1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

WILLIAM V. O'CONNOR, JR. (CA SBN 216650) 

WOConnor@mofo.com 

JOANNA L. SIMON (CA SBN 272593) 

JoannaSimon@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

12531 High Bluff Drive 

San Diego, California 92130-2040 

Telephone: 858.720.5100 

Facsimile: 858.720.5125 

RECEIVED 

AUG 2 2 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

6 Attorneys for Alaska Airlines Inc. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

11 In the Matter of: FAA Case No. 2011NM020013 

12 Alaska Airlines Inc. 

13 

14 

15 I. INTRODUCTION 

ALASKA AIRLINES INC.'S 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 

COMPEL 

16 The Government has deemed itself the arbiter of all things privileged in this matter, 

17 effectively preventing Alaska Airlines and the Court from testing its questionable assertions by 

18 failing to sufficiently detail its privilege claims concerning the Enforcement Investigative Report 

19 and related testimony. The Government's privilege assertions must be reviewed. In any event, 

20 the Government waived the deliberative process privilege for the EIR Checklist and related 

21 testimony when Joel Wade, who was second-in-command at the Alaska Airlines CMO at the time 

22 of the facts giving rise to this action, purposefully and voluntary disclosed the EIR Checklist and 

23 the FAA's opinion that there was "no conclusive evidence to support" the alleged violation. 

24 The Government's Opposition only bolsters Alaska Airlines' first point concerning 

25 withheld portions of the EIR, declaring that theses portions are "obviously pre-decisionaf' and 

26 made as part of an "inherently collaborative process." These vague assertions (using what the 

27 Government apparently believes to be deliberative process buzz words) are exactly the type of 

28 

ALASKA AIRLINES' REPLY REMOTION TO 

COMPEL 1 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ambiguous statements that courts hold inadequate to support deliberative process protection. 

Tellingly, the unredacted EIR is not offered for in camera review; instead, the Government rests 

on the mistaken belief that it, and only it, is entitled to determine whether the withheld portions of 

the EIR are privileged (despite an FAA witness testifying that the withheld portions contained 

factual matter). The Government is not permitted to dictate what information is available to 

Alaska Airlines without- at a minimum- setting forth the specific grounds for its privilege 

claims, which it has not done. 

With regards to the FAA's waiver of the deliberative process privilege attached to the EIR 

Checklist, the Government unsurprisingly attaches a self-serving declaration stating that Joel 

Wade's current supervisor did not approve Inspector Wade's disclosure, and that such disclosure 

was without the FAA's authorization. This ignores that Inspector Wade is of sufficient character 

and rank in his own right to act on behalf of the FAA-and did so when he purposefully and 

voluntarily disclosed the EIR Checklist and other documents to Alaska Airlines. Despite the 

Government's attempt to mischaracterize the facts, this was no "leak" from a low-level 

government employee. To the contrary, it was a purposeful disclosure to Alaska Airlines of the 

FAA's determination that there is "no conclusive evidence" to prosecute a violation by someone 

with enforcement authority. 

Finally, the Government inexplicably asserts that Alaska Airlines' Motion should be 

denied because the evidence sought is somehow irrelevant, This is absurd. The Government's 

case rests entirely on the credibility of one passenger witness, Mr, John Elgee, who saw the 

alleged frost on the wing. 1 Because the FAA itself determined that Mr. Elgee was not credible, 

and that there was "no conclusive evidence" to support enforcement, the evidence sought is 

central to Alaska Airlines' defenses in this matter. 

1 To the best of Alaska Airlines' knowledge, the Government's purported expert opinion in this 

matter also rests on the evidence provided by Mr. Elgee as set forth in the EIR. And, despite the 

Government's representations to the contrary, Alaska Airlines has never been provided 

documents or communications related to FAA's expert. (O'Connor Dec!.~~ 3-5.) Nor has it been 

provided any of the expert's opinions in response to discovery requests. The Government should 

be compelled to produce such documents, or the Government's expert should be precluded from 

testifYing. 

ALASKA AIRLINES' REPLY REMOTION TO 

COMPEL 2 

(No. 20I INM0200!3) 

sd-622999 
1 Because the Government has failed to meet its burden to show the deliberative process 

2 privilege applies, and because the FAA waived the privilege associated with the EIR Checklist 

3 and related testimony, Alaska Airlines' Motion to Compel these highly relevant documents and 

4 testimony should be granted in full. 

5 

6 

II. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT BASES FOR 

ITS ASSERTION OF THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE 

7 The Government entirely ignores that it bears the burden of proving the withheld portions 

8 of the ElR, the ElR Checklist, and testimony related to the EIR are privileged. Pac. Fisheries, 

9 Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2008). To meet this burden, the Government 

10 must "detail the withheld portions" so that the Court and Alaska Airlines can "evaluate the 

11 government's" privilege claim. Id; see also In re McKesson Gov. Entities Av. Wholesale Price 

12 Litig., 264 F.R.D 595, 602 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (ln order to invoke the deliberative process privilege, 

13 an agency must provide: "(1) specific facts demonstrating why each document is 'deliberative' 

14 and 'predecisional'; 2) specific facts concerning: a) the degree and type of harm that would result 

15 from requiring production of each document; and b) what type of protective order would be 

16 necessary to reduce that harm or, alternatively, why a protective order would not reduce this 

17 harm; and 3) what portions of each document are deliberative and, if specific sections are purely 

18 factual, why those sections cannot be produced."). "Courts must apply that burden with an 

19 awareness that the [opposing party], who does not have access to the withheld materials, is at a 

20 distinct disadvantage in attempting to controvert the agency's claims." Pac. Fisheries, 539 F.3d 

21 at 1149-50 (emphasis added) (citing Maricopa Audubon Soc 'y, 108 F .3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 

22 1997)). 

23 Despite this strict burden, the Government's opposition does nothing more than repeat its 

24 mantra that the withheld portions of the EIR and related testimony are "obviously pre-decisional" 

25 and contain "opinions and conjecture concerning the instant matter." (Opp'n at 3.) These 

26 assertions are wholly insufficient for the Government to meet its burden, for Alaska Airlines to 

27 test the privilege, and for the Court to determine if the withheld portions ofthe EIR are, in fact, 

28 privileged. The Government is required to provide "specific enough information" to determine 

ALASKA AIRLINES' REPLY REMOTION TO 

COMPEL 3 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 
1 whether the factual portions of the EIR have been "properly segregated." Pac. Fisheries, 539 

2 F .3d at 1149-50. It has not done so? 

3 In fact, when questioned at his deposition, Justin Meisbeger- the FAA Inspector who 

4 drafted the EIR- testified there was purely factual matter in the EIR that had been redacted or not 

5 provided to Alaska Airlines: 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Q. Okay. So I'm correct that there are factual matters in pages 4, 5, and 6 of 

the Section B narrative? 

