### jflPARTiv^NlO F

. . J •;i(\HS^|}TAllO ^ DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N !>.;i...f..b l UrrnMMUI^l

b OFFIC EO FHEARING S FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISTRATIO N 

### 20! i CC i 

### - 1 ASM U

FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISTRATION , Complainant ,

vs . DEA NINTERNATIONAL , INC. , Respondent . 

# RE '

FA A Docke t

No . FAA-201 1 -006 9 FA A Cas e Noa . 2010SO190256 ,

2010SO19026 0 Judg e Sulliva n MOTIO NT O COMPEL . RESPONS ET O MOTIO NT O COMPE LAN D RESPONS ET O

MOTIO NT O AMEN D LITIGATIO N SCHEDUL E A s previousl y discusse di nth e FAA' s Respons e t o th e Amende dNotic e o f Depositions , Responden t

ha s lailc dt o cooperat e ino r compl y withth e discover y process . A s aresul t o f Respondent' s discover y failures , ther e ha s no t bee nareasonabl e an dappropriat e tim e t o conduc t depositions . Rathe r

tha ncorreciin g it s failure s an dpermittin g th e deposition s t o b e scheduled , Responden t

no w ask s th e Judg e t o orde r th e FA A produc e it s employee s at a nunreasonabl e tim e an dplace , an dt o agai npostpon e th e resolutio no f thi s case . Th e FA A oppose s bot hrequests . Additionally , whil e th e FA A ha s t o thi s poin t decline dt o involv e th e Judg e regardin g Respondent' s discover y failures , thi s concer nno w seem s moot- land , aqcordingiy . th e FA A request s tha t

th e Judg e compe l Responden t t o compl y withit s discover y obligations . FAA' S MOTIO NT O COMPE L O nMa y 13 , 2011 , th e FA A serve dit s discover y request s o nRespondent , includin g interrogatorie s an drequest s for production . Se e Attachmen t A . Responden t

timely , bu t incompletely , responde dt o thes e requests . Se e Attachment s B , C - Th e undersigne dattempte dt o

eso/Loo © s w a - VV J StLSSetJ^Ci S XV d 25:9 1 LL03/90/O Lwork

withopposin g counse l t o ente r int o stipulations , narro w th e scop e o f discover y and , accordingly , reduc e th e discover y burde no nRespondent , bu t opposin g counse l decline dt o engag e i nan y suc hdiscussion . Se e Respondent' s Repl y i nOppositio nt o th e Administrator' s Respons e t o Amende dNotic e o f Depositio na

t 2 (notin g tha t

opposin g counse l informe dth e undersigne dtha t

opposin g counse l woul dno t ente r int o stipulation s befor e th e clos e o f discovery). ' I

nagoo dfaitheffort

t o resolv e th e matter , th e undersigne dsen t alette r t o Responden t

o nJul y 29 , 2011 , identifyin g th e deficiencie s i nth e discover y responses . Se e id . a t Attachmen t

A . O nAugus t

25 , 2011 , Responden t

responde dt o tha t

letter , largel y declinin g t o provid e an y furthe r

response . Se e id . a

i Attachmen t

B . Despit e th e FAA' S goo dfait heffort s t o resolv e thi s matter , ther e remai nsubstantia l deficiencie s i nRespondent' s discover y response s - i nparticular , th e Respondent' s failur e t o provid e an y factua l o r lega l justificatio nfo r

severa l affirmativ e defense s an dit s failur e t o produc e documents . Accordingly , th e FA A move s t o compe l Responden t

t o correc t

thes e deficiencies . Th e spcctfr c discover y request s involve dar c discusse dbelow . Interrogatorie s 2 . 7 . 8 . JO . an d1 7 Respondent' s first

affirmativ e defens e i s that , althoug heac ho f th e flight s i

nthi s cas e wa s operate dpas t

th e 100-hou r

mark for tw o require dinspections , ther e wa s n o violatio nbecaus e thos e inspection s ma y b e complete du p t o 1 0 hour s afte r th e 100-hou r

mar k Respondent' s secon daffirmativ e defens e i s tha t al l o f th e flight s bu t

on e wer e schedule dt o retur nbefor e th e lOO-hour mark . Eac ho f

thes e fiv e inteirogatorie s shoul dhav e produce dsom e sor t o f respons e abou t thes t affirmativ e defense s - Interrogator y 8 specificall y addresse dth e firs t affinnativ e defense , Inierrogator y 7 aske dabou t complianc e withAirworthines s Directiv e 87-20-0 3 R 2 (th e

' Kesponden T coirecil y note s tha t th e FA A di dno t picscn t propose dstipufalions , bxi

t i t i.- ; unclea r whit purpos e liii s woul dhav e served, give

nilia t opposin g counse l ha dulread y refuge dl o discus s sripulalions aji

dha dstate diha r h e woul dno t con.=;idc T [het nuiili l ^ftc r discover y ha dcloacJ .

^^'^^^^'^ ^ SH Q ^ v.v dSHseet^o s xv j 25:9 1 L10J/90/O Lsourc e o f on e o f th e inspectio nrequirements) , an dInterrogator y 1 0 aske dabou t th e secon d affimiativ e defense . Attachmen t A at 3 . Interrogator y 1 7 aske dabou t whe nth e nex t

schedule d inspection s afte r

th e flights i nquestion , atopi c specificall y reference di nth e pertinen t portio no f th e AD . Attachmen t

A a l 3 . Interrogator y 2 aske dfor th e subjec t

matte r o f witnes s testimony . Attachmen t

A a t 2-3 . I nit s response s t o Interrogatorie s 7 , 8 , an d10 ^ Responden t

decline dt o provid e an y fact s o r

othe r justificatio ni nsuppor t o f it s affirmativ e defenses . Whe naske d directl y abou t

th e first

aCTirmative defense , Responden t simpl y replie d"A D 87-20-0 3 B 2 s o states " - excep t

tliat thi s A D make s n o referenc e a l al l t o a10-hou r permissibl e overflight , an d eve ni f i t did , th e discover y respons e fail s t o provid e an y fact s tha t woul dplac e th e flight s withi n th e scop e o f

an y sort o f permissibl e overfliglit . Attachmen t B a t 3 . I nrespons e t o Interrogator y 10 , Responden t

note dtha t

"ther e ar e tim e extension s availabl e regardin g bot h10 0 hou r inspection s an dA D compliance' ' -^u t agai nfail s t o identif

y wha t th e purporte dbasi s for

suc ha n extensio nwoul dbe , o r

identif y an y fad s tha t

woul dplac e thes e flight s withi nth e scop e o f tha t extension . Attachmen t

B at 3 , I nrespons e t o Interrogator y 7 , Responden t nierel y reiterate s tha t th e aircraf

l wer e dispatche dprio r t o th e 100-hou r

mark an dtha t

th e inspection s wer e timel y performe d- again , withou t providin g an y basi s for th e relevanc e o f

th e fime o f

dispatc ht o A D compliance , o r

th e fact s upo nwhic hth e assertio ni s based . Attachmen t B at 3 . Inrespons e l o Interrogator y 17 , Responden t asserte dtha t

i t wa s irrelevant , abafflin g objectio nsinc e Inierrogalor y 1 7 concern s th e timin g requirement s for th e AD , whic har e containe di nasectio n o f th e A D cite db y Responden t inrespons e t o anothe r

interrogatory . I nrespons e t o Intenogator y 2 , Responden t

identifie dn o potentia l testimon y o nan y o f thes e subjects . I nsum , Responden t

ha s asserte da s affirmativ e defense s that , eve nthoug hit s aircraf t wer e operate dpas t

th e lOO-hour

mar k for multipl e lOO-hour-limite dinspections , i t ha s

820/eOOi a SVJ Q ^ VV J ZtLSeGftSO S XV J C5:3 L IL02/90/0 Lrepeatedl y faile dt o identif y th e lega l o r

factual basi s for

thes e affirmativ e defenses . I f ther e i s n o basi s fo r th e defenses , the nResponden t shoul dwithdra w them . I f ther e i s abasi s for

th e defenses , the nResponden t mus t actuall y slat e th e basi s for thos e defenses . Accordingly , th e FA A move s th e Cour t

t o compe l Responden t t o full y compl y wit hthes e discover y requests . Alternatively , Responden t coul dwithdra w thes e affirmativ e defense s an drende r th e discover y request s moot . Interrogator) ' 5 I nInterrogator y 5 , th e FA A aske dfo r informatio nconcernin g th e natur e an dpurpos e o f ch e flight s i nthi s case . Attachmen t A a t 2 . Responden t

asserte dtha t

ther e wa s n o flight instructo r o nan y o f

th e flight s and , therefore , h e nee dno t furthe r respon dt o th e Interrogatory . Attachmen t

