U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: ) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

Docket No. FAA-201 4-0867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No, 2012S0090053 

1 3 2015 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO THE FAA'S MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED 

Now Comes the Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, by its attorneys, Barnett 

& Borth, LLC. and in response to the FAA's Motion to Deem Admitted states as follows: 

On July 13,2015, the Respondent timely answered the FAA's requests to admit 

facts. (See FAA Motion at Exhibit B). On August 21,2015, the Respondent provided 

further clarity for its answers to the FAA's requests to admit facts in conjunction with the 

answer of the FAA's other written discovery. (See FAA Motion at Exhibit C). 

Request to Admit# 1 strangely seeks an answer to the question to the ultimate 

issue and a legal conclusion in the case concerning whether or not the Respondent 

intended or actually engaged in a flight that was not a demonstration flight. The 

Respondent categorically denies this. The FAA is in possession of numerous documents 

that provide the background, intentions and actual situations involved in the 

demonstration flight. Some examples of the FAA's written record of the Respondent's 

witnesses concerning the demonstration flight include: 

• A rwo page FAA Inspector's Statement detailing 

the October 23,2012, interviews of Respondent's 

witnesses, Steven Pickett, CEO, and Shawn Flowers, Pilot, 

taken at Alabama/Northwest Florida FSDO. 
21Page 

• A September 21,2012 e-mail of Respondent's 

witness, Justin Lollar, sent to the FAA's chief investigator 

providing details on the demonstration flight. 

• A two page Record of Conversation of the 

September, 21, 2012 interview held by the FAA's chief 

investigator with Respondent's witness, Justin Lollar. 

An e-mail written by Respondent's witness, Justin 

Lollar to the prospective purchaser, Dr. Allen Long 

concerning the demonstration flight. 

• A one page Record of Conversation of the October 

2, 2012 interview held by the FAA's chief investigator with 

Respondent's witness, Justin Lollar. 

A one page note written by Respondent's witness, 

Shawn Flowers, on or about October 14, 2012 directed to 

the FAA's chief investigator. 

• A one page letter written by Respondent's witness, 

Shawn Flowers, on or about October 23, 2012 directed to 

the FAA's chief investigator setting forth the facts 

concerning the subject demonstration flight. 

• E-mails to and from Respondent's witness, Shawn 

Flowers, and prospective purchaser, Dr. Alan Long 

concerning the demonstration flight. 

A June 17,2012 e-mail of prospective purchaser, 

Dr. Alan Long, to Respondent's witness, Steven Pickett, 

titled "ownership analysis" requesting information on the 

practical limits of the landing parameters of the airplane 

model used for the subject demonstration flight. 

• Various emails by and between Respondent's 

witness, Steven Pickett and prospective purchaser, Dr. Alan 

Long concerning the ownership cost and capacity of the 

airplane model used for the subject demonstration flight 

and another model of aircraft dated August 31, 2012 and 

September 4, 2012. 

• An October 14, 2012 letter of Respondent's 

witnesses, Steven Pickett and Sandi Pickett addressed to 

the FAA's chief investigator setting forth the details and 

intentions concerning the subject demonstration flight. 
• In addition, the FAA is in possession of its 

investigator's Records of Conversation that detail the 

knowledge of witness Steve Allen and witness Bob Kent. 

The Respondent provided timely and sufficient answers to the FAA's request to 

admit# I. Nothing more is required under the Federal rules and the FAA has failed to cite 

one case that would support the positions it takes in its motion. Accordingly, this Court 

should deny the FAA's request to deem Respondent's answer to the FAA's requestto 

admit #I admitted. 

The FAA's request to admit #4 requires an admission based on a legal conclusion. 

In Reichenbach v. City of Columbus, No. 2:03-CV-1 132,2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3058, at 

*5-7 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 19, 2006) the court faced with a similar request refused to grant the 

plaintiffs motion to compel on requests for admission that sought to have defendant 

admit that a ramp was not in compliance with the ADA, as such a request sought a legal 

conclusion. See also, Disability Rights Council of Greater Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area 

Transit Auth., 234 F.R.D. I, 2-3 (D.D.C. 2006) (denying employer's motion to have 

matters in requests for admission taken as true when they sought to have party admit 

legal conclusions, such as whether or not various actions were required by the Americans 

with Disabilities Act). While these case are completely the same factually as the present 

case, the concepts from those cases apply to the present case. Accordingly, the FAA's 

motion to deem to the FAA's request to admit #4 admitted should be denied. 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Respondent respectfully requests 

that this Court deny the FAA's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted. 
Respectfully submitted, 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

Dated: November 7, 2015 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

TeL (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@bamettlegal.com 

41 Pcnp 

,_ .. ~ b '" 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have sent via Certified Mail the foregoing 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO THE FAA'S MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED 

addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE (Ell-310) 

Washington D.C. 20590 

Christopher Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

Dated: ~~ November 7, 2015 

~~~/ 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnett1egal.com 

SIP age