resolution of this case. The FAA opposes both requests. 

Additionally, while the FAA has to this point declined to involve the Judge regarding 

Respondent's discovery failures, this concern now seems moot- land, aqcordingiy. the FAA 

requests that the Judge compel Respondent to comply with its discovery obligations. 

FAA'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

On May 13, 2011, the FAA served its discovery requests on Respondent, including 

interrogatories and requests for production. See Attachment A. Respondent timely, but 

incompletely, responded to these requests. See Attachments B, C- The undersigned attempted to 

eso/Loo© s wa - VVJ StLSSetJ^CiS XVd 25:9 1 LL03/90/O L 
work with opposing counsel to enter into stipulations, narrow the scope of discovery and, 

accordingly, reduce the discovery burden on Respondent, but opposing counsel declined to 

engage in any such discussion. See Respondent's Reply in Opposition to the Administrator's 

Response to Amended Notice of Deposition at 2 (noting that opposing counsel informed the 

undersigned that opposing counsel would not enter into stipulations before the close of 

discovery).' In a good faith effort to resolve the matter, the undersigned sent a letter to 

Respondent on July 29, 2011, identifying the deficiencies in the discovery responses. See id. at 

Attachment A. On August 25, 2011, Respondent responded to that letter, largely declining to 

provide any further response. See id. ai Attachment B. Despite the FAA' S good faith efforts to 

resolve this matter, there remain substantial deficiencies in Respondent's discovery responses -

in particular, the Respondent's failure to provide any factual or legal justification for several 

affirmative defenses and its failure to produce documents. Accordingly, the FAA moves to 

compel Respondent to correct these deficiencies. The spcctfrc discovery requests involved arc 

discussed below. 

Interrogatories 2. 7. 8. JO. and 17 

Respondent's first affirmative defense is that, although each of the flights in this case was 

operated past the 100-hour mark for two required inspections, there was no violation because 

those inspections may be completed up to 10 hours after the 100-hour mark Respondent's 

second affirmative defense is that all of the flights but one were scheduled to return before the 

lOO-hour mark. Each of these five inteirogatories should have produced some sort of response 

about thest affirmative defenses - Interrogatory 8 specifically addressed the first affinnative 

defense, Inierrogatory 7 asked about compliance with Airworthiness Directive 87-20-03 R2 (the 

' KespondenT coirecily notes that the FAA did not picscnt proposed stipufalions, bxit it i.-; unclear whit purpose liiis 

would have served, given iliat opposing counsel had ulready refuged lo discuss sripulalions ajid had stated ihar he 

would not con.=;idcT [hetn uiilil ^ftcr discovery had cloacJ. 

^^'^^^^'^^ SHQ ^ v.vd SHseet^os xvj 25:91 L10J/90/OL 
source of one of the inspection requirements), and Interrogatory 10 asked about the second 

affimiative defense. Attachment A at 3. Interrogatory 17 asked about when the next scheduled 

inspections after the flights in question, a topic specifically referenced in the pertinent portion of 

the AD. Attachment A al 3. Interrogatory 2 asked for the subject matter of witness testimony. 

Attachment A at 2-3. In its responses to Interrogatories 7, 8, and 10^ Respondent declined to 

provide any facts or other justification in support of its affirmative defenses. When asked 

directly about the first aCTirmative defense, Respondent simply replied "AD 87-20-03 B2 so 

states" - except tliat this AD makes no reference al all to a 10-hour permissible overflight, and 

even if it did, the discovery response fails to provide any facts that would place the flights within 

the scope of any sort of permissible overfliglit. Attachment B at 3. In response to Interrogatory 

10, Respondent noted that "there are time extensions available regarding both 100 hour 

inspections and AD compliance'' -^u t again fails to identify what the purported basis for such an 

extension would be, or identify any fads that would place these flights within the scope of that 

extension. Attachment B at 3, In response to Interrogatory 7, Respondent nierely reiterates that 

the aircrafl were dispatched prior to the 100-hour mark and that the inspections were timely 

performed - again, without providing any basis for the relevance of the fime of dispatch to AD 

compliance, or the facts upon which the assertion is based. Attachment B at 3. In response lo 

Interrogatory 17, Respondent asserted that it was irrelevant, a baffling objection since 

Inierrogalory 17 concerns the timing requirements for the AD, which are contained in a section 

of the AD cited by Respondent in response to another interrogatory. In response to Intenogatory 

2, Respondent identified no potential testimony on any of these subjects. 

In sum, Respondent has asserted as affirmative defenses that, even though its aircraft 

were operated past the lOO-hour mark for multiple lOO-hour-limited inspections, it has 

820/eOOia SVJQ ^ VVJ ZtLSeGftSOS XVJ C5:3L IL02/90/0 L 
repeatedly failed to identify the legal or factual basis for these affirmative defenses. If there is no 

basis for the defenses, then Respondent should withdraw them. If there is a basis for the 

defenses, then Respondent must actually slate the basis for those defenses. Accordingly, the 

FAA moves the Court to compel Respondent to fully comply with these discovery requests. 

Alternatively, Respondent could withdraw these affirmative defenses and render the discovery 

requests moot. 

Interrogator)' 5 

In Interrogatory 5, the FAA asked for information concerning the nature and purpose of 

che flights in this case. Attachment A at 2. Respondent asserted that there was no flight 

instructor on any of the flights and, therefore, he need not further respond to the Interrogatory. 