B at 2 . Thi s respons e i s deficien t for severa l reasons . First , Respondent' s mer e iisseriio nthat

ther e wer e n o flight

instructor s o nth e flight s doc s no t i nan y wa y releas e hi mfi'o m respondin g t o discover y request s completel y - a s Responden t ha s decline dt o ente r

int o an y stipulations , th e natur e an dpurpos e o f th e flights remai nundetermined , Second , Respondent' s othe r discover y response s contradic t thi s response . Se e Attachmen t B a t 5 (notin g tha i ther e wer e instructor s involve di naflight). Third , th e natur e an dpurpos e o f th e flights i s regardles s relevan t t o Respondent' s first

affirmativ e defense , i ntha t onl y 10-hou r

permissibl e overfligh t tha i ha s bee nreference db y Responden t (i napre-litigatio nletter ) i s contingen t o nth e natur e an d purpos e o f

th e flight. Fourth , th e natur e an dpurpos e o f th e flights i s regardles s relevan t becaus e i t ma y produc e informatio nrelevan t t o Respondent' s affirmativ e defense s that i t shoul dno t

b e hel dresponsibl e for

an y violation s tha t

occurre do nth e flights. Accordingly , th e FA A move s tha t th e Cour t

compe l Responden t

t o full y compl y withthi s discover y request .

820/^00 0 SW Q - VV J Stl5GGt20 2 XV dCS:9 L1102/90/0 1Interrogator y 1 3 Respondent' s fiflhaffirmativ e defens e i s tha t "[t]h e propose dfine i s harsh , unreasonable , an dno t appropriat e i nth e fact s an dcircumstance s o f thi s case. " Interrogator y 1 3 aske d Responden t

t o identif

y wha t th e appropriat e penalt y woul db e an dwhy , includin g specificall y reference s t o th e factor s identifie di nth e Administrator' s sanctio nguidance . Attachmen t A a t 3 . Responden t

asserte dtha t

th e penalt y shoul db e $100 , bu t instea do f

providin g abasi s for

thi s exceptionall y lo w figure, state donl y tha t i t wa s appropriat e "give nth e system s i nplac e t o preven t suc hoccurrence s " Attachmen t B a t 5 . I nhi s supplementa l response , Responden t onl y reiterate s tha t

th e propose dsanctio ni s "unfai r an dhars hi nth e circumstances. " Respondent' s Repl y inOppositio nt o th e Administrator' s Respons e t o Amende dNotic e o f Depositio n at Attachmen t

B . Responden t

ha s asserte da s a naffirmativ e defens e tha t th e Administrator' s propose dsanctio ni s unreasonable , bu t ha s faile dt o articulat e an y reaso nwh y i t is , o r wh y a lesse r sanctio nwoul dcompl y withth e Administrator' s publishe dsanctio nguidance . I f ther e i s n o basi s for

Respondent' s contentio ntha t th e propose dpenalt y i s unreasonable , the nthi s defens e shoul db e witlidrawn . I f ther e i s abasi s for

th e defense , the nResponden t mus t articulat e it . Accordingly , th e FA A move s th e Court l o compe l Responden t t o fiill y compl y withthi s discover y reques t

or , alternatively , withdra w it s t1fl haffirmativ e defense . Interrogator y J 4 Interrogator y 1 4 aske dfor , amon g othe r things , adescriptio no f an y conversation s betwee nResponden t

an dFA A personne l concernin g thi s case . Attachmen t A at 3 . Responden t di dno t respon dt o thi s par t

o f Interrogator y 14 , Se c Attachmen t B at 5 . I nit s supplementa l response , Responden t

asserte dtha t

i t di dno t hav e t o respon dt o thi s aspec t o f th e questio n becaus e th e undersigne dcoul dsimpl y tal k t o th e FA A persorme l i nquestion . Respondent' s

820/500I S SW Q - VV J St?L5e6t?30 S XV d£ 5 9 t Lt0£/90/0 LRepl y inOppositio nt o th e Administrator' s Respons e t o Amende dNotic e o f Depositio na

t Attachmen t

B . Unles s an dunti l Responden t i s prepare dt o waiv e an y argumen t o r assertio ntha t h e disagree s wit han y descriptio no r testimon y o f

an y FA A employe e regardin g an y suc h conversation , ther e i s n o basi s for Responden t

t o refiis e t o answe r

thi s question . Th e FAA i s entitle dt o discove r

Respondent' s versio no f relevan t event s an ddiscussions . Accordingly , th e FA A move s th e Cour t

t o compe l Responden t t o fully compl y witl i thi s discover y reques t or . alternatively , t o stipulat e t o th e ful l accurac y o f an y testimon y b y an y employe e o nthi s subject . Request s fo r

Productio n6 . 7 . an dS Th e FA A requeste dtha t Responden t

produc e maintenanc e records , includin g inspectio n an dA D complianc e records , o nth e aircraf l involve di nthi s case . Se e Attachmen t A at 4 . Responden t

decline dt o provid e an y records , assertin g tha t the y wer e irrelevant . Attachmen t C a t 1-2 Maintenanc e o nthes e aircrafl , includin g inspecfion s an dA D compliance , i s wha t thi s cas e i s about . Responden t

ha s idenrifie dmultipl e wimesse s t o testif y abou t it s maintenanc e an d dispatc hpractices , includin g whethe r thos e practice s pemiitte doperatio no f unairworth y aircraft . Se e Attachmen t

B at 2 , 4 . Respondent' s interrogator y respons e abou t it s thir daffirmativ e defens e make s referenc e t o maintenanc e practices , bothbefor e an dafter th e flight s i nquestion . Attachmen t

B at 3-5 . Responden t

canno t foun danaffirmativ e defens e o nasubjec t matter , an d cal l witnesse s t o testif

y abou t tha t subjec t matter , an dthe nplausibl y objec t tha t an y document s abou t tha t subjec t ar e irrelevant . Accordingly , th e FA A move s tha t th e Cour t

compe l Responden t

t o produc e th e document s requested . Requenfo r

Productio n9 InRequest s fo r

Productio n9 an d10 , th e FA A aske dResponden t t o produc e an y an dal l record s relatin g t o th e flights i nquestion , includin g maintenanc e records , busines s records ,

i^O^aoO ®

SW G - VV J St?L5eGt20 2 XV J 85:9 1 t'l02/90/O Lstuden t records , an dflight

instructio nrecords . Attachmen t A al 4 . Responden t

objecte dtha t suc hrecord s wer e irrelevan t an dwer e no t

reasonabl y likel y t o leadt o th e discover y o f relevan t information . Attachmen t C a t 2 . Thi s objectio ni s unfounded . Responden t ha s asserte d affirmativ e defense s tha t ma y involv e th e natur e an dpurpos e o f thes e flights, bot ha s t o whethe r an y sort o f extensio no f

th e 100-hou r

inspectio nrequirement s wa s applicable , a s t o it s assertion s regardin g system s an dprocedure s l o preven t operatio no f