Mr. Spitzer: I'm goingA. I would not disagree with that. 

10 (O'Connor Dec!. Ex. A, Meisberger Depo. 16:1 0-14.)' The Government does not address this 

11 testimony. 

12 Nor does the Government support its position with a sworn declaration or offer the 

13 requested documents to the Court for in camera review. The Government's attempt to shroud 

14 these facts, documents and related testimony in secrecy by acting as the final arbiter of privilege 

15 is impermissible. Because the Court- and not the Government- is the judge of privilege, the 

1_6 Court should compel the FAA to disclose the redacted portions of the EIR, and compel answers to 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 The DOT Orders cited by the Government do not support its position. In In the Matter of U.S. 

Airways, Docket No. CP08EA0006 (2008), U.S. Airways sought "the recommendations of 

[unknown] FAA personnel concerning the amount of the civil penalty." Similarly, in In the 

Matter of Continental Airlines, FAA Order No. 90-19 (I 990) (cited by the U.S. Airways decision) 

the respondent sought the "recommendations ofF AA personnel regarding the amount of the civil 

penalty." 

These requests differ from Alaska Airlines' requests, which are related to testing the privilege 

itself or facts already known- i.e., Alaska Airlines' questions about whether the EIR contained 

factual matters that were not provided to Alaska Airlines, what F ARs the Government is basing 

its enforcement action on, and whether Joel Wade was involved in the investigation. 

Alaska Airlines' requests are more analogous to those in Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. v. 

United States, 833 F.Supp. 399 (S.D.N.Y 1993). There, the Court ordered disclosure of 

custodians of purportedly privileged documents, and circulation-list information concerning 

purportedly privileged documents. The court found that such information had "obvious 

importance" for evaluating whether the deliberative process privilege applied. I d. at 403. 

3 Alaska Airlines has not been provided pages 4, 5 or 6 of the EIR. 

ALASKA AIRLINES' REPLY REMOTION TO 

COMPEL 4 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 
1 the deposition questions set forth in Alaska Airlines' Motion. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

III. DISCLOSURE OF THE EIR CHECKLIST WAIVED THE 

DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE 

The Government argues that Inspector Wade's disclosure of the EIR Checklist and 

internal FAA communications does not waive the deliberative process privilege because Inspector 

Wade's disclosure was "unauthorized." (Opp'n at 3-4.) The Government strains to make this 

argument, attaching the declaration of Jodi Baker, Inspector Wade's current supervisor, in which 

she states that she did not "condone" the disclosure. Whether Ms. Baker condoned the disclosure 

is not dispositive of whether the disclosure was "authorized," or whether the disclosure waives 

privilege. Rather, the waiver inquiry requires a careful analysis of the specific nature and 

circumstances of the disclosure. Mobil Oil Corp. v. EPA, 879 F.2d 698, 700 (9th Cir. 1989) 

("The inquiry into whether a specific disclosure constitutes a waiver is fact specffic.").4 

In situations where, like here, an authoritative government official discloses the 

purportedly privileged information, the deliberative process privilege is waived. 5 Myles-Pirzada 

v. Dep 't of the Army, No. 91-1080, slip op. at 6 (D.D.C. Nov. 23, 1992) (finding that privilege 

was waived when agency official read report to requester); Shell Oil Co. v. IRS, 772 F .Supp. 202 

(D. Del. 1991) (finding that IRS employee who publicly read definition of"tar sands" waived 

deliberative process privilege on behalf of IRS with regards to that definition). Inspector Wade 

was an authoritative FAA Official. Inspector Meisberger testified that Inspector Wade was the 

Assistant Principal Operations Inspector at the time of the incident-"second in command" only 

to the Principal Operations Inspector, Michael Ownby (who was at the "top"). (O'Connor Dec!. 

Ex. A, Meisberger Depo. 25:23-26:23.) When POI Ownby was out of the office, it was Inspector 

Wade who would sign letters, sign-off on checklists, and authorize CMO action that required "an 

adult's signature." (Jd. 26:18-23.) Because Inspector Wade was authorized to act on behalf of 

4 In the event the Court needs more information to determine the waiver issue, Alaska Airlines 

suggests compelling the deposition of Inspector Wade and compelling answers to questions 

concerning the EIR Checklist and its disclosure. 

5 See also Alaska Airlines' Motion at 8 (collecting cases). 

ALASKA AIRLINES' REPLY REMOTION TO 

COMPEL 5 

(No. 201 INM020013) 

sd-622999 
FAA-indeed, he was given signature and approval authority for CMO action-Inspector Wade 

2 had sufficient character and rank to make an authorized disclosure on behalf of the FAA, even 

3 without his current supervisor's knowledge. 6 Notably, the Government did not provide a 

4 declaration regarding Inspector Wade's authority from POI Ownby or any person employed at the 

5 Alaska Airlines CMO at the time of the events giving rise to this enforcement action. 

6 IV. THE EVIDENCE IS HIGHLY RELEVANT 

7 In an attempt to distract the Court from the weaknesses in its privilege arguments, the 

8 Government argues that regardless of privilege and waiver, the Court should deny Alaska 

9 Airlines' Motion because the evidence sought is irrelevant. (Opp'n at 4-5.) The Government's 

10 position is perplexing; to the contrary, the evidence sought by Alaska Airlines' Motion is central 

II to this case and Alaska Airlines' defenses. 