Attachment B at 2. This response is deficient for several reasons. First, Respondent's mere 

iisseriion that there were no flight instructors on the flights docs not in any way release him fi'om 

responding to discovery requests completely - as Respondent has declined to enter into any 

stipulations, the nature and purpose of the flights remain undetermined, Second, Respondent's 

other discovery responses contradict this response. See Attachment B at 5 (noting thai there 

were instructors involved in a flight). Third, the nature and purpose of the flights is regardless 

relevant to Respondent's first affirmative defense, in that only 10-hour permissible overflight 

thai has been referenced by Respondent (in a pre-litigation letter) is contingent on the nature and 

purpose of the flight. Fourth, the nature and purpose of the flights is regardless relevant because 

it may produce information relevant to Respondent's affirmative defenses that it should not be 

held responsible for any violations that occurred on the flights. Accordingly, the FAA moves 

that the Court compel Respondent to fully comply with this discovery request. 

820/^00 0 SWQ - VVJ Stl5GGt20 2 XVd CS:9L 1102/90/0 1 
Interrogatory 13 

Respondent's fiflh affirmative defense is that "[t]he proposed fine is harsh, unreasonable, 

and not appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case." Interrogatory 13 asked 

Respondent to identify what the appropriate penalty would be and why, including specifically 

references to the factors identified in the Administrator's sanction guidance. Attachment A at 3. 

Respondent asserted that the penalty should be $100, but instead of providing a basis for this 

exceptionally low figure, stated only that it was appropriate "given the systems in place to 

prevent such occurrences " Attachment B at 5. In his supplemental response, Respondent only 

reiterates that the proposed sanction is "unfair and harsh in the circumstances." Respondent's 

Reply in Opposition to the Administrator's Response to Amended Notice of Deposition at 

Attachment B. Respondent has asserted as an affirmative defense that the Administrator's 

proposed sanction is unreasonable, but has failed to articulate any reason why it is, or why a 

lesser sanction would comply with the Administrator's published sanction guidance. If there is 

no basis for Respondent's contention that the proposed penalty is unreasonable, then this defense 

should be witlidrawn. If there is a basis for the defense, then Respondent must articulate it. 

Accordingly, the FAA moves the Court lo compel Respondent to fiilly comply with this 

discovery request or, alternatively, withdraw its t1flh affirmative defense. 

Interrogatory J 4 

Interrogatory 14 asked for, among other things, a description of any conversations 

between Respondent and FAA personnel concerning this case. Attachment A at 3. Respondent 

did not respond to this part of Interrogatory 14, Sec Attachment B at 5. In its supplemental 

response, Respondent asserted that it did not have to respond to this aspect of the question 

because the undersigned could simply talk to the FAA persormel in question. Respondent's 

820/500I S SWQ - VVJ St?L5e6t?30S XVd £5 9 t Lt0£/90/0 L 
Reply in Opposition to the Administrator's Response to Amended Notice of Deposition at 

Attachment B. Unless and until Respondent is prepared to waive any argument or assertion that 

he disagrees with any description or testimony of any FAA employee regarding any such 

conversation, there is no basis for Respondent to refiise to answer this question. The FAA is 

entitled to discover Respondent's version of relevant events and discussions. Accordingly, the 

FAA moves the Court to compel Respondent to fully comply witli this discovery request or. 

alternatively, to stipulate to the full accuracy of any testimony by any employee on this subject. 

Requests for Production 6. 7. and S 

The FAA requested that Respondent produce maintenance records, including inspection 

and AD compliance records, on the aircrafl involved in this case. See Attachment A at 4. 

Respondent declined to provide any records, asserting that they were irrelevant. Attachment C at 

1-2 Maintenance on these aircrafl, including inspecfions and AD compliance, is what this case 

is about. Respondent has idenrified multiple wimesses to testify about its maintenance and 

dispatch practices, including whether those practices pemiitted operation of unairworthy aircraft. 

See Attachment B at 2, 4. Respondent's interrogatory response about its third affirmative 

defense makes reference to maintenance practices, both before and after the flights in question. 

Attachment B at 3-5. Respondent cannot found an affirmative defense on a subject matter, and 

call witnesses to testify about that subject matter, and then plausibly object that any documents 

about that subject are irrelevant. Accordingly, the FAA moves that the Court compel 

Respondent to produce the documents requested. 

Requenfor Production 9 

In Requests for Production 9 and 10, the FAA asked Respondent to produce any and all 

records relating to the flights in question, including maintenance records, business records, 

i^O^aoO® SWG - VVJ St?L5eGt202 XVJ 85:91 t'l02/90/OL 
student records, and flight instruction records. Attachment A al 4. Respondent objected that 

such records were irrelevant and were not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of relevant 

information. Attachment C at 2. This objection is unfounded. Respondent has asserted 

affirmative defenses that may involve the nature and purpose of these flights, both as to whether 

any sort of extension of the 100-hour inspection requirements was applicable, as to its assertions 

regarding systems and procedures lo prevent operation of unairworthy aircraft, and as to its 

ulliniale responsibility for the flights in question. Additionally, Respondent contests an 

allegation in the Complaint concerning the nature and purpose of these flights. The documents 

requests are directly relevant to these issues and, even if they were not, are certainly within the 

scope of discovery and reasonably likely to lead lo relevant information. Accordingly, the FAA 

moves the Court to compel Respondent to comply with this discovery request. 

Request for Production 10 

In Request for Production 10, the FAA asked for records of flight instruction in the 

months surrounding the violations in this case. Attachment A at 4. Respondent objected that the 

time frame was too broad. Attachment C at 2. This objection is.misplaced - the time frame 

identified was limited to a six-month window, reasonably chosen to permit the FAA to view the 

flight instruction records in context, including comparing records for the veiy specific times of 

the flights in question with the records immediately before and after, and to verify any claims by 

Respondent that there was no flight instruction on some or all of the flights in question. 