unairworth y aircraft , an da s t o it s ullinial e responsibilit y for th e flights i nquestion . Additionally , Responden t contest s a

n allegatio ni nth e Complain t concernin g th e natur e an dpurpos e o f thes e flights. Th e document s request s ar e directl y relevan t t o thes e issue s and , eve ni f the y wer e not , ar e certainl y withi nth e scop e o f discover y an dreasonabl y likel y t o lea dl o relevan t information . Accordingly , th e FA A move s th e Cour t

t o compe l Responden t

t o compl y withthi s discover y request . Reques t fo r Productio n1 0 I nReques t

for Productio n10 , th e FA A aske dfor record s o f

flight instructio nin th e month s surroundin g th e violation s i nthi s case . Attachmen t A a t 4 . Responden t

objecte dtha t

th e tim e fram e wa s to o broad . Attachmen t C at 2 . Thi s objectio nis.misplace d- th e tim e frame identifie dwa s limite dt o asix-mont hwindow , reasonabl y chose nt o permi t th e FA A t o vie w th e flight instructio nrecord s i ncontext , includin g comparin g record s for th e vei y specifi c time s o f th e flights i nquestio nwit hth e record s immediatel y befor e an dafter , an dt o verif y an y claim s b y Responden t

tha t ther e wa s n o flight

instructio no nsom e o r al l o f th e flights inquestion . Responden t

furthe r objecte dtha i Ih e ter m"record s of-fligh t instruction " wa s vague , bu t thi s objectio ni s als o unreasonable , an dcoul dno t justif y failin g t o produc e an y document s whatsoever , especiall y give nth e FAA' s clarificatio no f thi s reques t

i nth e Jul y 29 , 2011 , letter . Responden t

additionall y responde dtha t i t di dno t maintai nsuc hrecords , onl y it s student s an d

ISO/iOO ® SW Q - VV J SfrL&e8t20 S XV J £:s:9 LLLOS/90/O l

### instructors . Thi s assertio ni s no t credible , giventh e regulator y requiremen t

fo r flight school s lik

e Respondent

to maintai ntrainin g record s (andprovid e themt o th e Administrato r whe n requested) . Additionally , discover y request s require apart

y l o no t onl y produc e document s i n U s persormel possession , bu t als o thos e inth e possessio no f it s agents , employees , ands o fort h- includin g it s flight

instructor s andstudents . I nit s supplemental response , Respondent asserte d tha t the FAA ha s ha

d''ampl e opportunity " to obtai ntlies e record s fromother persons . Thi s objectio ni s misplace d- th e FA A i s no t oblige dt o engag e i

nthird-part

y discovery (or

invok e th e Administratro' s variou s investigativ e powers ) inorder t o reliev e Respondent

o f the burden o f complyin g wit

hdiscovery request s concernin g document s init s possessio no r i nthe possessio n o f it s agent s an

dstudents . Th e Administrato r acknowledge s tha

t Respondent

provide daone pag e document

(th e onl y document

produce db y Respondent s o fa r indiscovery ) wilh informatio nontw o pilot s ontw o dates , andwhichappear s t o b e edite ddow nfi*o malarger electroni c document . However , eve nsettin g aside tha t Respondent

shoul dhav e produce dIh o origina l recordinvolved , Ihi s respons e i s insufficien t to compl y wit

hthe discover

y request . Accordingly , th e FAA move s tha t th e Cour t compel Respondent

lo compl y withthi s discover y request . Reques t fo r Productio nI/ Relate dt o Reques t

fo r Productio n10 , Reques t

fo r Productio n1 1 aske dspecifically fo r th e pilo t logbook s o f

th e pilot s involve di

nthe flights. A s wit

hReques t

fo r Productio n 10 , Respondent

asserte dtha

t i t di dno t hav e personal possessio no f thos e documents , andtha t the FAA couldobtai nthemfro mthirdparlies . A s discusse dabove , neither o f thes e objection s i s vali d- Respondent' s discovery obligation s exten dt o document s i

nth e possessio no f

it s instructor s an

dstudents , an

dth e FA A nee dno t

engag e i nthirdpart

y discover

y i norde r t o

820/800 ©SW O ^ VV J SPLSCGP^O S XV J Z 9 3 1 IL02/90/0 Lalleviat e th e Responden t o f it s burden . Accordingly , th e FA A move s tha t th e Cour t

compe l Responden t

t o compl y wit hthi s discover y request . Conclusio n Insum , Responden t

ha s faile dt o compl y wit hth e above-discusse ddiscover y requests . O f particula r

not e i s tha t

(1 ) Responden t

ha s faile dt o articulat e alega l o r facma i basi s l o it s affirmahv e defense s tha t ther e wa s n o violatio ni noverflyin g th e 100-hou r mark for th e inspection s involve di nthi s case , an d(2 ) ha s effectivel y take nth e positio ntha t i t nee dno t compl y wit han y discover y reques t tha t require s i t

t o produc e documents . Accordingly , th e FA A move s th e Cour t

t o compe l Responden t

t o compl y wit hth e above-liste ddiscover y requests . FAA' s RESPONS ET O RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N T O COMPE L Responden t

request s tha t

th e Judg e compe l th e FA A t o produc e certai nemployee s for deposition . A s discusse dinth e FAA' s objectio nt o th e notice s for thos e depositions , bot hthes e deposition s an dth e FAA' s deposition(s ) ar c o f individual s wh o ar e locate di nth e vicinit y o f Miami , Florida . A s discusse db y th e undersigne dan dopposin g counsel , an da s reiterate di nth e Jul y 29 , 2011 , letter , i t woul db e wasteful an dinappropriat e t o conduc t thes e deposition s ma maruie r tha t woul drequir e multipl e out-of-tow ntrip s b y thos e involved . Unfortunately , a s discusse dabove . Responden t ha s faile dt o compl y wit hit s discover y obligation s an dthi s preclude s th e undersigne dfro mconductin g afiil l an dappropriat e depositio no f Respondent . In th e Jul y 29 , 2011 , letter , Responden t wa s specificall y pu t

o nnotic e tha t

denyin g th e FA A th e abilit y t o properl y depos e Responden t woul dinterfer e wit hth e propose ddepositio nscheduling . Opposin g counse l wa s late r verball y reminde do f

Ihis . A t th e sam e lime , tli e FA A continue dt o cooperat e i nschedulin g th e depositions , presumin g tha t Responden t

woul dsubstantiall y compl y wit hit s discover y obligation s i ntim e t o permi t th e deposition s t o g o ahead . Despit e th e

820/600 ©SW O ^ VV J 2tL5e6tJ20 3 XV J fSS l LL02/90/0 Lwarnings , Responden t chos e no t

t o respon dt o properl y respon dt o th e FAA' s discover y requests , thu s deprivin g tli c FA A o f th e abiUty t o properl y depos e P.espondent . Unfortunately , a s th e undersigne dha s warne dResponden t amont hprior , becaus e bot hth e Respondent' s an dth e FAA' s deposition s wer e jointl y scheduled , thi s interfere dwil hno t onl y th e FAA' s depositio no f Respondent , bu t

als o Respondent' s deposition s o f FA A employees . A s aresult , whe n Responden t

filedit s Amende dNotice s o f Deposition, " th e FA A objected . Respondent , havin g disrupte dth e depositio nschedul e throug hit s failur e t o compl y wit h discovery , no w seek s t o compe l deposition s "a t a nagree dupo ntim e an dplace. " Respondent' s motio ni s unnecessary . Th e FA A wil l produc e th e employee s a t a nagree dupo ntim e an dplac e onc e Responden t

ha s complie dwit hit s discover y obligation s suc htha i areasonabl e an d appropriat e tim e an dplac e exists . Compellin g productio nprio r t o th e existenc e o f

suc hatim e woul db e t o rewar dRespondent' s discover y failure s b y inflictin g undu e burde nan dexpens e o n th e FA A and/o r

forc e th e FA A t o giv e u p aful l depositio no f Respondent . Althoug hResponden t

i s dismissiv e o f

th e unwarrante dtim e an de.xpens e it seek s t o impos e th e FAA , thes e consideration s ar e legitimat e indeterminin g whe nan dwher e adepositio n wil l b e conducted . First , the y ar e basi c notion s o f professiona l courtes y tha t shoul danimat e an y depositio nscheduling . Th e FA A nee dno t agre e t o deposition s tha t

unnecessaril y requir e additiona l out-of-stat e trave l an y mor e tha ni t nee dagre e t o deposition s take na t midnight . Th e undersigne dshoul dno t hav e t o invok e som e sort o f specifi c lega l basi s fo r th e notio ntha t deposition s shoul db e schedule ds o a s t o avoi dwastin g th e lim e o r mone y o f

eithe r party . Second , ho\vever , ther e ar e specifi c lega l base s for th e FAA' s objeclions . Althoug hResponden t mistakenl y believe s tha t i t doe s no t apply , thi s situatio ndoe s fal l withi nth e scop e o f 1 4 C.F.R .