12 First, this action is based solely on Mr. Elgee's report offrost adhering to Flight 86's 

13 wmg. The EIR Checklist confirms that even the FAA doubted this report, noting that Mr. Elgee 

14 "acted contrary to logic" and "sacrificed believability by not notifying flight crew" of the frost 

15 before takeoff. See EIR Checklist (Ex D to Alaska Airlines' Motion to Compel.) These 

16 credibility issues led the inspectors assigned to this case to conclude that enforcement was 

17 improper because there was "no conclusive evidence to support" a violation. (!d.) · 

18 Inexplicably, however, the Government still intends to prosecute this violation. The only 

19 evidence the Government has put forth to date is Mr. Elgee's statements and Mr. Elgee's 

20 inconclusive photographs, both of which are discussed in the EIR. The Government's purported 

21 expert witness, Mr. Tom Bond, is going to base his opinions on Mr. Elgee's report to the FAA, 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 Courts have even gone so far as to find waiver when information is inadvertently disclosed-a 

situation much less compelling than that presented here. See, e.g., Goodrich v. EPA, 593 F. Supp. 

2d 184, 192 (D.D.C. 2009) (stating that '"courts will grant no greater protection to those who 

assert the privilege than their own precautions warrant'" and finding that "privilege is lost even if 

the disclosure is inadvertent" (quoting In reSealed Case, 877 F.2d 976, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1989)); 

Natural Res. Def Council, 442 F. Supp. 2d at 865-66 (rejecting government's argument that 

records were "leaked" because agency failed "to take affirmative steps to inhibit ... further 

dissemination"); Haddam v. INS, No. 99-3371, slip op. at 5 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2001) (holding that 

INS's mistaken disclosure of document protected by attorney-client privilege to plaintiff's 

attorney waived that privilege for that document). 

ALASKA AIRLINES' REPLY RE MOTION TO 

COMPEL 6 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 
I which the FAA found to lack credibility. (FAA counsel has separately represented to Alaska 

2 Airlines that Mr. Bond has only been provided the EIR). That the FAA originally determined rvlr.. 

3 Elgee was no( a credible witness is evidence that Alaska Airlines is entitled to, and must, use in 

4 its examination of Mr. Bond and in its defense of this action. 

5 Finally, the FAA's credibility and evidentiary basis Jlndings are facts incident to its 

6 investigation in this matter, not "expert or opinion" testimony as the Government suggests. 

7 Accordingly, there is no regulatory bar to admissibility of this evidence. 

8 

9 

v. NO EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT'S SUPPOSED 

EXPERT HAS BICEN PROVIDED TO ALASKA AIRLINES 

10 Finally, the Government contends thai Alaska Airlines has been provided "the extent of 

11 non-privileged communications with the cxperi in this case, which consist of email 

12 communications made by the CMO with the experi[.]" (Opp'n at 5.) No such e-mails have ever 

13 been provided, much less provided prior to the Govenm1ent Jlling its Opposition. (O'Connor 

14 DecL ,1413-5.) Indeed, Alaska Airlines has requested documents and deposition dates related to 

15 Mr. Bond's testimony-apart from Alaska Airlines original discovery request-on July 31, 

16 August 1, August 2, and August 16,2013, and has been given nothing. (ld ~ 3, Ex. B.) 

17 Accordingly, Alaska Airlines renews its request to compel documents related to the 

18 Government's purported expert's testimony. 

19 VI. CONCLUSION 

20 For all the foregoing reasons, Alaska Airlines' Motion to Compel should be granted in 

21 fulL 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dated: August 22, 2013 MORRISON & FOEI<STER LLP d' //?/;r.? 

//,///~1/ / /i{/'jL/ >t-t.-,_ 

//LA- u;v /"'" ·--- By: f::___ ----; ------- ··--- William V. O'Connor, Jr. 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ALASKA AIRLINES INC. 

ALASKA AIRLINES' REPLY REMOTION TO 

COMPEL 7 

(No. 2011NM0200\3) 

sd-622999 
2 The undersigned certifies under penalty ufperjury under the laws ofthe State of 

3 California that on this date I caused to be served in the matter indicated a copy of the within and 

4 foregoing document upon the following persons: 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC- 430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Robert Spitzer 

I(gbert. S pi tzer(il)faa. go_y 

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

Dated: August 22, 2013 

Cetti t ~ate of Service 

(No , 111NM020013) 1 

Via Nationwide Legal, lnc. 

Via E-Mail 
1 WILLIAM V. O'CONNOR, JR. (CA SBN 216650) 

·

1

NOConnor@1nofo.com 

2 JOANNA L. SIMON (CA SBN 272593) 

JoannaSimon@moro.com 

3 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

12531 High Bluff Drive 

4 San Diego, Calif(nnia 92130-2040 

Telephone: 858.720.5100 

5 Facsimile: 858.720.5125 

6 Attorneys for Alaska Airlines Inc. 

7 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

10 

11 [n the Malter of: FAA Case No. 201 INM020013 

12 Alaska Airlines Inc. DECLARATION OF WILLIAM V. 

O'CONNOR IN SUPPORT OF 

ALASKA AIRLINES INC.'S 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I, William V. O'Connor, state: 

1. I am Partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP, col!nscl of record for defendants Alaska 

Airlines, Inc. 1 am licensed to practice in the State of California. I have personal knowledge of 

the ±acts set forth below. If called npon to testify, I could and would testify as to the matters set 

forth herein. 

2. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the deposition of Jus tin Meisbcrger taken 

on August 1, 2013, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

3. I've requested documents and/or communications concerning Thomas Bond's 

testimony from Govermnent counsel on multiple occasions, including on July 31, August 1, 

August 2, and August 16, 2013. A true and correct copy of an e-mail from me to Government 

collnsel reflecting these requests is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

Declaration of O'Connor ISO of Reply re: 

Motion to Compel 

(No. 20\ 1NM0200\3) 

sd-624372 
1 4. As of the date the Government filed its Opposition, no documents, xeports, or 

2 communications concerning, or by and between, Thomas Bond and/or the Government were 

3 produced to Alaska Airlines. 

4 5. As of the filing of Alaska Airlines' Reply, no documents, reports, or 

5 communications concerning, or by and between, Thomas Bond and/or the Government were 

6 produced to Alaska Airlines. 

7 6. I declare under penalty of perjury nnder the laws of the United States of America 

8 that the foregoing is true and conect and that this declaration was executed in San Diego, 

9 California on this 22"d day of August 2013. 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

28 

Declaration of O'Connor ISO of Reply re: 

Motion to Compel 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-624372 

By: 

2 
2 The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 

3 California that on this date I caused to be served in the matter indicated a copy ofthe within and 

4 foregoing document upon the following persons: 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

28 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC- 430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2WI 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Robert Spitzer 

Robert. Spi tzer(a)faa. gpJ! 