Respondent further objected thai Ihe term "records of-flight instruction" was vague, but this 

objection is also unreasonable, and could not justify failing to produce any documents 

whatsoever, especially given the FAA's clarification of this request in the July 29, 2011, letter. 

Respondent additionally responded that it did not maintain such records, only its students and 

ISO/iOO ® SWQ - VVJ SfrL&e8t20 S XVJ £:s:9L LLOS/90/O l 
instructors. This assertion is not credible, given the regulatory requirement for flight schools like 

Respondent to maintain training records (and provide them to the Administrator when 

requested). Additionally, discovery requests require a party lo not only produce documents in Us 

persormel possession, but also those in the possession of its agents, employees, and so forth -

including its flight instructors and students. In its supplemental response, Respondent asserted 

that the FAA has had ''ample opportunity" to obtain tliese records from other persons. This 

objection is misplaced - the FAA is not obliged to engage in third-party discovery (or invoke the 

Administratro's various investigative powers) in order to relieve Respondent of the burden of 

complying with discovery requests concerning documents in its possession or in the possession 

of its agents and students. The Administrator acknowledges that Respondent provided a onepage document (the only document produced by Respondent so far in discovery) wilh 

information on two pilots on two dates, and which appears to be edited down fi*om a larger 

electronic document. However, even setting aside that Respondent should have produced Iho 

original record involved, Ihis response is insufficient to comply with the discovery request. 

Accordingly, the FAA moves that the Court compel Respondent lo comply with this discovery 

request. 

Request for Production I / 

Related to Request for Production 10, Request for Production 11 asked specifically for 

the pilot logbooks of the pilots involved in the flights. As with Request for Production 10, 

Respondent asserted that it did not have personal possession of those documents, and that the 

FAA could obtain them from third parlies. As discussed above, neither of these objections is 

valid - Respondent's discovery obligations extend to documents in the possession of its 

instructors and students, and the FAA need not engage in third party discovery in order to 

820/800© SWO ^ VVJ SPLSCGP^OS XVJ Z9 31 IL02/90/0L 
alleviate the Respondent of its burden. Accordingly, the FAA moves that the Court compel 

Respondent to comply with this discovery request. 

Conclusion 

In sum, Respondent has failed to comply with the above-discussed discovery requests. 

Of particular note is that (1) Respondent has failed to articulate a legal or facmai basis lo its 

affirmahve defenses that there was no violation in overflying the 100-hour mark for the 

inspections involved in this case, and (2) has effectively taken the position that it need not 

comply with any discovery request that requires it to produce documents. Accordingly, the FAA 

moves the Court to compel Respondent to comply with the above-listed discovery requests. 

FAA's RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

Respondent requests that the Judge compel the FAA to produce certain employees for 

deposition. As discussed in the FAA's objection to the notices for those depositions, both these 

depositions and the FAA's deposition(s) arc of individuals who are located in the vicinity of 

Miami, Florida. As discussed by the undersigned and opposing counsel, and as reiterated in the 

July 29, 2011, letter, it would be wasteful and inappropriate to conduct these depositions m a 

maruier that would require multiple out-of-town trips by those involved. Unfortunately, as 

discussed above. Respondent has failed to comply with its discovery obligations and this 

precludes the undersigned from conducting a fiill and appropriate deposition of Respondent. In 

the July 29, 2011, letter, Respondent was specifically put on notice that denying the FAA the 

ability to properly depose Respondent would interfere with the proposed deposition scheduling. 

Opposing counsel was later verbally reminded of Ihis. At the same lime, tlie FAA continued to 

cooperate in scheduling the depositions, presuming that Respondent would substantially comply 

with its discovery obligations in time to permit the depositions to go ahead. Despite the 

820/600© SWO ^ VVJ 2tL5e6tJ203 XVJ fSS l LL02/90/0L 
warnings, Respondent chose not to respond to properly respond to the FAA's discovery requests, 

thus depriving tlic FAA of the abiUty to properly depose P.espondent. Unfortunately, as the 

undersigned has warned Respondent a month prior, because both the Respondent's and the 

FAA's depositions were jointly scheduled, this interfered wilh not only the FAA's deposition of 

Respondent, but also Respondent's depositions of FAA employees. As a result, when 

Respondent filed its Amended Notices of Deposition," the FAA objected. 

Respondent, having disrupted the deposition schedule through its failure to comply with 

discovery, now seeks to compel depositions "at an agreed upon time and place." Respondent's 

motion is unnecessary. The FAA will produce the employees at an agreed upon time and place 

once Respondent has complied with its discovery obligations such thai a reasonable and 

appropriate time and place exists. Compelling production prior to the existence of such a time 

would be to reward Respondent's discovery failures by inflicting undue burden and expense on 

the FAA and/or force the FAA to give up a full deposition of Respondent. 

Although Respondent is dismissive of the unwarranted time and e.xpense it seeks to 

impose the FAA, these considerations are legitimate in determining when and where a deposition 

will be conducted. First, they are basic notions of professional courtesy that should animate any 

deposition scheduling. The FAA need not agree to depositions that unnecessarily require 

additional out-of-state travel any more than it need agree to depositions taken at midnight. The 

undersigned should not have to invoke some sort of specific legal basis for the notion that 

depositions should be scheduled so as to avoid wasting the lime or money of either party. 