" Th e originall y agreed-u p o ndate s fo r th e dcpo.sitiori s ha dt o b e change dhccaiL-se Respondent' s pre.-jidcnt wen t o n a three-wcu k

cruibi; . 1 0 8S0/0L0i aSW Q ^ VV J 2t)L5C6t?20 2 XV J tS-S t IL02/90/0 L§ 13.220(f ) - th e propose ddiscover y i s undul y burdensom e an dexpensive . I nthi s situation , wher e it i s Respondent' s ow nconduc t that ha s cause dth e schedulin g problem , an y additiona l expenditur e o f

tim e o r treasur e o nth e part

o f th e FA A i s a nundu e one . Responden t als o acknowledge s Par i 9 , whil e agai nmistakenl y assertin g tha t i t doe s no t appl y her e - Par t

9 cover s no t onl y request s for

tria l testunony , bu t

for testimon y o f

an y sort , includin g depositions . 4 9 C.F.R . § 9.3 . Th e provision s o f Par t 9 - includin g thos e requirin g prio r consen t o f agenc y counsel , an dtha t

par t o f th e purpos e o f

Par t 9 i s t o conserv e th e tim e o f agenc y employee s - d o appl y t o Respondent' s depositio nrequests . FAA' S RESPONS ET O RESPONDENT' S MOTIO NT O AMEN D LITIGATIO NSCHEDUL E Th e discover y an dhearin g schedule s i nthi s cas e hav e alread y bee npushe dbac k r\vic e a t Respondent' s request . Respondent , havin g disrupte dth e schedulin g o f deposition s a s describe d above , no w agai nseek s t o exten ddiscover y an dpus hbac k th e hearin g i nthi s case . Th e FA A oppose s ihi s request . Responden t

shoul dno t

b o permitte dt o profi t

fro mit s ow nfailur e t o compl y wit hit s litigatio nobligation s b y furthe r delayin g th e resolutio no f thi s case . Responden t wa s pu t o n ampl e notic e tha t

it s discover y violation s woul dinterfer e wit hth e schedulin g o f depositions , histea do f

complyin g wit hit s obligations . Responden t chos e t o disregar dthem . I f Responden t complie s wit hth e discover y request s sufficientl y t o permi t join t deposition s t o b e conducte da t a reasonabl e an dappropriat e tim e an dplac e withi nth e establishe ddiscover y framework , th e deposition s shoul dtak e place . I f Responden t

fail s t o d o so , an dth e deposition s canno t b e scheduled , the nResponden t wil l have , tliroug hit s conduct , waived , an y righ t t o conduc t

thos e depositions 1 1 BcO/LLOi aSrt O - VV J 2t?l5E6feS0 3 XV J t^^-S LVlDZ/90/O l

### WHEREFORE , th e FA A request s tha

t the Judg e compel Respondent t o compl y wit

hthe FAA' s discover y requests , deny Respondent' s Motio nlo Compel , an ddeny Respondent' s motio nto amendthe litigatio nschedule . Respectfully submitte dthis*^ ^ da y o f September . 2011 , ^ / , 

### HRJSTO^E RSTEVENSO N^ ttome y Office o f th e Regional Counse l ^(^ ^ Attorne y



### 1 2 830/6LO ®

SVJ G ^ VV J 2t?L5E;6t20 2 XV J tSS l L103/90/0 L

### CERTinCAT EO FSF.RVIC E

T hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Motio nto Compel . Respons e to Motio nt o Compel , an d Respons e t o Motio nto Amen dLitigatio nSchedul e wa s sent : original andon e cop y vi acertifie dmai l an dFedera l Expres s to : Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk . AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 one cop y vi acertifie dmjul . Federal Express , an dfacsimil e to : The Honorabl e .I.E . SulUva n OfficeofHearines.M-20 , RoomEl2-32 0 U.S . Departmen

t of Transportatio n 120 0 No w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 facsimile : (202 ) 366-753 6 on e cop y vi acertifie dmai l andfacsimil e to : Stuar t Goldstein , Esq . Stuar t A . Goldstein , P.A . 935 0 Sout hDixi e Highway , 10t

hFloo r Miami , E L3315 6 facsimil e (305 ) 670-706 5

DOKTs' A STANLEY ( J Lega l Assistant Office of the Regional Counse l 

### SE P2 2 n m

1 3 '^^^SLoi asw Q ^ VV J svLseetso s xv j t-sa i ILOS/SO/O LU.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC EO FHE.\RING S FEDERA L AVIATIG N,\DM!N1STRATI0 N

FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISTRATION , Complainant ,

vs . DEA NF NfERNATIONAL , INC . Respondent . F.\ A Docke t No . FAA-20 1 1-006 9 F,\ A Cas e Nos . 2 0 lOS O 1902.56 ,

2010SO19026 0 Chie f Judg e Yodc r C:OMPLAlNAjNtT^ S FIRS T DISCOVER Y RKOUEST S Pursuan i t o th e provision s o f 1 4 CF R§ 13.220 , pleas e respon dt o th e followin g Interrogatories , Request s for Productio no f

Documents , an dRequest s for Admissio nseparatel y an dfijlly unde r

oathwithi n3 0 day s fromyou r receip t o f thi s request . Thi s reqiios i i s intende dt o di.';covc r

infonnatio nand/o r

document s no t

onl y wilhi nyou r persona l knowledg e o r

obtainabl e b y you , but

als o infonnatio ninth e possessio no f o r obtainabl e b y you r attorneys , invesfigaiors , representatives , employees , agents , o r anyon e actin g o nyou r behal f o r o nthei r behal f Eac hinterrogator y shal l b e answere dseparatel y an dfull y i nwritin g unde r

oath , unles s it i s objecte dlo , inwhic hcven i th e reason s fo r objectio n.shal

l b e state di nlie u o f

a nanswer . Yo u may respon dt o th e Request s fo r Productio nh y producin g tru e an daccurat e copie s o f th e original s t o th e undersigned . If yo u refus e t o produc e an y document s o r othe r evidenc e o n th e basi s o f

privileg e or

othe r objection , idemif

y specificall y th e item s withhel dfromproduction . Eac hrespons e shal l b e continuin g i nnatur e s o a s t o requir e yo u t o fil e supplementa l response s i

nth e followin g circumstances : a ) Whe nyo u becom e awar e o f afact o r th e identit y an dlocatio no f an y docunicn i tha t i s no t identifie di

nyou r origina l response ; b ) Whe nyou r

origina l respons e wa s initiall y correct , bu t subsequentl y rendere d incorrec t o r inaccurat e base dupo ninfomiaiio ndiscovere dal\e r th e origina l respons e i s prepared . I f you r answe r t o an y interrogator y i s "N/A " o r "No t Applicable," " describ e indetai l you r reason s for