FAA Office ofRegi~nal Counsel 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

Dated: August 22, 2013 

Ce.rtii" catc of Service 

(No • 111NM020013) 

Via Nationwide Legal, lnc. 

Via E-Mail 
EXHIBIT A 
JUSTIN MEISBERGER; August 0 I, 2013 

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

2 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

3 OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, D.C. 

4 

In the Matter of: 

5 

G Alaska Airlines 

FAA case Nullll:le:r 

'I 2011NM0200B 

io 

AUGUST i I iWi3 

48Clo s9tl'f'ti i!lS'rH STREET, SUITE ~40 

:Ul 

22 

23 

24 REPORTED BY: SALLY J. HANDS, CCR 2191 

25 

YAMAGUCHI OBIEN MANGIO 

court reporting, video and vldeoconferencing 

800.831.6973 206.622.6875 

production@yomreporting com 

www,yomreporting.com 

Page I 
JUSTIN MEISBERGER; August 01,2013 

" H 

]_~ 

" '' 

·~ 

" 

APPEARANCES 

FOR ALASKA AIRLINES: 

WILLIAM V. O'CONNOR 

Morrison & l"oer.ste:r:-

12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100 

S.1n Diego, C<>liforni<> 92130 

8S8. 720.7932 

.:n:<:REWt' ROSS 

i\l<Jska Airline!; 

19JOO Internacional Blvd. 

Seat;;c, Wallhington 9Bte8 

206.)94.5040 

FOR THE FEDERAl, AVIATION ADMHTISTRATtON: 

ROBERT D, SE't'TZBF. 

Peden'tl A'ri.ation Adminhtration 

l(Ol lind .lw<>l1ue, ANM-? 

Retltcm, J~ashinglt)n ~8Co':i7 

125.22?.1417 

robert .spit.2er<.•faa go·t 

2 0 ALSC> PR£SH/"T , W:mc23 

H 

l ll ll E X 

EXAH1NhTIQNS BY· 

~IR ()' CONNUR 

F.X!nBT'!S FOR l:DENTIF!(:AT!QN 

E>~hibit E. StO!t.ement of c~~e 

10 Exb.ibit {'- ledtiill Notific~tion 

ll E>:H.blt C,4 AS Bd<>fi"g Pad:0t 

12 E.'<i>;bi t C~ l? ACl<RS ~1<'ls$il<;10S 

l:l EXhibit 1:-1:~ Record of Telephon-e 

('rmvenHlti,~n 

15 

Exhibit C<l Fl .. t<;lsl Violated dccuroern 

Rxhibir. ~s 

Witne;;w Stat~ment and L;otter 

1B from l•lr. o·.mby to Me Elge~ 

dat~d J'}rr\lar<r' 20, 2QH 

Page2 

PAG~ ISl 

5B 

1 

2 

SFATAC, WASHINGTOO; AOOUST 1, 2Q13 

9:56 A.M. 

--cOo--

JUSTIN HEISBERGER, 

2 .. 5 

Pug_C"4 

4 

5 

6 

7 

srom as a witness by the Certified Court Rep::;rter, 

testified as follows: 

8 EX.111oUNATICN 

9 BY MR. O'OJ/IJNDR: 

!o Q, <!»! -· Ht, Mels!>et!Ju, Uid 1 

11 

il 

l3 

!4 

15 

16 

11 

li 

20 

A, You did. 

Q, -- ~§ fitiat O'Gffe6tily1 

A. You did, 

<), >n y6ti ready l6 procfidi 

A, I am, yes. 

~.. §an yw sta€e "JJiiiiE Mi natlii! fut €til! ie.!otd .. 

A.· Justin Dotiglas l'~isberger, 

1}, kl<i wlia< ii Ywt Mtt!iif ocC\iPllHoo 6f 

A. I 1m an aviation safety inspector ·~'ith the 

21 Fedetal Aviation Administration attached to the Jl:.laska 

22 ll.Jrlii~es GD.· 

i3 fi.- ~ ff.D· g~ for wliaM 

• H: 

1 

j 

3 

• 

A. Certificate Mana.cjement Oftice . 

ij.- Did fi'M ~ tire SE titie ~~ 

A: 1 did: 

Q.- ::::::fir &Mri!L~ 26H? 

A. I did; 

&.- liM 8£ ~ fillf;§o w.lii ililw! !8 ~ lil iillild 

5 ~ ~ ~ is ffi!E we Ery f6- ~it ooe at: ~ 

e t~, 1: :itti6w :it is ii6iia-i .m i~u e&iiVehtatwn ta 

'i an€iei~ ~st:f.ars; But £6t W BenMi:t 6£ Sally; 

9 V:eli.i ~ W just: cia qtteSEi6it sittl Miilii!it"; 

§ ~t i!l.tfi ywr Mlettt dutie:s 00 

16 i@eiji§iial:BiiiH&t as an <Wiatlen safety ~Ear f& 

ii tilie itiaska €e:t~;ifie·a~ ~aren~ Gf.Hee? 

12 A, 1 j:lroiiide oversig.~t strictly for the airline,-

13 1his whole office is dedkated just to Alaska Airlines, 

14 unlike oth<:r FAA offices. And the duties and 

15 resp:.nsi:Oilities fctll within my scope., e\'€:r}khing frtm 

16 manual rev·iS:ions, enforceme_rtts, to \'K.lrking oo special 

17 projecta for the airline thert'JSelveS. I focus ;rore on 

19 technolc<jy. So for instrwrent procedure develapnent 

Exhibit C 16 Ala,;ka Airlines, CWP-Q4, :n I 19 they do speciflca11y in the state of Alaska, I 1\'0rk 

.1.() Deicing/Antl-l<;i"g R<lt.:>rd 

21 Exhibit C"14 Ground DeiCing/Anti-icing 

l'!"ogt·am O•Jelcview 

104 

Bxhibi t A EIJ< Reo view c~.-ecklist 109 

• 

YAMAGUCHI OBIEN MANGIO 

t:ourt reporting, video and vldenconferencing 

800.831.6973 206.622.6875 

production@yomreporting com 

www.yomreportlng.com 

20 '!&}' closely with them . 

21 So this office is all Alaska Airlines; but -..'€ 

22 each have our cr~n kind cf little specialty that we fall 

23- into, and mine is rrore the teclmolcgy focused as of 

24. late. 