Second, ho\vever, there are specific legal bases for the FAA's objeclions. Although Respondent 

mistakenly believes that it does not apply, this situation does fall within the scope of 14 C.F.R. 

" The originally agreed-up on dates for the dcpo.sitioris had to be changed hccaiL-se Respondent's pre.-jidcnt went on a 

three-wcuk cruibi;. 

10 

8S0/0L0i a SWQ ^ VVJ 2t)L5C6t?202 XVJ tS-S t IL02/90/0 L 
§ 13.220(f) - the proposed discovery is unduly burdensome and expensive. In this situation, 

where it is Respondent's own conduct that has caused the scheduling problem, any additional 

expenditure of time or treasure on the part of the FAA is an undue one. Respondent also 

acknowledges Pari 9, while again mistakenly asserting that it does not apply here - Part 9 covers 

not only requests for trial testunony, but for testimony of any sort, including depositions. 49 

C.F.R. § 9.3. The provisions of Part 9 - including those requiring prior consent of agency 

counsel, and that part of the purpose of Part 9 is to conserve the time of agency employees - do 

apply to Respondent's deposition requests. 

FAA'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO AMEND LITIGATION SCHEDULE 

The discovery and hearing schedules in this case have already been pushed back r\vice at 

Respondent's request. Respondent, having disrupted the scheduling of depositions as described 

above, now again seeks to extend discovery and push back the hearing in this case. The FAA 

opposes ihis request. 

Respondent should not bo permitted to profit from its own failure to comply with its 

litigation obligations by further delaying the resolution of this case. Respondent was put on 

ample notice that its discovery violations would interfere with the scheduling of depositions, 

histead of complying with its obligations. Respondent chose to disregard them. If Respondent 

complies with the discovery requests sufficiently to permit joint depositions to be conducted at a 

reasonable and appropriate time and place within the established discovery framework, the 

depositions should take place. If Respondent fails to do so, and the depositions cannot be 

scheduled, then Respondent will have, tlirough its conduct, waived, any right to conduct those 

depositions11 

BcO/LLOi a SrtO - VVJ 2t?l5E6feS03 XVJ t^^-SL VlDZ/90/O l 
WHEREFORE, the FAA requests that the Judge compel Respondent to comply with the FAA's 

discovery requests, deny Respondent's Motion lo Compel, and deny Respondent's motion to 

amend the litigation schedule. 

Respectfully submitted this*^ ^ / ^, day of September. 2011, 

HRJSTO^ER STEVENSON ^ 

ttomey 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

^(^^ Attorney 

12 

830/6LO® SVJG ^ VVJ 2t?L5E;6t20 2 XVJ tSS l L103/90/0 L 
CERTinCATE OF SF.RVICE 

T hereby certify that the foregoing Motion to Compel. Response to Motion to Compel, and 

Response to Motion to Amend Litigation Schedule was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail and Federal Express to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

one copy via certified mjul. Federal Express, and facsimile to: 

The Honorable .I.E. SulUvan 

OfficeofHearines.M-20, Room El2-320 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 Now Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: 

Stuart Goldstein, Esq. 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P.A. 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 10th Floor 

Miami, EL 33156 

facsimile (305) 670-7065 

DOKTs'A STANLEY (J 

Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

SEP 2 2 nm 

13 

'^^^SLoi a swQ ^ VVJ svLseetso s xv j t-sa i ILOS/SO/O L 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HE.\RINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATIG N ,\DM!N1STRATI0 N 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

DEAN FN fERNATIONAL, INC. 

Respondent. 

F.\A Docket No. FAA-20 1 1-0069 

F,\A Case Nos. 20 lOSO 1902.56, 

2010SO190260 

Chief Judge Yodcr 

C:OMPLAlNAjNtT^S FIRST DISCOVERY RKOUESTS 

Pursuani to the provisions of 14 CFR § 13.220, please respond to the following 

Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission separately 

and fijlly under oath within 30 days from your receipt of this request. 

This reqiiosi is intended to di.';covcr infonnation and/or documents not only wilhin your 

personal knowledge or obtainable by you, but also infonnation in the possession of or obtainable 

by your attorneys, invesfigaiors, representatives, employees, agents, or anyone acting on your 

behalf or on their behalf 

Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it 

is objected lo, in which cveni the reasons for objection .shall be stated in lieu of an answer. 

You may respond to the Requests for Production hy producing true and accurate copies 

of the originals to the undersigned. If you refuse to produce any documents or other evidence on 

the basis of privilege or other objection, idemify specifically the items withheld from production. 

Each response shall be continuing in nature so as to require you to file supplemental 

responses in the following circumstances: 

a) When you become aware of a fact or the identity and location of any docunicni 

that is not identified in your original response; 

b) When your original response was initially correct, but subsequently rendered 

incorrect or inaccurate based upon infomiaiion discovered al\er the original response is prepared. 

If your answer to any interrogatory is "N/A" or "Not Applicable,"" describe in detail your 

reasons for making such reply. In reply to any interrogatory, do not merely state, "see attached 

8SO/tt 0 SHQ - VVJ stLsest'So s XVJ t'sa i LIO6/8O/O L 
records" unless you have no additional memory of the mailers referred to in the interrogatory. If 

you have any additional memory of the relevant events, describe it in detail. 

DEFINITIONS 

"Documents" include, without limitalion, notes, memoranda, invoices, work orders, receipts, 

reports, letters, audio and video tapes, photographs, facsimiles, transcripts, wnlten statements, 

records of conversations, computer disks or tapes, e-mails, and other tangible or intangible 

materials. 

"You" or "your" refers to Respondent. Dean Internaiional. 

