SILVERBERG 

GOLDMAN& 

B IKO FF, L.L.P. GEORGETOWN PLACE • Surnl20 • 1101 30TH STREET, NW • WASHIKGTON, D.C. 20007 

Vorcc (202) 944-3300 • FAcsrMrLE(202) 944-3306 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

WAFEDEX 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

April 4, 2014 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Re: In the Matter of Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services 

Docket: FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No.: 2011S0290032 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case please find an original and one 

copy of Respondent's Answer to Complainant's Motion to Compel. 

Also enclosed is an additional copy of the Answer and a pre-addressed, postage 

paid envelope. Please date-stamp the additional copy and return it to our office in the 

enclosed envelope. 

Thank you for your assistance. Please call me at the telephone number listed 

above if you have any questions regarding this matter. 

Enclosures 

Very truly yours, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, LLP 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

"' {:;;6~7 
In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. F AA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

Respondent 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

On April3, 2014, Complainant filed a motion to compel witnesses for the Respondent 

.. '1" 

who have been noticed for deposition to appear in Atlanta, Georgia or in a "major metropolitan 

area served by a major airline." Motion, page 2. Respondent hereby answers in opposition to 

the motion. Rather than come at the question of the scheduling of depositions in a cooperative 

manner, counsel for Complainant filed the instant motion without making any real effort to seek 

a resolution with opposing counsel. Be that as it may, Complainant's argmnent that traveling to 

the offices of AMES, which are located in Wilmington, Ohio and conveniently located near both 

Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio, is a burden of unreasonable proportions is simply not based on 

objective facts. 

At the outset it is noteworthy that the Complainant acknowledges that the location of a 

corporate deposition is most commonly the principal place of business of the deponent. Motion, 

page 3. Counsel for Respondent's experience is just that, and squabbling over the location of the 

deposition of corporate witnesses is not a very good use of time. Even in cases that are highly 

contentious, rarely are counsel unable to work out deposition scheduling issues, including the 

location where the depositions will be taken. But in this case Complainant asserts, without 

=-- ( 
Answer to Complainant's Motion to Compel 

Page 2 of4 

reference to any objective facts, that Wilmington, Ohio is a "highly inconvenient" to travel to. 

I d. 

A look at the map would reveal that Wilmington, Ohio is only 53 miles from Cincinnati 

and only 34 miles from Dayton. Travel by car is via interstate highway. Visitors to the AMES 

facility and the offices and facilities of its affiliated companies, all of which are located in 

Wilmington, do not find it "highly inconvenient" to travel to. Based on Google Maps estimates, 

driving time is only 53 minutes from Cincinnati and 40 minutes from Dayton. Interstate 

highway trips of this duration can hardly be said to be "highly inconvenient." In addition to the 

close proximity of Wilmington, AMES will make available to FAA counsel the corporate van 

service from Cincinnati or Dayton it operates to and from the Wilmington facility. 

Although Complainant has not raised any issue of increased expense in conducting the 

depositions in Wilmington, doing so in Wilmington rather than Cincinnati or Dayton will not 

result in any greater cost to the FAA. The ground transportation will be provided, if requested, 

and lodging expense in Wilmington should be less than would be the case in the nearby but 

larger Ohio cities. There is simply no inherent inefficiency in conducting the depositions of the 

AMES witnesses in Wihnington, contrary to the Complainant's unsupported claims. 1 On the 

other hand, the deponents and counsel would incur the cost of hotel stays if the depositions are 

not taken in Wilmington. 

Apart from there not being any actual element of inconvenience, AMES offered to make 

available a conference room for the deposition thereby saving the U.S. Government the expense 

of renting a hotel conference room should the deposition be taken in such a facility. 

1 In fact, counsel for Complainant may wish to see the AMES maintenance facility to gain a 

better understanding of it operations and facilities and AMES will provide counsel a tour of the 

operation should he choose to do so. 
Answer to Complainant's Motion to Compel 

Page 3 of4 

While counsel for Complainant complains unnecessarily about the inconvenience of 

traveling to Wilmington, he adopts a different standard for FAA witness when in his e-mail, 

dated March 28, 2014, he advised that "[t]he most appropriate location for any deposition of 

FAA personnel may depend on the date. Please note that Inspector Steffey is stationed in 

Michigan, not Orlando." Exhibit 1. So, if Complainant's counsel assumes that Respondent must 

travel to the office locations of the FAA employees Respondent chooses to depose, why does he 

assert he should not be required to travel to the facility of AMES at which those individuals the 

FAA wishes to depose work and where conference rooms are available free of charge to the 

Complainant. 

Counsel for the Complainant argues that counsel for Respondent did not informally 

engage with Complainant counsel on the question of the location of the depositions. However, 

the correspondence between the parties indicates otherwise. On March 26,2014, Respondent's 

counsel noted the receipt of the notices of deposition and stated that Respondent was not 

prepared to malce its witnesses available at the FAA's offices in Atlanta, Georgia and it is highly 

unusual in litigation to expect to take the deposition of a party witness at a location other than 

where the offices of the witnesses' employer is located. 2 At the same time, and as a courtesy 

counsel for Respondent noted in advance which FAA Inspectors it would depose and asked 

where they would be made available and the dates that are convenient for them. Two days later, 

Complainant counsel objected to taking the depositions of the AMES witnesses in Wilmington 

believing it inconvenient to do so, although the geography is such that counsel was mistaken 

2 As noted, Respondent does not take the position that the location of Wilmington is 

inconvenient because it does not receive scheduled service. However, counsel for Complainant 

adopts a double standard by noticing depositions of AMES witnesses in Atlanta, believing 

presumably that it is convenient for these witnesses to travel by road to either Cincinnati or 

Dayton in order to fly to Atlanta. 
Answer to Complainant's Motion to Compel 

Page 4 of4 

about the remoteness of Wilmington, Ohio. Less than one hour later the same day, counsel for 

Respondent, responded and noted the general convention that the party requesting to take the 

deposition of the employee of the other party will do so at the offices of the other party (since 

acknowledged by Complainant) and that it would be unusual to object to such an arrangement, 

particularly as Respondent's counsel is expected to travel to at least two different locations 

designated by FAA counsel where its witnesses would be deposed. 

The premise of Complainant's motion is that Wilmington, Ohio is "highly inconvenient" 

to travel to, but the facts indicate otherwise. Moreover, there are efficiencies and cost savings to 

the Government if depositions of the AMES witnesses are taken at the AMES facility. A 

relatively short drive over interstate highways cannot really to be said to constitute a burden and 

it is unfortunate Complainant raised the issue by a formal motion to compel. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent hereby respectfully requests that the Complainant's Motion 

to Compel be denied finding that it is not inconvenient to conduct the depositions in Wilmington, 

Ohio. 

Dated: April4, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

By: 72~1 Robert P. Silverberg, !Jl~ Esq. 

1101 30th Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 4th day of April 2014, I caused a true copy of the foregoing 

Respondent's Answer to Complainant's Motion to Compel to be served by F edEx overnight 

delivery addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Tel: (202) 385-8229 

(original and one copy) 

The Hon. J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Tel: (202) 366-2132 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1701 ColumbiaAvenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

Tel: ( 404) 305-5200 

Robert P. Silverberg