makin g suc hreply . I

nrepl y t o an y interrogatory , d o no t merel y state , "se e attache d

8SO/tt 0 SHQ - VV J stLsest'So s XV J t'sa i LIO6/8O/O Lrecords " unles s yo u hav e n o additiona l memor y o f th e mailer s referre dt o i nth e interrogatory . If yo u hav e an y additiona l memor y o f th e relevan t

events , describ e i

t i ndetail . DEFINITION S "Documents " include , withou t limitalion , notes , memoranda , invoices , work orders , receipts , reports , letters , audi o an dvide o tapes , photographs , facsimiles , transcripts , wnlte nstatements , record s o f

conversations , compute r disk s or

tapes , e-mails , an dothe r tangibl e o r

intangibl e materials . "You " or "your " refer s t

o Respondent . Dea nInternaiional . 'identify, " whe nreferrin g t o persons , require s yo u t o provid e th e ful l name , address , telephon e numbe r (busines s an dresidence , wher e available ) an dan y othe r informatio npertinen t

t o locatin g suc hperson . Whe npertainin g t o a nobjec t o r place , "identify " mean s lo provid e th e name , locatio no r

othe r descriptio no f

suc hobjec t

or place . "Thi s mailer " refer s t

o th e event s an dcircumstance s underlyin g th e allegation s se t fort hi nth e Complaint , incUidmg amendment s an dodie r addition s t o th e Complaint . INTERROGATORIE S 1 . Pleas e identif

y eac hperso nyo u ma y cal l a s awitnes s a t th e hearin g i

nthi s maiter . an dfor eac hperso nprovid e hi s o r he r liile , address , an ddavtim e phon e number . 2 . Fo r

eac hperso nidentifie di nrespons e t o Inierrogator y #1 , plcaii e stat e with spccificii y th e subjcc i matte r upo nwhic heac hi s expecte dt o testify , summ;in/ e th e substanc e o f (ho expecte dtestimony , an didentif y (he sourc e o f

th e person' s knowledge . 3 . Pleas e identif

y eac hperso nyo u ma y cal l a s a nexper t witnes s a

t th e hearin g o n thi s matter , an dfo

r eac hperso nprovid e hi s or he r title , address , an ddaytim e telephon e number , suniinariz c ih c substanc e o f suc hexpecte dtestimon y (including , vsithou t limitation , th e subsianc e o f

expecte dopinio ntcslimony ) an dstat e th e ground s for eac hsuc hopinio n(including , withou t liinitalioii , identificatio no f al l facts , treatises , report s an drecord s tha t for mth e basi s for suc hopinion) . 4 . Pleas e identif

y an y an dal l document s yo u believ e contradic t th e allegation s inth e Complaint , suppor t

you r affirmativ e defenses , o r ar e otherwis e relevan t

t o matter s raise di

nth e Complain t

'"' r Answe r 5 . Fo r

eac han devery flight

identifie di

nth e Complaint , i f

yo u asser t

tha t fliglit instnictio nwa s no t

give no ntha

t flight , describ e i ndetai l ih e fact s upo nwhic hyo u bas e tha t assertion , andth e actua l purpos e an dnatur e o f th e flight . 6 . Fo r

eac han dever y fligli t

identifie di nth e Complaint , i f yo u assert

tha t ther e ha d bet na nannua l o r

LOO-hou r inspectio no ntha

t aircraf t wilhi nth e 100 hour s prio r t o tha t flight ,

820/510 © SW O VV J 3t?L5C6t'60 2 XV J t?S:9 L LL02/90/0 1stat e withspecificit y th e facl s upo nwhic hyo u bas e that assertion , includin g bu t no t limile dt

o ih e aircraf

l tota l an dtac htim e a

t th e lim e o f

th e flight , th e aircraf

t tota l an dtac htim e a

t th e tim e o f ih e inspection , an didentif y an y maintenanc e record s upo nwhic hyo u bas e ihes e figures . 7 . For

eac han dever y flight

identifie di

nth e Complaint , i f

yo u asser t

that th e aircraf

t wa s i ncomplianc e wit

hA D S7-20-0 3 R 2 a

l th e lim e o f

th e flight , stat e wit hspecificit y th e fact.- ; upo nwhic hyo u bas e that assertion . S . Stat e wit hspecificit y th e tact s upo nwhic hyo u bas e you r affirmativ e defens e tha t "th e inspection s reference dinth e Complain t may b e complete dwithi n1 0 hour s after th e 100 hour< ; tim e i

nservic e ha s elapsed, " includni g th e identif y o f documen t

whic hpermit s a10-hou r overfl y an dan y fact s showin g that th e tligln s i

nquestio nfit

int o th e condition s require dfor that 10-hou r overfly . 9 . Stat e withspecificit y th e fact s upo nwhic hyo u bas e you r affirmativ e defens e that thre e o f th e four fligln s mthi s matte r

wer e schedule dt

o retur nprio r

t o th e expiratio no f

th e 10 0 hour s sinc e thei r

las t lOO-hoiir

inspection . 10 . Explai ni ndetai l wh y yo u believ e that it i s relevan t

i f th e fliglil s wer e schedule d l o returnprio r

t o th e expiratio no f

th e 100 hours . 11 . Explai ni

ndetai l wh y yo u behev e yo u ar e no t responsibl e for

th e saf e operatio no f th e flight s charge di

nth e Complaint , a s reference di nyou r thir daffirmativ e defense . 12 . Descnlt e indetai l th e "system s i nplac e t o advis e pilots , fligii l insiruciois . dispatchers , an dmuinlenanc e personne l a s t o upcomin g inspectio ntimes " an dan y measure s yo u hav e take nt

o preven t us e o f th e aircraf

t whe ni t woul dresul t

inaninspectio nbein g overflown . 13 . Withreferenc e t o you r fift haffirmativ e defense , identif y th e civi l penalt y appropriat e i

nthi s case , includin g specificall y ho w that penall y i s appropriat e unde r th e Administrator' s publishe dsanctio nguidanc e 14 . Pleas e describ e wii hspecificit y an y conversatio nyo u hav e ha dregardin g thi s matte r withyou r

students , employees , or KA A personne l an dfo

r each , pleas e als o identif y dat e an drim e o f

th e convcrsaiion , locatio no f th e conversation , an y othe r individual s present , an d wha t wa s discussed . 15 . Identif

y th e pilo t

o r pilot s o neac ho f

th e ftights reference di

nth e Complaint , includin g whethe r

eac hpilo t

wa s astuden t

of , instnicto r

for , employe e of

, o r contracto r

for Dean International . 16 . Identif

y al l individual s wh o assiste dyo u inrespondin g t o thes e Complainant' s Firs t Discover y Requests . 17 . Fo r

eac ho f th e flight s referencedinih e Complaint , idcnlir y whe nth e nex t schedule dinspectio nfor tha t aircraf t was .