'identify," when referring to persons, requires you to provide the full name, address, telephone 

number (business and residence, where available) and any other information pertinent to locating 

such person. When pertaining to an object or place, "identify" means lo provide the name, 

location or other description of such object or place. 

"This mailer" refers to the events and circumstances underlying the allegations set forth in the 

Complaint, incUidmg amendments and odier additions to the Complaint. 

INTERROGATORIES 

1. Please identify each person you may call as a witness at the hearing in this maiter. 

and for each person provide his or her liile, address, and davtime phone number. 

2. For each person identified in response to Inierrogatory #1, plcaiie state with 

spccificiiy the subjcci matter upon which each is expected to testify, summ;in/e the substance of 

(ho expected testimony, and identify (he source of the person's knowledge. 

3. Please identify each person you may call as an expert witness at the hearing on 

this matter, and for each person provide his or her title, address, and daytime telephone number, 

suniinarizc ihc substance of such expected testimony (including, vsithout limitation, the 

subsiance of expected opinion tcslimony) and state the grounds for each such opinion (including, 

without liinitalioii, identification of all facts, treatises, reports and records that form the basis for 

such opinion). 

4. Please identify any and all documents you believe contradict the allegations in the 

Complaint, support your affirmative defenses, or are otherwise relevant to matters raised in the 

Complaint '"'r Answer 

5. For each and every flight identified in the Complaint, if you assert that fliglit 

instniction was not given on that flight, describe in detail ihe facts upon which you base that 

assertion, and the actual purpose and nature of the flight. 

6. For each and every fliglit identified in the Complaint, if you assert that there had 

betn an annual or LOO-hour inspection on that aircraft wilhin the 100 hours prior to that flight, 

820/510 © SWO VVJ 3t?L5C6t'60 2 XVJ t?S:9L LL02/90/0 1 
state with specificity the facls upon which you base that assertion, including but not limiled to 

ihe aircrafl total and tach time at the lime of the flight, the aircraft total and tach time at the time 

of ihe inspection, and identify any maintenance records upon which you base ihese figures. 

7. For each and every flight identified in the Complaint, if you assert that the aircraft 

was in compliance with AD S7-20-03 R2 al the lime of the flight, state with specificity the fact.-; 

upon which you base that assertion. 

S. State with specificity the tacts upon which you base your affirmative defense that 

"the inspections referenced in the Complaint may be completed within 10 hours after the 100 

hour<; time in service has elapsed," includnig the identify of document which permits a 10-hour 

overfly and any facts showing that the tliglns in question fit into the conditions required for that 

10-hour overfly. 

9. State with specificity the facts upon which you base your affirmative defense that 

three of the four fliglns m this matter were scheduled to return prior to the expiration of the 100 

hours since their last lOO-hoiir inspection. 

10. Explain in detail why you believe that it is relevant if the fliglils were scheduled 

lo return prior to the expiration of the 100 hours. 

11. Explain in detail why you beheve you are not responsible for the safe operation of 

the flights charged in the Complaint, as referenced in your third affirmative defense. 

12. Descnlte in detail the "systems in place to advise pilots, fligiil insiruciois. 

dispatchers, and muinlenance personnel as to upcoming inspection times" and any measures you 

have taken to prevent use of the aircraft when it would result in an inspection being overflown. 

13. With reference to your fifth affirmative defense, identify the civil penalty 

appropriate in this case, including specifically how that penally is appropriate under the 

Administrator's published sanction guidance 

14. Please describe wiih specificity any conversation you have had regarding this 

matter with your students, employees, or KAA personnel and for each, please also identify date 

and rime of the convcrsaiion, location of the conversation, any other individuals present, and 

what was discussed. 

15. Identify the pilot or pilots on each of the ftights referenced in the Complaint, 

including whether each pilot was a student of, instnictor for, employee of, or contractor for Dean 

International. 

16. Identify all individuals who assisted you in responding to these Complainant's 

First Discovery Requests. 

17. For each of the flights referenced in ihe Complaint, idcnliry when the next 

scheduled inspection for that aircraft was. 

520/910 0 SHQ - VVJ ZVl<iZBVZOZ XVJ tS-9 L IL02/80/0 1 
18. For each and every flight identified in the Complaint, if you a.sscn that the flight 

did noi overtly its 100 hour inspection during the flight, state with specificity the facts upon 

which you base that assertion, including but not limited to the aircraft total and tach time at the 

time ol the flight, the aircraft total and tach lime at the time of the inspection, and identify any 

maintenanct records upon which you base these figures 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUC1 ION 

1. Please produce all documents you rehed upon or ustd in responding the Agency's 

First Set of Interrogatories and/or First Requests for Admission, or that .suppon (hose responses. 

2. Please produce all documents you identified in your responses to the Agency's 

First Set of Interrogatories. 

.3. Please produce all documents that you may or will offer in support of your 

defense in thi.-? m.itter. 

4. Please produce any and all documents, including statements, regarding any person 

interviewed regarding the facts, claims, testimony, evidence, or allegations in this matter. 

5 Please produce any and all documents, including e-mails, containing 

communications by you or to you regarding this matter, except those between yourself and your 

allomey. 

6. Please produce any and all maintenance iccords for civil aircraft N634KB and 

N5216M for the period from February I, 2010 through May 31, 2010. 

7. Please produce any and all records concerning any and all inspections perfomied 

onN6384Band N5276M from February I, 2009 through May 31. 2010. 

.X. Please produce any and all records of concerning AD compliance for N6384B and 

N5276M from Februaty I, 2009 through May 21. 2010. 