25 Q. Okay. For purposes of today, we'll probably 
JUSTIN MEISBERGER; August 01,2013 

Page 14 

1 deposition today •• and it also helped refresh your 

recollection as to the investigation into Flight 86 

was not redacted; is that co:rr~t? 

A. That is corr-ect. 

5 Q, And do you see, on the bot tart of Section B, it 

G says, section B1 Narrative, Page 1 of 6? 

' 

' 

10 

12 

13 

A. Yes, I see iL 

Q, DO you: have that? 

A. {Nodding.} 

Q. BUt the: pages that are inel\lded within 

A. That is correct. 

Q. Arid what 1 want to know, is lilieie any factuai 

14 matters -· strike that. 

is 

17 

1< 

Is it correct that there are an additional 

A. That is correct. 

Q·, Arid yOU reviewed the addit:iOriai pages; 

19 pages 41 s, ana 6? 

20 A. I diCL 

21 o. Arid did tnat include a ri.fririHve? 

22 

23 is 

A. No -- a narrative, no, of rhe facts. If tfo.at 

ifican--

24 HR: SPHZER: l'iell, I 1m g'oing to object 

25 to this continued line of questioning; 

things that have been redacted for the purp:Jse of 

privilege, so it is not really a subject. for this 

2 

3 

4 

A. Yes. 

Q, -- section C; right? 

A. Yes. 

Q, One at a time, 

14 .. 17 

Page 16 

5 There are items of proof in Section C that I 

6 cannot find any reference to in section B, which leads 

7 me to believe that thete are factual matters referred 

a t6 in pages 4, 5, and 5. J)j you agree with Wt? 

9 

!O 

A. I agree with your assumption, yes. 

Q. okay. So I'm cortect that there are footual 

11 mt.wa descr.ilied. in pages 4, s, and 6 of thEi Secti® B 

u .tilirti.ttive? 

13 

14 

15 

MR, SPITZER: 1 1m going' ~~ 

A. I would not disagree with that. 

HR. SPITZER: I'm going to object to 

16 this continuing line of questioning. This is 

17 privileged infornBtioo. what's in the Section B that's 

lS bee;n provided to you"'' or :rather what h.asn't been 

19 provided to you ilS privileged informtion, Continuing 

20 to ask this witness ab:Jut tMt infonration is just 

21 getting into pdvilege. So let's ITl')1!'B the line of 

g1.1estioning along to s~thit~3 else that's relevant to 

what ~.•e 're here for tcday. 

~~. O'CONNOR: think as far as it 

is literally i!tfOssible to test thB privilege, because 

·~-e don't even know the basis for iL l thin.!.:: -- you've 

2 said it's p1·ivileg€d.- r don't knO'IF 1..P.at privilege you 

investigation. are Teferring to; So for the record, let's just have 

Nhac he looked at or didn't look at, t.he. place 4 the basis fot· the privilege for pages 4, 5, and 6, 

to bring that up is a rrotion i.n lirrlnei it's not in 

this: So thls "" let's m::rve on f.rc:m this line of 

questionir:g. 

privilege. 

io Q, {BY MR. 0'c6NNoo) sections 41 S1 and 6, aid 

ii that haVe anY refe1:eriee· ti:i any ia:duai matteni 

12' involVing Fii-ght 86? 

ll f.IJL SI?ITZER: Again, t!1is isn't the 

14 witness to go tllrough that •«ith. 

5 MR. SPITZER: The basis fm· the 

privilege on pages 4, S, and 6 ~- th.ls isn't the place 

7 for us to do this. But in the interest of cooperation 

on the part of the FM is it's deliberative process, 

9 \~hich is prot.ected;" attomey v.tll:'k-pToduct, ,.,hi.ch is 

10 protected; and also opinion, t~hich is protected - m, 

11 rathe! it ls jusl attomey 'I/Ot'k-pnxluct, 

So .1 f you 11>a.nt to go into this, ~te can go into 

l3 this with rrotions in front of the judge. But using 

14 this ,,ritness for that, is not the Bl];.1Jmpriate time m· 

iS Q·, {BY MIL d'~R) Do you have: the ~stioti ii'! 15 place for tl'k1t. 

16 mind? 16 Q, (BY MR. 6 1c:DNN0R) Did you ·- did you 

11 A. I think what you are asking is, is did the 

18 nanative stop. 

1-.9 Q, No. What: I'm asking specifically :is "llhethe:r: 

20 there was any factual mtters regarding Flight B6' 

21 contained on pages 4, 5$ and C. 

22 A. I don't believe so. 

23 Q. Here's why I ask, because in this ~~ and we'll 

24 get to this in a bit. !ut the items of proof, I think 

25 that's also called~-

YAMAGUCHI OBIEN MANGIO court reporting, video and videoconferencing 

800.831.6973 206.622.6875 

production@yomreporting com 

www.yornrepo1ting .corn 

1'1 prepare ·- well, let 1s back up. 

iS Did you prepare section 5 of the EIR? 

19 A. I did. 

20 

21 Sectioo :s of the EIR? 

MR. SPITZER: I'm going to object to 

23 t:b.at. That's privileged: deliberative process. Let's 

24 move on fran this line of questioning. 

25 Q. (BY MR. O'CONNOR) Did you prepare pages 4, 5, 
WSTTN ME IS BERGER; August 0 I, 20 I 3 22 .. 25 

1 Q, What does that mean? -n -M 

A. Adrninistrative action could be everything frcm 

a letter of correction, a letter of Willlling, rraybe a 

4 different -~ sc;m;.t.lUng that does not involve a civil 

5 penalty. So I think a civil penalty is by itself, and 

the.n everything else is considered an adninistrative 

7 action. It doesn't mean they are off tl':-e hook. It 

just metms legally, they are not going after a fine or 

9 certificate action. 

10 Q. 1\nd does that ASI 1 such as: yoUrself, make a 

13 A. No; because it is all driven by the 2150 

14 checklist. So we really don't have yes or r.o if it 

15 goes. 1tTe ha1.re to go by what the checklist tells us. 