520/910 0 SH Q - VV J ZVl<iZBVZO ZXV J tS-9 LIL02/80/0 118 . Fo r eac han dever y flight

identifie di

nth e Complaint , i f

yo u a.ssc nthat

th e flight di dno i overtl y it s 10 0 hou r inspectio ndurin g th e flight , stat e withspecificit y th e fact s upo n whic hyo u bas e that

assertion , includin g bu t no t limite dt o th e aircraf

t tota l an dtac htim e a

t th e tim e o l th e flight , th e aircraf t tota l an dtac hlim e a

t th e tim e o f

th e inspection , an didentif y an y maintenanc t

record s upo nwhic hyo u bas e thes e figure s

REQUEST S FO RPRODUC 1 IO N 1 . Pleas e produc e al l document s yo u rehe dupo no r ust di nrespondin g th e Agency' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatorie s and/o r

Firs t Request s for

Admission , o r

tha t .suppo n(hos e responses . 2 . Pleas e produc e al l document s yo u identifie dinyou r response s t

o th e Agency' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories . .3 . Pleas e produc e all document s tha t yo u ma y o r

wil l offer

i nsuppor t

o f you r defens e i nthi.- ? m.itter . 4 . Pleas e produc e an y an dal l documents , includin g statements , regardin g an y perso n interviewe dregardin g th e facts , claims , testimony , evidence , o r allegation s inthi s matter . 5 Pleas e produc e an y an dal l documents , includin g e-mails , containin g communication s b y you o r t o yo u regardin g thi s matter , excep t thos e betwee nyoursel f an dyou r allomey . 6 . Pleas e produc e an y an dal l maintenanc e iccord s fo r civi l aircraf

t N634KB and N5216 M fo

r th e perio dfro mFebruar y I , 201 0 throug hMa y 31 , 2010 . 7 . Pleas e produc e an y an dal l record s concernin g an y an dal l inspection s perfomie d onN6384Ban dN5276 M fromFebruar y I , 200 9 throug hMa y 31 . 2010 . .X . Pleas e produc e an y an dal l record s o f concernin g A D complianc e for N6384 B an d N5276 M fromFebruat y I , 200 9 throug hMa y 21 . 2010 . 9 . Produc e an y an dall record s relatin g t o th e flight s allege di nthi s matte r

includin g bu t no t limite dt

o busines s record s (suc ha s invoices , fue l receipts , interna l billin g records , studen t aircraf t usag e tracking) , maintenanc e records , an dflight instructio nrecords . 10 . Produc e an y an dal l record s o f flight instructio ngive no r

receive db y th e pilot s o f th e fou r Hight s allege dhi thi s mailer , fro mJanuar y I , 201 0 througl i Jun e 30 , 2010 . 11 . Produc e th e applicabl e pilo t logbook s fo

r th e pilot s o f

th e four flight s allege din th e Complaint .

82o/aO @ SfV G- VV J 3nseGt'20 2 XV J S&:.9 LLlOS/90/O lREQUEST S FO RADMISSIO N 1 . Admi t

tha t th e aircraf

t involve dinthi s matte r

wer e require dt o hav e lOO-hour inspection s durin g th e tim e frame relevan t l o thi s matter . 2 . Admi t

that , wher e a

naircraf t i s require dt o hav e a100-hou r inspection , an di s pas t du e fo r that inspection , th e aircraf

t i s i nanunairworth y condition . 3 . Admi t

that , wher e a

nA D i s applicabl e t

o a naircraft , an dth e aircraf t i s no t i n complianc e withth e AD , th e aircraf t i s i na nunairworth y condition . 4 . Admi t

ihiH . al th e lim e o f

th e allege doperatio nofN63481 3 o nFebruar y 2X , 2010 . th e inspcciio nrequire db y A D 87-20-0 3 R 2 hadno t bee ncomplete dwithi nth e prio r 10 0 hour s (regardles s o f

whethe r yo u believ e it

ha dt o hav e bee ncomplete dwithi nth e pno r 10 0 hours) . 5 . Admi t

that , a t th e um e o f

th e allege doperatio no f N6348 B o nMarc h1 , 2010 , th e inspectio nrequire db y A D 87-20-0 ? R 2 hadno t bee ncomplete dwithi nth e prio r 10 0 hour s (regardles s o f

whethe r yo u believ e i

t ha dl o hav e bee ncomplete dwithi nth e prio r 10 0 hours) . 6 . Admi t

that , a t th e tim e o f

ih e allege doperatio no f N63'iS B o nApri l 22 , 2010 , th e inspectio nrequire db y A D S7-20-0.' \R 2 ha dno t bee ncomplete dwithi nth e prio r 10 0 hour s (regardles s o f

whethe r yo u believ e it

hadl o hav e bee ncomplete dwithi nth e prio r 10 0 hours) . 7 . Adini i that , a

i ih e lim e o f

th e allege doperatio no f N5276 B o nMa y S . 2010 . ih e inspectio nrequire db y A D 87-20-0 3 R 2 ha dno t bee ncomplete dwithi nth e prio r TO O hour s (regardles s o f

whethe r yo u believ e i

t hadl o hav e bee ncomplete dwiihi nth e prio r 10 0 hours) . 8 . Admi t

that th e four ftights i nquestio ni

nthi s matte r

di dno t returnprio r

l o th e expiratio no f

th e 10 0 hour s sinc e thei r las t lOO-hou r inspection . 9 . Admi t

[ha t i t i s your responsibilit y t o ensur e th e saf e operatio no f

th e aircraf

t use d i nyou r operation.s . 10 . Admi t

tha t th e sanctio npropose di s withi nth e rang e provide db y th e Administraior' 5 writte nan dpublishe dsanctio nguidance . .

830/810 ®

SM Q ^ VV J 3t?L&e6t60 3 XV J SS^S L 1102/90/0 1Th e response s an ddocument s requeste dherei nshoul db e submille dwithi n3 0 day.* ^ afte r you receiv e thi s documen t

to : Christophe r

R . Stevenso n Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ASO- 7 Souther nRegio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta . Georgi a3032 0 Telephone : (404 ) 305-520 0 Facsimil e (404 ) 305-5223 . Respectfull y submitte dthi s \- ^ da y o f May . 2011 . CHRISTOPHE RR . STEVENSO N .A . ttome y Oft'ic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l

830/610 ©

SW O ^ VV J 3t?L5£Gt'60 3 XV J S&:9 L LL03/90/0 1610002/000 7

0C,''0&/20 n 12:i * FA A:iU567U70ti 5

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N AOMlNISTHATlON ,

Complainant . FA ADocke t No . FAA-201 1 -006 9 (Chie f Judg e Yoder ) V . DEA N INTERNATIONAL , INC. .

Respondent . / RESPONDENr S ANSWER S AN D OBJECTION S T O TH E CQMPLAINANT- S INTERROGATORIE S Respondent , Dea n (niemational . Inc . (Dean) , herewit h respond s t o th e Complainant' s Interrogatorie s serve d o n Ma y13 , 2011 . an d states : 1 . At thi s time . Responden t ha s determine d onl yth e belo wname d individual s wj U b e witnesse s i n th e tria l o f thi s matter . A s othe rperson s ar e determine d t o b « witnesses , th e requeste d infomTatio n wil l b e provide d t o th e Complainant . Ia n Robe n Dean . Owne rKflr f Pren(t£e r Oea n International . Inc . Dea n International , Inc . 1415 0 S W I29t h Stree t Ul5 0 S W 129t h Stree t Miami>F L 3310 6 Miami , F L 3318 6 (305 ) 259-561 1 (305 ) 259-561 1 Aya z Zaidi,Dispatche r Dea n Intematkjr^l , Inc . 1415 0 S W 129t h Stree t Miami . F L 3318 6 (305)259-561 1 2 . Mr . Dea n wil l testif ya s t o al l o f th e allegation s an d affirmativ e defenses . H e

CTUART4

^ GOLDSTEIN , P . A . 935 0 SOOT H DIXI E HIGHWAY , 10T H FLOOft . MIAMI , f l 3315 6

T : (306)670-122 2 F : (505 ) 67&-70G 5

820/020 ©

sn o - _" J210003/000 7

06/'0e/2O U 12:5 4 FA X S(J5ti7070G 5

i s th e person mos t knowledg e o f al l ih e fact s an d circumstance s i n thi s matter , Mr . Dea n i s expecte d t o testif ya s t o th e system s an d procedure s i n effec t a t Dea n International . Ir>c. , regardin g schedulin g flight s an d maintenanc e o f aircraf t (befor e an d afte rth e relevan t date s i n thi s matter) , wh o is an d i s no t a n instructor , wh o i s an d i s not a student , an d (h e matter s discusse d i n Mr . Dean' s tettert o £ddt e L . Thomas , date d Octobe r1 , 201 0 Mr . Zaid i i s employe d a s a dispatche rat Oean . H e i s expecte d t o testif ya s t o th e system s an d procedure s i n effect at Dea n regardin g schedulin g flight s an d maintenanc e o t aircraf t (befor e arx