9. Produce any and all records relating to the flights alleged in this matter including 

but not limited to business records (such as invoices, fuel receipts, internal billing records, 

student aircraft usage tracking), maintenance records, and flight instruction records. 

10. Produce any and all records of flight instruction given or received by the pilots of 

the four Hights alleged hi this mailer, from January I, 2010 througli June 30, 2010. 

11. Produce the applicable pilot logbooks for the pilots of the four flights alleged in 

the Complaint. 

82o/aO @ SfVG - VVJ 3nseGt'20 2 XVJ S&:.9L LlOS/90/O l 
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

1. Admit that the aircraft involved in this matter were required to have lOO-hour 

inspections during the time frame relevant lo this matter. 

2. Admit that, where an aircraft is required to have a 100-hour inspection, and is past 

due for that inspection, the aircraft is in an unairworthy condition. 

3. Admit that, where an AD is applicable to an aircraft, and the aircraft is not in 

compliance with the AD, the aircraft is in an unairworthy condition. 

4. Admit ihiH. al the lime of the alleged operation ofN634813 on February 2X, 2010. 

the inspcciion required by AD 87-20-03 R2 had not been completed within the prior 100 hours 

(regardless of whether you believe it had to have been completed within the pnor 100 hours). 

5. Admit that, at the ume of the alleged operation of N6348B on March 1, 2010, the 

inspection required by AD 87-20-0? R2 had not been completed within the prior 100 hours 

(regardless of whether you believe it had lo have been completed within the prior 100 hours). 

6. Admit that, at the time of ihe alleged operation of N63'iSB on April 22, 2010, the 

inspection required by AD S7-20-0.'\ R2 had not been completed within the prior 100 hours 

(regardless of whether you believe it had lo have been completed within the prior 100 hours). 

7. Adinii that, ai ihe lime of the alleged operation of N5276B on May S. 2010. ihe 

inspection required by AD 87-20-03 R2 had not been completed within the prior TOO hours 

(regardless of whether you believe it had lo have been completed wiihin the prior 100 hours). 

8. Admit that the four ftights in question in this matter did not return prior lo the 

expiration of the 100 hours since their last lOO-hour inspection. 

9. Admit [hat it is your responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft used 

in your operation.s. 

10. Admit that the sanction proposed is within the range provided by the 

Administraior'5 written and published sanction guidance. . 

830/810 ® SMQ ^ VVJ 3t?L&e6t603 XVJ SS^SL 1102/90/0 1 
The responses and documents requested herein should be submilled within 30 day.*^ after you 

receive this document to: 

Christopher R. Stevenson 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta. Georgia 30320 

Telephone: (404) 305-5200 

Facsimile (404) 305-5223. 

Respectfully submitted this \-^ day of May. 2011. 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

.A. ttomey 

Oft'ice of the Regional Counsel 

830/610 © SWO ^ VVJ 3t?L5£Gt'603 XVJ S&:9 L LL03/90/0 1 
610002/0007 

0C,''0&/20n 12:i * FAA :iU567U70ti5 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION AOMlNISTHATlON, 

Complainant. FAA Docket No. FAA-2011 -0069 

(Chief Judge Yoder) 

V. 

DEAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.. 

Respondent. 

/ 

RESPONDENrS ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO 

THE CQMPLAINANT-S INTERROGATORIES 

Respondent, Dean (niemational. Inc. (Dean), herewith responds to the 

Complainant's Interrogatories served on May 13, 2011. and states: 

1. At this time. Respondent has determined only the below named 

individuals wjU be witnesses in the trial of this matter. As other persons are determined 

to b« witnesses, the requested infomTation will be provided to the Complainant. 

Ian Roben Dean. Owner Kflrf Pren(t£er 

Oean International. Inc. Dean International, Inc. 

14150 SW I29th Street Ul50 SW 129th Street 

Miami>FL 33106 Miami, FL 33186 

(305) 259-5611 (305) 259-5611 

Ayaz Zaidi,Dispatcher 

Dean Intematkjr^l, Inc. 

14150 SW 129th Street 

Miami. FL 33186 

(305)259-5611 

2. Mr. Dean will testify as to all of the allegations and affirmative defenses. He 

CTUART 4^ GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

9350 SOOTH DIXIE HIGHWAY, 10TH FLOOft. MIAMI, f l 33156 

T: (306)670-1222 F: (505) 67&-70G5 

820/020© sno - _ " J 
210003/0007 

06/'0e/2OU 12:54 FAX S(J5ti7070G5 

is the person most knowledge of all ihe facts and circumstances in this matter, Mr. 

Dean is expected to testify as to the systems and procedures in effect at Dean 

International. Ir>c., regarding scheduling flights and maintenance of aircraft (before and 

after the relevant dates in this matter), who is and is not an instructor, who is and is not 

a student, and (he matters discussed in Mr. Dean's tetter to £ddte L. Thomas, dated 

October 1, 2010 

Mr. Zaidi is employed as a dispatcher at Oean. He is expected to testify as to the 

systems and procedures in effect at Dean regarding scheduling flights and maintenance 

ot aircraft (before arxJ after the relevant dates In this matter). 

Mr. Prenrtzer is expected to testify as to student orientation procedures. 

3. At this time. Respondent has not decided on the necessity of an.experi 

witness. It and when an expert witness is dietermined, the requested inforrriation v^ill be 

provided to the Complainant. 

4. The documents responsive to this interrogatorv are referenced in 

Respondent's Response to Claimant's Requests For Production. 