16 o·. Arid &tis in ali effmt to St.a.ridB.tdize tilie 

17 procea·a 

18 

19 

A. Fxactly. 

Q• so iri- terinS of tile- sectiw ili!it are iri- t11e 

20 id:R, s·ect±O!l :B,. tM:t 1s a et<mdard way of OO:i:rig thlrigs 

21 Within the PM-? 

22 A. Exactly. 

23 Q; S6 sane· o'f thes·e seCtioilS that we haVe ~- fot 

24 ~llt!1 the ~- o'f- Vio1-aHoris' aM gynopa:ts·~ that 

2s is Scirie-ci.t:iriq that yOu-~ :i:i s·~, for- ae- most paxt; iri 

1 eVerY SeCtion B n:a_,;yadVe'? 

P... You should see sco-ethlng that looks \'€IY 

similaf.' fn::m EIR to EIR to EIR: 

5 e..:maiis Witlilii tli.e- FAA aboUt· the imestig'a.tioo on 

e Fii9ht 86,. and you: ~ept €hoe~? 

7 A. Yes. 

MiL O'CONNOR: Are thoSB e .. mails 

1 exchange of ccmnunication with him, other than trying 

to request an official statemem:, that was it, 

3 Q. Okay. What about any e-mail cc.mnunicat!ons 

4 with any other potential witnesses outside the FM? 

5 A. The e·mai1s to • • trying to get a FAA 

6 expert --

7 

8 

9 

MR. SPITZER: That'S 

THE mTNESS: Oh. 

NIL O'OJNNOR; I'm not going to let him 

10 jurrp off a bridge. DJn't worry. 

13 

i4 

A. InternaL 

Q, Okay, Your coi.li'lse'l ha:li assert-ed privilege 

iS O'Ver internal FAA CO!W'iucication. 

11 y&i reaaii tha-t date as llie dat~ sf tile Fl-igh-t a6 

18 iricident? 

19 

20 

A. 1 believe that's the day that's in the EIR, 

Q, Arid when did you fi-rat !lear aoouc any i-e:aue21 with Fli-ght 86? 

22 A. I think it •nas wben I was called into my 

23 boss'g, office to say-- to basically give me the 

24 SurtllBll' of the events. 

2s Q; okay.. Arid- wno was yOur ooea at the tmi 

t A. Hichael C.'Wnby. 

2 Q. Md What is MiChael ciwiiliy; s - ~ what- was hl!i 

p&s'iti6n at that time'? 

A. He .is -·- and be was, still is, the principal 

5 operations inspector. 

6 Q; Ai-so Kri6wri as €he Poi? 

7 A. Yes. 

9 priv1leged"? 9 you have other supe-riii sOrs? 

!0 MR. SPITZER: Yes. Any e .. nails that are 10 A. At the tirre, I had a supervisor, Walter 2-ala, 

11 lntemal would W p.dvl'leged wtless Ll:By oue 

12 specifically released in the EIR. 

13 

14 r:he privilege 1;wld be? 

1S ~ffi. SPTT?,ER: It is deliberative 

iB correspanderu:ie with Mr, Elgee? 

19 A. I'm trying to recall if I initially sent him 

20 an e,mail requesting for an official statement. And I 

21 think that is contained in there (indicating). 

" 23 

24 

25 

Q. I've seen that ~~ 

A. Okay, 

Q. -~ and we can talk about that in a bit. 

A. I believe that is it. But as far as an 

YAMAGUCHI OBIEN MANGIO court reporting, vlde-o and vldeo-conferanclng 

800.831.6973 206.622.6875 

production@yomreporting com 

www.yomreporting.com 

11 amj he ls still hex-e. Sut they have shifted.- He has a 

12 ne1~ ;KJsition now, so am back under Hic:t:ael Ownby as a 

13 di re~'t reiXJrt. 

i4 

" 16 

17 

Q; so January 11th . .: 

A. I was under Walter Bala under Michael 0\Wf. 

Q. okay. And what is walt~r Bahls title? 

A. Right now, he is the-- he v.--as a frontline 

18 manager, slash, sup:1rvisor, ',-Jhatever the title was 

19 then, Now he is <1 DBPM. And to be honest, I can't 

20 remember what it is, but he is a database management 

21 guy for all of our data that we collect on 

22 surveillance. 

23 

24 

Q. Ana what about Joel Wade? 

A. Joel Wade was the assistant principal 

.25 operations inspector at the tine. 
JUSTIN MEISBERGER; August 01,2013 

1 0. So if you were to sort of map out an 

2 organization chart for me, you1d have ()mby at the 

l tq> --

4 A. 1 would. 

$ Q. -- eorr.ot? 

S A. Uh-lruh. 

1 Q. And Wlltlre &>Billa ana Wade fit in in tems of 

8 tbe hiOtilt<lby? 

9 A. Joel wade was the assistant principal 

10 operations inspector,. so I believe he would fall under 

11 Walter Ownby, Jmd then Michael Bala would also fall 

26 .. 29 

within the FAA. 

2 Q. Okay. 

A. So if you take that, it seerred to have drawn 

4 out quite a lffiDY oonths. 

5 Q. Let 1s break this down into Specific 

6 individuals. The witness that you are referring to is 

7 Mr;. J6fui Elgee? 

8 

9 

A. Yes. 

Q, And I think you metltioned that the 

iO investigation took a little lO'Jlg'er because 'jfOU were 

11 "Waiting --

12 under Walter OWnby. Joel does not haVe any supervisory 12 A. Yes. 

13 reSponsibilitY in the Way the PM structUres that 

1-4 particular position. So fi¥self and all the othet' 1\Sis 

15 fall under walt. 

lJ Q. -- to get an offieiai statentme: f-rottt him. De:. 

14 }'01.! ~ WhY it tooK tlme to get ail offiCial stateit'.eilt 

15 from him? 

A. He was on vacation.-

16 A. He was the assistant. kid What we J.iaiie ie, iS 18 

Q, Bo yOU im&N wiier~ ne lives? 

A. 1 believe he lives in Alaska. 

19 wlwn scmeone reViews a dtecklist or if Michael OwnbY is 19 o·. riO yOU kfiooi H' he ~ any time iri- tOO 

20 -out 1 because We need his signature for thiilgs,- he now 

21 falls as second in conmand if v.'e need Sigilatin:es for 

iZ:2 k"'ff@F."!! f&l ,~~~i-::}-~.~: f&~ ~ ~ do that 

Q. So in 20111 it coUld De that 00 iias' iii a 

P... Absolutely. 