J afte rth e relevan t date s I n thi s matter) . Mr . Prenrtze ri s expecte d t o testif ya s t o studen t orientatio n procedures . 3 . At thi s time . Responden t ha s no t decide d o n th e necessit yof an.exper i witness . I t an d whe n a n exper t witnes s i s dietermined , th e requeste d inforrriatio n v^il l b e provide d t o th e Complainant . 4 . Th e document s responsiv e t o thi s interrogatorvar e reference d i n Respondent' s Respons e t o Claimant' s Request s Fo rProduction . 5 . Ther e wa s n o fligh t instructo ro n suc h flights. Th e purpos e an d natur e of th e flight s ar e irrelevan t an d immateria l an d ar e objecte d t o o n thos e bases . I f ther e wa s n o fligh t instnjdo ro n tti e flights, n o fligh t instructio n occurred . 6 . Th e 10 0 hou rinspection s were no t necessaril ycomplete d prio rt o eac h o f th e subjec t flights , but . excep t fo rth e fligh t of Mard i 1 , 2010 , n o fligh t wa s dispatche d whe n 10 0 hour s ha d elapse d prio rt o th e fligh t bein g dispatched . A s t o fligh t tim e informatio n requeste d i n thi s Interrogatory , se e th e document s refen-e d t o i n Respondent' s Respons e t o Claimant' s Request s Fo rProduction . I n furthe ranswe rt o STUAf n A . GOlOSTeiN . p . A935 0 SOVJTV

t OWI E HIGHWAY . lOTH.RjOOR , MlMfl , R . 331S 6 T(305 ) 570-122 2 F ; (30S ) ff70-7065

u u j ZV[9ZBVZ0 ZXV d5 5 9LU02/90/0 1t( yUUU4 / uu u ( 06/06/;i01 1 I2:r> 4 F,V. \ J0067O7O6E i

thi s Interrogatory , Dea n state s tha t th e requirement s o f 10 0 hou rinspection s an d th e subjec t A D wer e complie d with . 7 . Excep t fo rth e fligh t o f Marc h 1 , 2010 , th e aircraf t wer e dispatche d wit h les s tha n lO O hour s sinc e th e prio rinspection . Th e A D inspection s wer e performe d upo n retur n o f th e flights an d i n a timel ymanner . 8 . A D 87-20-0 3 R 2 S O states . 9 . The ywer e s o scheduled . 10 - At th e ver yleast , i t i s relevan t o n th e questio n o f sanction , f t als o show s Respondent' s system s wer e i n plac e t o preven t aircraf t flyin g beyon d limits . I n addition , ther e ar e tim e extension s availabl e regardin g bot h lO O hou rinspection s an d A D compliance , 11 . Responsibilit yfo rth e saf e operatio n o f a n aircraf t is share d betwee n th e operato ran d th e pilo t i n command , wit h th e pilo t i n comman d havin g fina l authority , t f appropriat e system s ar e pu t i n plac e b yth e operato ran d th e pilo t i n comman d (o r dispatcher ) violate s th e system s and/o rprocedura l regulations , th e operato rshoul d no t b e penalize d o rhel d responsible , 12 . At th e lim e of th e occurrence s i n issu e i n thi s matter , th e toltowrn g system s wer e i n plac e t o advis e pilots , instnjctars , dispatchers , an d maintenanc e personne l o f inspectio n times . Whe n pilot s enrol l i n th e schoo l the yar e welcome d an d briefe d b yKar i Prenitie r o n schoo l procedures , rule s an d regulations . Tlie yg o ove rdispatc h procedure s an d th e tim e logboo k

an d th e 10 0 hou rsticke ri n th e aircraf t a s wel l a s th e tim e logbook . The y ar e give n a blu e folde rwit h th e schoo l safet ymanua l an d man yitem s i n referenc e t o STUA3 TA . GOLDSTEIN , P . »i . 93S 0 SOI/T H DIXI E HJCHWAY , lOT H FLOOR . MIAMI , F L 1315 6

T . (305 ) 870-122 2 F : (305)570-706 5

QZo/zzo\i i sw Q - vv d . . zn<iz&vzQ Z xv d 55:3 1 LLOS/SO/O Ioo,o6/.oi i i2:54rA ^ 30D6:o7.« 5 mooo.v.oon 7

thei rprofessiona l pilo t course . The yar e the n give n a lou ro f th e facility . Whe n instructor s ar e engaged , the yar e welcome d b ymyse Ko rth e assistan t ct\ie f pilo t an d ar e the n referre d t o Mr . Prenltze rwh o review s Dean' s procedures , rule s an d regulations , includin g dispatc h procedure s an d th e tim e loglxto k an d th e 10 0 ou rsticke r ) n th e aiTcra U a s wel l a s th e tim e logbook . The yar e give n th e school' s Standar d Operatin g Procedure s an d a tou ro f th e facility . Dispatcher s ar e traine d an d g o throug h thes e procedure s arw

J ou rdispatc h procedures . Dispatc h procedure s includ e checkin g th e schedul e t o fin d th e correc t aircraf t fo rth e student ; goin g t o QuickBcok s an d checkin g stucien t accoun t balance ; stampin g th e prope rdispatc h pape rfo rth e studen t an d havin g th e studen t fill h out ; havin g th e studen t chec k th e discrepanc yboo k fo r10 0 hou rinspectio n time , annua l inspectio n date , an d ope n discrepancies , al l o f whic h ar e the n verifie d wit h th e timelo g befor e th e aircraf t is dispatched . Subsequen t t o th e event s note d i n th e Complaint , w e no wrequir e tf» e pibt s to reviei vtfi e timelo g wit h th e dispatche rt o verif yaccurac yan d legality . I n addrtiofi , a maintenaiic e repor t i s p;i"epare d everyevenin g o n everyaircraf t an d provide d l o mysett , th e maintenanc e department , part s department , an d dispatc h deparlmen t th e followin g morning . Thi s repor t include s th e date , aircraf t model/registratio n number , annua l inspectio n date , prto t stati cchec k date , 10 0 hou rdu e time , curren t tachomete rreading , an d groundin g notes . Th e maintenanc e report i s reviewe d ever ymornin g b ymyself , th e maintenanc e supervisor , directo ro f maintenance , part s manager , logtwo k clerk , an d maintenanc e administrato rt o determin e aircraf t maintenanc e schedule . W e no w groun d everyaircraf t fou rhour s prio rt o th e 10 0 hou rinspectio n du e time .

STUAR TA . GOLDSTEIN . P . A , 93S 0 SOjJT H DIXI E HIGHWAY ; 107 H FLOOR . MIAMI , F L 33T5 6

T : (3aS)670-T22 2 F : (305)670-706 5



## ejo/«o ® s«

a. . vv d. sn^e.so s xv j 55:9 1 uos/ao/o t010006/000 '

