# SILVERBERG GOLDMAN& 

# BIKOFF, 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 ofAirborne 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 ofRespondent'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 ifyou have any questions regarding this matter.

Enclosures Very truly yours, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & 

### BIKOFF, LLP Attorneys for AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 

# "'

# {:;;6~7Inthematter of BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

DocketNo. FAA-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 beennoticed for deposition to appear in Atlanta, Georgia or in a "majormetropolitan

area served by a major airline." Motion, page 2. Respondent hereby answers in opposition to the motion. Rather than come at the question ofthe scheduling ofdepositions in a cooperative manner, counsel for Complainant filed the instant motion without making anyreal effort to seek

a resolution with opposing counsel. Be that as it may, Complainant's argmnent that traveling to the offices ofAMES, which are located inWilmington, Ohio and conveniently located nearboth Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio, is a burden ofunreasonable proportions is simply not based on objective facts. At the outset it is noteworthythat the Complainant acknowledges that the location ofa corporate deposition is most commonlythe principal place ofbusiness ofthe deponent. Motion, page 3. Counsel for Respondent's experience isjustthat, and squabbling over the location ofthe deposition ofcorporate witnesses is not a very good use oftime. Even in cases that are highly contentious, rarely are counsel unable to work out deposition scheduling issues, including the location where the depositions will betaken. 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. 

### Id. A look at the map would reveal that Wilmington, Ohio is only 53 miles from Cincinnati and only 34miles from Dayton. Travel by car is viainterstate highway. Visitors to the AMES facility and the offices and facilities ofits affiliated companies, all ofwhich 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 ofthis duration can hardly be said to be "highly inconvenient." In addition to the close proximity ofWilmington, 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 notraised any issue ofincreased expense in conducting the depositions inWilmington, doing so in Wilmingtonratherthan Cincinnati orDayton will not result in any greater cost to the FAA. The ground transportation will beprovided, ifrequested, and lodging expense in Wilmington should be less than would be the case inthe nearbybut larger Ohio cities. There is simplyno inherent inefficiency in conducting the depositions ofthe AMES witnesses in Wihnington, contrary to the Complainant's unsupported claims. 1 On the otherhand, the deponents and counsel would incurthe cost ofhotel stays ifthe depositions are not taken in Wilmington. Apart from there not being any actual element ofinconvenience, AMES offered to make available a conference room for the deposition thereby saving the U.S. Government the expense ofrenting ahotel conference room should the deposition betaken in such a facility.

1 In fact, counsel for Complainant maywish to seethe AMES maintenance facility to gain a betterunderstanding ofit operations and facilities and AMES will provide counsel a tour ofthe operation shouldhe choose to do so.Answer to Complainant's Motionto 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 Steffeyis stationed in Michigan, not Orlando." Exhibit 1. So, ifComplainant's counsel assumes that Respondentmust travel to the office locations ofthe FAA employees Respondent chooses to depose, why does he assert he should notberequired to travel to the facility ofAMES atwhich those individuals the FAA wishes to depose work and where conferencerooms are available free ofcharge to the Complainant. Counsel for the Complainant argues that counsel for Respondent did notinformally engage with Complainant counsel onthe question ofthe location ofthe depositions. However, the correspondencebetween the parties indicates otherwise. On March 26,2014, Respondent's counsel noted the receipt ofthe notices ofdeposition and stated that Respondent was not prepared to malce its witnesses available at the FAA's offices inAtlanta, Georgia and itis highly unusual in litigation to expect to take the deposition ofa party witness at a location other than where the offices ofthe witnesses' employer is located.2 At the same time, and as a courtesy counsel for Respondent noted in advance which FAA Inspectors itwould depose and asked where they would bemade available and the dates that are convenient for them. Two days later, Complainant counsel objected to taking the depositions ofthe 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 ofWilmington is inconvenientbecause it does not receive scheduled service. However, counsel for Complainant adopts a double standard bynoticing depositions ofAMES witnesses inAtlanta, believing presumablythat it is convenient for these witnesses to travel byroad to either Cincinnati or Daytonin order to fly to Atlanta.Answer to Complainant's Motion to Compel Page 4 of4 about the remoteness ofWilmington, Ohio. Less than one hour later the same day, counsel for Respondent, responded and noted the general convention that the partyrequesting to take the deposition ofthe employee ofthe otherparty will do so at the offices ofthe other party (since acknowledged by Complainant) and that itwouldbe unusual to object to such an arrangement, particularly as Respondent's counsel is expected to travel to at least two different locations designatedbyFAA counsel where its witnesses wouldbe deposed. The premise ofComplainant's motion is that Wilmington, Ohio is "highly inconvenient" to travel to, butthe facts indicate otherwise. Moreover, there are efficiencies and cost savings to the Government ifdepositions ofthe AMES witnesses are taken at the AMES facility. A relatively short drive overinterstate highways cannotreally to be said to constitute a burden and it is unfortunate Complainantraised the issue by a formal motion to compel. WHEREFORE, Respondent herebyrespectfully requests that the Complainant's Motion to Compelbe 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**!Jl~** Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306 Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythat on this 4th day ofApril 2014, I caused a true copy ofthe foregoing Respondent's Answer to Complainant's Motion to Compelto be served byFedEx overnight delivery addressed to: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building Suite 2Wl000 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 ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Tel: (202) 366-2132 Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7 Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 Tel: (404) 305-5200

Robert P. Silverberg