5. There was no flight instructor on such flights. The purpose and nature of 

the flights are irrelevant and immaterial and are objected to on those bases. If there 

was no flight instnjdor on ttie flights, no flight instruction occurred. 

6. The 100 hour inspections were not necessarily completed prior to each of 

the subject flights, but. except for the flight of Mardi 1, 2010, no flight was dispatched 

when 100 hours had elapsed prior to the flight being dispatched. As to flight time 

information requested in this Interrogatory, see the documents refen-ed to in 

Respondent's Response to Claimant's Requests For Production. In further answer to 

STUAfn A. GOlOSTeiN. p. A9350 SOVJTVt OWIE HIGHWAY. lOTH.RjOOR, MlMfl, R. 331S6 

T (305) 570-1222 F; (30S) ff70-7065 

u u j ZV[9ZBVZ0Z XVd 55 9L U02/90/0 1 
t(y UUU4/ uuu ( 

06/06/;i01 1 I2:r>4 F,V.\ J0067O7O6Ei 

this Interrogatory, Dean states that the requirements of 100 hour inspections and the 

subject AD were complied with. 

7. Except for the flight of March 1, 2010, the aircraft were dispatched with 

less than lOO hours since the prior inspection. The AD inspections were performed 

upon return of the flights and in a timely manner. 

8. AD 87-20-03 R2 SO states. 

9. They were so scheduled. 

10- At the very least, it is relevant on the question of sanction, ft also shows 

Respondent's systems were in place to prevent aircraft flying beyond limits. In addition, 

there are time extensions available regarding both lOO hour inspections and AD 

compliance, 

11. Responsibility for the safe operation of an aircraft is shared between the 

operator and the pilot in command, with the pilot in command having final authority, tf 

appropriate systems are put in place by the operator and the pilot in command (or 

dispatcher) violates the systems and/or procedural regulations, the operator should not 

be penalized or held responsible, 

12. At the lime of the occurrences in issue in this matter, the toltowrng systems 

were in place to advise pilots, instnjctars, dispatchers, and maintenance personnel of 

inspection times. 

When pilots enroll in the school they are welcomed and briefed by Kari Prenitier 

on school procedures, rules and regulations. Tliey go over dispatch procedures and the 

time logbook and the 100 hour sticker in the aircraft as well as the time logbook. They 

are given a blue folder with the school safety manual and many items in reference to 

STUA3T A. GOLDSTEIN, P. »i. 

93S0 SOI/TH DIXIE HJCHWAY, lOTH FLOOR. MIAMI, FL 13156 

T. (305) 870-1222 F: (305)570-7065 

QZo/zzo\ii swQ - vvd .. zn<iz&vzQZ xvd 55:31 LLOS/SO/O I 
oo,o6/.oi i i2:54rA ^ 30D6:o7.«5 mooo.v.oon7 

their professional pilot course. They are then given a lour of the facility. When 

instructors are engaged, they are welcomed by myseK or the assistant ct\ief pilot and 

are then referred to Mr. Prenltzer who reviews Dean's procedures, rules and 

regulations, including dispatch procedures and the time loglxtok and the 100 our sticker 

)n the aiTcraU as well as the time logbook. They are given the school's Standard 

Operating Procedures and a tour of the facility. Dispatchers are trained and go through 

these procedures arwJ our dispatch procedures. Dispatch procedures include checking 

the schedule to find the correct aircraft for the student; going to QuickBcoks and 

checking stucient account balance; stamping the proper dispatch paper for the student 

and having the student fill h out; having the student check the discrepancy book for 100 

hour inspection time, annual inspection date, and open discrepancies, all of which are 

then verified with the timelog before the aircraft is dispatched. 

Subsequent to the events noted in the Complaint, we now require tf»e pibts torevieiv tfie timelog with the dispatcher to verify accuracy and legality. In addrtiofi, a 

maintenaiice report is p;i"epared every evening on every aircraft and provided lo mysett, 

the maintenance department, parts department, and dispatch deparlment the following 

morning. This report includes the date, aircraft model/registration number, annual 

inspection date, prtot static check date, 100 hour due time, current tachometer reading, 

and grounding notes. The maintenance report is reviewed every morning by myself, the 

maintenance supervisor, director of maintenance, parts manager, logtwok clerk, and 

maintenance administrator to determine aircraft maintenance schedule. We now 

ground every aircraft four hours prior to the 100 hour inspection due time. 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN. P. A, 

93S0 SOjJTH DIXIE HIGHWAY; 107H FLOOR. MIAMI, FL 33T56 

T: (3aS)670-T222 F: (305)670-7065 

ejo/«o® s«a . . vvd . sn^e.so s xvj 55:91 uos/ao/ot 
010006/000' 06/06/L'Oll 12:55 F.U 305«7U70t-5 '^ 

13. TTiere should be no civil penalty in this matter for the flights of February 

28, 2010. April 22, 2010, and May 3, 2010. There Should only be a de minimus penalty 

(SIOO.OOJ. at most, for the March 1, 2010 flight given the systems in place to prevent 

such occurrences. 

14. Every month we conduct an instrudor/student meeting on safety issues. 

During the meeting we discuss the 100 hour stickers in the timelog as well as in the 

aircraft. Exceeding this sticker time is now grounds for termination from the school. We 

also now have office meetings with all dispatchers on a regular basis to keep everybody 

informed aJ5oat this case and to emphasize the importance of the various due times. 