06/06/L'Ol l 12:5 5 F. U 305«7U70t- 5 ' ^

13 . TTiere shoul d b e n o civi l penalt yi n thi s matte rfo rth e flight s o f February 28 , 2010 . Apri l 22 , 2010 , an d Ma y3 , 2010 . Ther e Shoul d onl yb e a d e minimu s penalt y (SIOO.OOJ . a t most , fo rth e Marc h 1 , 201 0 fligh t give n th e system s i n plac e t o preven t suc h occurrences . 14 . Everymont h w e conduc t a n instrudor/studen t meetin g o n safet yissues . Durin g th e meetin g w e discus s th e 10 0 hou rsticker s i n th e timelo g a s wel l a s i n th e aircraft . Exceedin g thi s sticke rtim e i s no wground s fo rterminatio n fro m th e school . W e als o no whav e offic e meeting s wit h al l dispatcher s o n a regula rbasi s t o kee p everybod y informe d aJ5oa

t thi s cas e an d t o emphasiz e th e importanc e o f th e variou s du e times . 15 . Th e pilot s ar e identifie d i n th e document s th e Complainan t produce d i n respons e l o Respondent' s reques t fo rproduction . Complainant' s record s sho wth e licensin g statu s of thos e pilots . Non e of th e pilot s wer e employee s o f Respondent . Al l instnjctor s wer e independen t contractors . Al l wer e student s o n ai l flights excep t Marc h 1 , 2010 . Th e instructor s o n th e Marc h 1 , 2010 , fligh t wer e Adan i Ramo s an d Carlo s Puerto . Th e Complainan t ha s acces s t o th e las t know n addresse s of Mr . Ramo s an d Mr . Puerto . Mr . Puert o stil l instmcl s a t Dea n International , Inc . Responden t doe s no t kno wMr . Ramos'. ? curren t address . 16 . Stuar t A . Goldstein . Esq. . 935 0 Sout h Dixi e Highway . 10t h Floor , Miami , Florid a 33156 ; (305 ) 670-1222 . 17 . Objectio n o n th e ground s o t relevance . 18 . Th e record s wor e produce d t o Complainan t an d wer e re-produce d b y Complainan t i n respons e t o Respondent' s discover yrequests . STUAR TAGOLDSTEIN . P

. A . rososoirTH DIXI E HIGHWAY , loTMnjOon.K^iAMi.H - 33iS 6 T ; (305)670-122

2 F : (306 J e70-'O6 5

860/fSOl S SH Q - r" ^06/0t>/201 1 i2;5 GPA X .lO:>fe7 0 KitJ 5 ^" "

Th e abov e an d foregoin g Answer s t o Interrogatorie s ar e tru e an d correc t t o th e bes t o f m yknowledge , irrformalion , an d belief . IA N ROBER TOEA N

. 1 . Dat e

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I HEREB YCERTIF Ytha t o n thi s {fj ^ da yo f June , 2011 , a cop yof th e foregoin g wa s serve d upo n Christophe rR . Stevenson , Esq. , b yfacsimil e {404 i 305-522 3 an d th e origina l wa s maile d t o hi m b yregula rU . S . Mai l at P , O . Bo x20636 , Atlanta . G A30320 . STUAR TA . GOLDSTEIN . P A . Stuar t A . Goldstei n 935 0 Sout h Dixi e Highway , 10t h Roo r Miami . F L 3315 6 Tel : (305)670-122 2 Fax ; (305 ) 670-706 5 By : 

# ^s ^ 

# A ^ Stuar t A . Goldstei n

STUABTA . GOLDSTEIN . P . A . aaS O SOUT H DIXI E HIGHWA rliJT H FLOOfl , MIAMI , F L 3315 6 T ; (305)670-122 2 F : 005)670-706 5

820/5301? ] SW a^ . VV J ZPl^eStZO ZXV J 35-9 1 U02/90/O I,g/.0'-!.-::01 1 IS : 2 6 FA X .1056707(16 5

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION .

Complainant . FA ADocke t N o FAA'20 i 1-006 9 (Chie f Judg e Voder) V . DEA N INTERNATIONAL , INC. .

Responden t • ./

RESPONDENr S RESPONS E TO TH E COMPLAlNANr S

RFQUFRTf i FQ R PRODUCTlOf J Respondent , Dea n International , Inc . (Dean) , herewit h respond s t o th e Administrator' s Request s Fo rProduction , an d states : 1 Thes e document s constitut e th e document s produce d b yComplainan t i n respons e t o Respondent' s Reques t to rProduction . Therefore , ther e i s n o poin t i n re producin g thes e document s an d mailin g them bacl^ t o counse l fo rComplainant , 2 . Se e respons e t o Reques t No . 1 . 3 . Se e respons e t o Reques t N o 1 4 . Othe rtha n a s containe d i n th e document s referre d t o i n respons e t o Reques t No . 1 , ther e are n o suc h document s know n t o Responden t a t thi s time . 5 . Thi s reques t i s objecte d t o o n th e ground s o f wor k produc t privilege . 6 . Thi s reques t i s objecte d t o o n th e ground s of relevanc e an d materiality . Th e requeste d document s ar e no t relevan t o rmateria l t o an yidentifie d issu e i n thi s cas e an d ar e r^o i reasonabl ylikel y(o lea d t o th e discover yo l admissibl e evidence .

S1U»HT * GOLKTSIN , f * C»SCkjlHDIJI6>1IOHVl» T IOTHO^OO B M1*MI . ^ L 131S S

T . l»S l 670.171 1 F (3MU,-P-T06 J

g^,0/920i a SW O - "p'V d . 2t?l5£6fS0 Z X-J i 95-9 L U03/90/0 1Ooooo.'ooo e

Otf.(li!'-^'U l 15:2 6 FA i 305ti7U7l)6 5

7 . Se e respons e t o Reques t No . 6 . 9 . Othe rtha n a s suc h document s relat e t o th e charge s i n thi s case , th e requeste d document s ar e no t relevan t o rmateria l t o an yidentifie d issu e i n thi s cas e an d ar e no t reasonabl ylikel yt o lea d t o th e discover yo l admissibl e evidence . 9 . Thi s reques t i s objecte d t o o n th e ground s of relevanc e an d materiality . Busines s record s suc h a s invoices , fue l receipts , interna l billin g records , studen t usag e trackin g records , maintenanc e record s an d fligh t instructio n records , t o th e exten t no t alread y produce d b yRespondent , ar e no t relevan t t o an yidentrfie d issu e i n thi s cas e an d ar e no t reasonabl ylikel yt o lea d t o th e discover yof admissibl e evidence . 70 . Thi s reques t i s objecte d t o o n th e ground s tha t th e tim e fram e (January1 . ?01 0 Jun e 30 , 2010 ) I s parnall ybeyon d th e scop e o f th e kJentitie d issue s i n thi s cas e and , therefor e irrelevan t an d immateria l an d no t reasonabl ylikel yt o lea d t o th e discoveryof admissibl e evidence . Withou t waivin g tfii s objection , aircraf t lo g record s of th e subjec : aircraf t wer e previousl yproduce d t o Complainan t an d re-produce d b yComplain t i n it s response s t o Respondent' s reques t fo rproduction . Further , "record s o f fligh t instruction " i s a vagu e ter m no t define d b yComplainant . Nevertheless , an d withou t w3iv/in g thi s obieclio n Responden t note s tha t "record s of fligh t instruction " ar e maintaine d b yth e individua l pilois;siuden t pilots/instructor s i n thei rpersona l logbook s an d no t i n Respondent' s possession , Custody , o rcontrol . 1 1 Responden t ha s n o suc h ri^cords .Ig0006/000 6

06,02/::01 1 15:2 7 FA X 305670706 5

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I HEREB YCERTIF Ytha t o n thi s ^TI M Pa yof June , 2011 . a cop yof th e foregoin g wa s serve d upo n Christophe rR. Stevenson , Esq. , byfacsimil e (404 ) 305-522 3 an d th e origina l wa s mailed , regula rU - S , Mail , t o P. 0 . Box20636 . Atlanta , G A30320 . STUAR TA . GOLDSTEIN , P A . Stuart A . Goldstei n 935 0 Sout h Dixi e Highway , 10t h Floo r Miami , F L 3315 6 Tel ; (305)670-122 2 Fax . (305 ) 670-706 5 

# 3v . J ^ II-A^kd ^ Stuar t A . Goldstei n

^T\jkB l A OCkPSTEi NP* SJSO SOUT H oril S nIGKWAt . TffTH f LOO * wWMi . (= L 13l » T13m,Slai3 ; F - iSto)S'Cl-706 6

. vv d SHSCet-SO Z XV d as-S L IIOS/90/O L