Q; "· i:o reVieW Your checklist- ielated t:b thiS 

RIRi corti!'Ct? 

A. That'S correct. 

5 ~·; lind de 'fdu recali the- date that yOii learried 

a:ixrut til~ Fii-ght 86 iriCM~~ from Mi,. &i:njjyt· 

7 A. No, I do not. 

Q.. wiiat was your assi~t w-±ili Mr. owroy- mtn 

9 respect: tci Flight 86? 

10 A. If I recall, the assignment ;~as to ir:rvestigate 

l1 it: P...nd 1 don't think there was any dltect.l(m at thte 

12 time to"" we are going to an enforcement route.-

13 thinlc it was mot-e of a fact"finding mission, 

is iniiesti{:Jations start: You sort df start With the 

lS inva:stigation, and t::rum you di;!dde,i right? 

20 seaetie: area-? 

21 A. I couldn't tell you that; 

22 Q. okay. But as fal:.- as YoU knoW; there' was no 

23 sPeCific- reasOn giVen for the delaY in Obtaining arr 

24: ciffkial statement frc:in h::im- other than he wail' on 

25 vaca.HOO? 

.r:... That's all I was told. 

Q.- 6ka,y.- And' let;a -- take" a' locik; if j.io\1 WoUld; 

pl-eaa·eJ at H)frdbi-t s --

A. Okay.-

5 Q.- ~~ WhEii"e it tall.:s aboUt si.ilttmi Of ViolaHoilH. 

6 The i:i-it!t s~t~l! tailci ab6cit jaiii.ia·ii 7tli; zeH,. ~ 

A:k$ita Mrime~ eer·Hficab!. ~enie'n-t o£i'±e~£ r~~Fied 

a n6tificiStiOn liiiti a passanger --

9 A. m1-huh. 

io Q .- ~- that Alaska' Airlines Fligoht 86 <iepa±ted 

11 Anchbiage With- ci6ntamiiuid<:Jri- Oti- the wings and COntrol 

12 Sutfacea~ Now1 that passenger, was that- M:b .:tom 

13 Ei-gee? 

14 

15 

A. That was. 

Q, Okay, Have you ever heard of Mr. E'lt;Jtoe befote 

17 

i!J 

A. Uh~huh. 17 A. No. 

Q; Do yoU recall haw long in tertns of a period of 18 Q, Had any dealings With him? 

19 l;;ima, £I'Oill January 7th untd.l when you were -- )'01i 1d· 

20 finished your investigatiOn of !:.hi! :Vlig'iiJ. 86 fncirumt? 

21 A. It was quite a while. And it 11.'asn 1t so ooch 

22 because we 1>:ere still getting facts; it was tecause 'l.'e 

23 were still trying to hear back frcrn people. '!he 

24 witness was one that we were trying to hear back for, 

25 telieve, an official staterent, as well as experts 

court reporting, video and videoconferencing 

800.831.6973 206.622.6875 

productlon@yomreporting com 

www.yomreporting.com 

19 A. Never. 

20 Q. oo you ~mow' if anybody in this offiee nas evet 

21 had any druing-s with him before~ 

22 A. I do not know -- I don 1 t know if any:tody has 

23 any personal dealings or oot, 

24 Q, Okay. If you take a look on section with that 

25 first sentence, under StJDinarY of violations, that 
ruSTIN MEISBERGER; August 01,2013 

1 qu.est.ions I might have about that C!Cilttllmt; is that 

2 correcU 

4 

5 

10 

A. That is correct, 

Q. That:' Ill a long question. 

MR. 01CCNN''.Ri Okay. I need a 

five-minute break1 and then we'll CC!rrk:') back and wrap it 

up. 

THE ~IITNESS 1 Okay, 

(Recess taken l 

MR. O'CiJNl«JRJ Hr. l•!eisberger, :don't 

11 haVe any rrore queStions for you at this tiTrE, We've 

12 had a discusSion off the record that We are go:ng to 

13 continue your deposition until ·.ve can seek sane 

14 guidance from the court on the privilege issues that 

15 haVe bee:h raised to:i3Y .-

16 SO what 1 haVe agreed with itt: ~itzer 

17 can confirin or make any m:xlifications -- is that we 

18 \.fill iierY qUicklY g'et sanething to the court on two 

19 issue-s: 

20 one, ccwpelliilg respoitses to question£, 

you 

21 perhaps sane documents related to privileg'e and waivers 

22 tf..a:t have arisen tcda'/ in your deposition.-

And to.\:>; in orde1· to allo<.>l time fot· that being 

RE; 

114 .. 117 

CORRECTION & SIGNATURE PAGE 

U.S. DOT, OfF:tCS OF liEAR!NGS; 2011NM020013 

.JUSTIN lOElSBSRGS:R: TAKEN AUGUST 1, 1013 

Reported by, SAt/iN .J. HANDS, CCR 2191 

I, J(JSTIN J~EISE>i:RGER, have t'<:lacl the '"'it.hi:r: 

tran<>crip-t taken AtJGI!ST l, 20Ll, <~nd th"' !li>me is tflJ(' 

6 -Snd accurat"' eKt:ept- focr any changea anrl/or corr€ctimtl3, 

if any, as follo·"~' 

CORRECTION REASON 

21 Signed ilr Nashtngron 

24 :t-esolved prior tO the hearing'; '.o.'C're going" to rake a ?.q 

25 request to continue the h-earing for sane time to al1C"1f 

tho~e icwues to get ~Dr ted out. 

!.~ that fair statemc;nt 

MR. SPITZER: Yes. 

m<, O'COW:/I)R, 

1(1 gain-g t_o put off Mr t~ade's depmli~ion tmtil such tiroe 

12 likely to come up in hi \'I depcsitir.:on, j1.1st "''-' th1=y did 

Ll in ML ~leir;berger's deposition. So '1 ilSm.tme you no: 

H <~.gre,.;:~ble; to pastponifLg that de-,po-sition 1.mti! we hil.?0 

15 ru1ing: 

l~R. S?!TZER, 0( nmrs" 

MIL O'CONNOR' That'r,; illl. 