15. The pilots are identified in the documents the Complainant produced in 

response lo Respondent's request for production. Complainant's records show the 

licensing status of those pilots. None of the pilots were employees of Respondent. All 

instnjctors were independent contractors. All were students on ail flights except March 

1, 2010. The instructors on the March 1, 2010, flight were Adani Ramos and Carlos 

Puerto. The Complainant has access to the last known addresses of Mr. Ramos and 

Mr. Puerto. Mr. Puerto still instmcls at Dean International, Inc. Respondent does not 

know Mr. Ramos'.? current address. 

16. Stuart A. Goldstein. Esq.. 9350 South Dixie Highway. 10th Floor, Miami, 

Florida 33156; (305) 670-1222. 

17. Objection on the grounds ot relevance. 

18. The records wore produced to Complainant and were re-produced by 

Complainant in response to Respondent's discovery requests. 

STUART A GOLDSTEIN. P. A. 

rososoirTH DIXIE HIGHWAY, loTMnjOon.K^iAMi.H- 33iS6 

T; (305)670-1222 F: (306J e70-'O65 

860/fSOlS SHQ -r " ^ 
06/0t>/201 1 i2;5 G PAX .lO:>fe70 KitJ5 ^" " 

The above and foregoing Answers to Interrogatories are true and correct to the 

best of my knowledge, irrformalion, and belief. 

IAN ROBERT OEAN 

.1 . 

Date 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this {fj ^ day of June, 2011, a copy of the foregoing 

was served upon Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq., by facsimile {404i 305-5223 and the 

original was mailed to him by regular U. S. Mail at P, O. Box 20636, Atlanta. GA 30320. 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN. P A. 

Stuart A. Goldstein 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 10th Roor 

Miami. FL 33156 

Tel: (305)670-1222 

Fax; (305) 670-7065 

By: ^s ^ A ^ 

Stuart A. Goldstein 

STUABTA. GOLDSTEIN. P. A. 

aaSO SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAr liJTH FLOOfl, MIAMI, FL 33156 

T; (305)670-1222 F: 005)670-7065 

820/5301? ] SWa ^. VVJ ZPl^eStZO Z XVJ 35-9 1 U02/90/O I 
,g/.0'-!.-::011 IS : 26 FAX .1056707(165 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. 

Complainant. FAA Docket No FAA'20i 1-0069 

(Chief Judge Voder) 

V. 

DEAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.. 

Respondent 

• ./ 

RESPONDENrS RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAlNANrS 

RFQUFRTfi FQR PRODUCTlOfJ 

Respondent, Dean International, Inc. (Dean), herewith responds to the 

Administrator's Requests For Production, and states: 

1 These documents constitute the documents produced by Complainant in 

response to Respondent's Request tor Production. Therefore, there is no point in reproducing these documents and mailing them bacl^ to counsel for Complainant, 

2. See response to Request No. 1. 

3. See response to Request No 1 

4. Other than as contained in the documents referred to in response to Request No. 

1, there are no such documents known to Respondent at this time. 

5. This request is objected to on the grounds of work product privilege. 

6. This request is objected to on the grounds of relevance and materiality. The 

requested documents are not relevant or material to any identified issue in this case and 

are r^oi reasonably likely (o lead to the discovery ol admissible evidence. 

S1U»HT* GOLKTSIN, f * 

C»SCkjlHDIJI6>1IOHVl»T IOTHO^OO B M1*MI . ^ L 131SS 

T. l»Sl 670.1711 F (3MU,-P-T06 J 

g^,0/920ia SWO - "p'Vd . 2t?l5£6fS0Z X-Ji 95-9L U03/90/0 1 
Ooooo.'oooe 

Otf.(li!'-^'Ul 15:2 6 FAi 305ti7U7l)65 

7. See response to Request No. 6. 

9. Other than as such documents relate to the charges in this case, the requested 

documents are not relevant or material to any identified issue in this case and are not 

reasonably likely to lead to the discovery ol admissible evidence. 

9. This request is objected to on the grounds of relevance and materiality. Business 

records such as invoices, fuel receipts, internal billing records, student usage tracking 

records, maintenance records and flight instruction records, to the extent not already 

produced by Respondent, are not relevant to any identrfied issue in this case and are 

not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

70. This request is objected to on the grounds that the time frame (January 1. ?010 

June 30, 2010) Is parnally beyond the scope of the kJentitied issues in this case and, 

therefore irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Without waiving tfiis objection, aircraft log records of the subjec: 

aircraft were previously produced to Complainant and re-produced by Complaint in its 

responses to Respondent's request for production. Further, "records of flight 

instruction" is a vague term not defined by Complainant. Nevertheless, and without 

w3iv/ing this obieclion Respondent notes that "records of flight instruction" are 

maintained by the individual pilois;siudent pilots/instructors in their personal logbooks 

and not in Respondent's possession, Custody, or control. 

11 Respondent has no such ri^cords. 
Ig0006/0006 

06,02/::011 15:27 FAX 3056707065 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ^TI M Pay of June, 2011. a copy of the foregoing 

was served upon Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq., by facsimile (404) 305-5223 and the 

original was mailed, regular U- S, Mail, to P. 0. Box 20636. Atlanta, GA 30320. 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P A. 

Stuart A. Goldstein 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 10th Floor 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel; (305)670-1222 

Fax. (305) 670-7065 

3v. J ^ II -A^kd ^ 

Stuart A. Goldstein 

^T\jkBl A OCkPSTEiN P * 

SJSO SOUTH orilS nIGKWAt. TffTHf LOO* wWMi. (=L 13l » 

T 13m,Slai3 ; F- iSto)S'Cl-7066 

. vv d SHSCet-SOZ XVd as-SL IIOS/90/O L