{[lepooition l!djOIH"ll\"d ~t 1,16 p.ro.) 

court reporting, video and videoconferencing 

800.831.6973 206.622.6875 

production@yomreporting com 

WW>N.yomreporting.com 

J(JST!O! l·IBISBER(JBR 

19 WIT!·lESS HY HftJffi ~m DIGT'l'AL :';lGliAT\ll'.~ ~hi~ ~th o:li!y M 

SALO,Y :" HMIDS 

'ri~sbingtcn St<>te Certifi~d eou:rt Reporter, CCR 2191 
EXHIBITB 
O'Connor, William V. 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

O'Connor, William V. 

Friday, August 16, 2013 6:07 PM 

Robert.Spitzer@faa.gov 

Jeremy Ross 

RE: Alaska Flight 86 

I ;f!~!S tf"ic~t \fJf:~: (Jiid ntJt hear' frurn vou this v.J@E~k- dri'tes, fur' the /c.:,-_c;,. 'ft.i'U \f..IP 

tel e::aordHiat8· \Jif~tli Q(Jir' w!trTes·s-e:s- cHid we· h;JI/f-~ 0'&t'n1· stheduit:s· t.Ype·u vvhife 'i-Je vv;:iif ra fr'C:Jtfl1 

ht~Jdng. ·;t..JO'uld bE' t'Giil'tlli'Ur§:t:i 5i-r\Gr~~- fs:/1,. whe·rr FAJ\ to 6-Uf GcFi{illi-Uc'fnct'· 

l!ii i1fCl'PC't pi·iVife·g.e C!S;S-e r'tiOfi§ 

;,·rlrlre"c··!l in M•·rhrrr;iri!'i 

Bill 

From: Robert. Spitzer@faa .gov [ mai Ito: Robert. Spitzer@faa .gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:51 AM 

To: O'Connor, William V. 

Cc: Jeremy Ross 

Subject: RE: Alaska Flight 86 

Just so you understand, Mr. Elgee is not receiving any compensation other than the customary 40 dollar/day witness fee 

from the FAA for his testimony. While he used to work for the FAA, his current status is as a private citizen. As you are 

aware, FR 32(a)(4)(D) allows a party to use a deposition of a witness if the party offering the deposition could not procure 

the witness' attendance by subpoena. 

Hopefully we'll hear back from Mr. Elgee with dates, and avoid the whole issue. 

Robert Spitzer 

Attorney 

FAAANM-7 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

1 
Tel: 425.227.1417 

Fax: 425.227.1007 

,-·ro,Tl "O'Connor, William V." <woconnor@mofo.com> 

ANM-007, Office of Regional Counsel 

To Robert Spitzer/ANM/FAA@FAA, 

Cc "Jeremy Ross" <jeremy.ross@alaskaair.com> 

D2te 08/14/201311:40 AM 

Subjccl RE: Alaska Flight 86 

sorry R'o'b·. We do not agre·e. FAA i11llst shaw good cause tcY ws·e dep-o-S-ition'S at tria· I and lay fourrda:tfGn for the· photographs-.. W'e do· 

-n-ot befieve· Mr. Elgee's FiShing. trips would be good caus-e· i;ill any eve-n·t1 as- he §fate·a' in f=ii's Gtep·osi'fiO'i'r he is working for PAA. 6rl this 

hHtt:e·r. Ple·as-e provide dates hefore· the end of the week .. the court ls· wa·ifing fO· hear· frorh LK 

~ill' 

From: Robert.Spitzer@faa.gov [mailto: Robert.Spitzer@faa.gov l 

Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:55AM 

To: O'Connor, William V. 

Cc: Jeremy Ross 

Subject: RE: Alaska Flight 86 

I'm currently trying to get dates of availability for my expert. The FAA will agree to setting a hearing date without hearing 

from Mr. Elgee, if Alaska will stipulate to the FAA admitting Elgee's deposition at trial, and will stipulate to the admission of 

his two photographs. 

Robert Spitzer 

Attorney 

FAAANM-7 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

Tel: 425.227.1417 

Fax: 425.227.1007 

From "O'Connor, William V." '*VVOConnor@mofo.com> 

ANM-007~0ffice of Regional Counsel 

To· Robert Spitzer/ANM/FAA@FAA, 

Cc "Jeremy Ross" <jeremy.ross@alaskaair.com> 

Date 08/12/2013 03:35PM 

SubJect: RE: Alaska Flight 86 

Rob, 

Let's get this scheduled for September. We shouldn't have to wait for Mr. Elgee to get back to us. He said in his deposition that he 

doesn't have any prepaid trips until November. 

We are unavailable on September 9 and September 26-27. How about September 17-19 for the hearing? I told Ira we would get 

2 
back to him right away. Thanks. 

Best, 

Bill 

From: Robert.Spitzer@faa .qov [mailto: Robert.Spitzer@faa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 1:07PM 

To: O'Connor, William V. 

Cc: Jeremy Ross 

Subject: Re: Alaska Flight 86 

Bill, 

I'm waiting to hear back from Mr. Elgee about his schedule. I believe that he is off on a fishing trip this week, so it may be 

a few days. 

I'll let you know as soon as I hear back from him. 

Robert Spitzer 

Attorney 

FAAANM-7 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

Tel: 425.227.1417 

Fax: 425.227.1007 

From "O'Connor, William V." <woconnor@mofo.com> 

ANM-007, Office of Regional Counsel 

To Robert Spitzer/ANM/FAA@FAA, 

Cc "Jeremy Ross ~erem;{ross@alaskaair.com)'' <jeremy.ross@alaskaair.com>, "Simon, Joanna L." <JoannaSi~on@mofo.com> Date 08/09/201310:0/ lVI 

Subject· Alaska Flight 86 

Rob, 

Do you have a range of dates for the continued hearing? Ira Leibowitz called and I told him we would provide dates today or 

Monday. Obviously, the proposed dates should not conflict with Mr. Elgee's fishing trips. Judge Goodwin is going to grant the 

continuance once he receives the formal motion, which we intend to file this morning. Thanks. 

Best, 

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any 

advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any 

attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) 

3 
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another 

party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 

For information about this legend, go to 

http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ 

====--======================================================================= 

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or 

authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any 

information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by 

reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. 

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any 

advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any 

attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) 

avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another 

party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 

For information about this legend, go to 

http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ 

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or 

authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any 

information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by 

reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. 

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any 

advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any 

attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) 

avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another 

party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 

For information about this legend, go to 

http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ 

============================================================================ 

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or 

authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any 

information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by 

4 
reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. 

5