In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: February 4, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0045 

WORLDWIDE AIRCRAFT 

SERVICES, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2009S0150216 

Respondent 

ORDER GRANTING/DENYING RELIEF 

r: 

..... 

On January 9, 2014, an Order Setting Motion Conference and Additional Litigation 

Deadline was filed. Among other things, this Order set deadline dates for new motions, and 

scheduled a Pre-Hearing Conference on January 31,2014 (10:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m. ET). 

On January 10, 2014 the FAA filed Complainant's Motion in Limine. 

On January 16,2014 the Respondent, Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc, filed the 

Respondent's Motion to Compel the Full Enforcement Investigative Report of Complainant and 

Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. 

On January 22, 2014 the FAA filed Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to 

Compel. This Response did not, however, include copies of the FAA Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4 as 

referenced in the material. 

On January 28, 2014 the Respondent filed the Respondent's Response to Complainant's 

Motion in Limine. 

That same day, on January 28,2014, a Notice ofHearingLocation was filed, providing 

the parties with the address/contact information for the venue site of the March 5-6, 2014 

Hearing in Tampa, 'Florida. 

On January 31, 2014, the parties appeared by telephone for the scheduled Pre-Hearing 

Conference. During this Conference, the parties presented oral argument on the motions filed. 

The parties also discussed requests for subpoenas and other litigation matters. 

That same day on January 31, 2014, after the Motion Conference had concluded, the 

FAA filed Complainant's Supplemental Response to Respondent's Motion to Compel. Included 

in this Supplemental Response were the FAA's missing Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4 (as referenced in 

the FAA's Motion in Limine). 

On February 3, 2014, the FAA filed Complainant's Motion to Extend "List of 

Witnesses/Exchange of Exhibits" Deadline. 
....... ----~---------
I. SHORT STATEMENT OF CASE STATUS 

This hearing in this case is set for March 5 and 6, 2014 in Tampa, Florida. 

On June 6, 2013 the parties appeared by telephone for a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference. At that time a litigation procedural schedule was discussed and jointly agreed upon. 

That same day, on June 6, 2013, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed 

pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 13.217. Among other things, this June 6, 2013 Order directed the parties 

to serve each other with initial disclosures by June 28, 2013, and begin general discovery no later 

than July 12,2013. (6/6/13 Order, paragraph A (1 and 2)). The parties were directed to complete 

all general discovery no later than August 26, 2013. This included serving responses to all 

requests for general discovery. (6/6/13 Order, paragraph A (5)). 

The June 6, 2013 Order also provided specific direction for any party seeking relief from 

deficient or disputed discovery. Among other things, the June 6, 2013 Order directed the parties 

to file all motions regarding discovery, including a motion to compel discovery, within "ten (10) 

calendar ·days after service of a deficient response or after the response to the discovery is due, 

whichever occurs first." (6/6/13 Order, paragraph C and D). In addition, the June 6, 2013 Order 

directed the parties, prior to seeking relief from the administrative court, to attempt to confer "in 

good faith" if a party believed that the opposing side had "failed to make discovery or 

disclosure." (6/6/13 Order, paragraph D). 

It appeared undisputed that on June 27, 2013 the FAA served upon the Respondent an 

Administrator's Notice of Compliance with FRCP 26 (FAA Response, Exh. 3). 

That same day, on June 27,2013, the FAA propounded Interrogatories, Requests for 

Production, and Requests for Admission upon the Respondent. It was undisputed that the pro se 

Respondent failed to timely answer any of this propounded discovery prior to the court ordered 

deadline of August 26,2013. Instead, the Respondent filed answers to some of the discovery on 

September 6, 2013, and filed additional answers to the discovery, upon the FAA's request, on· 

December 4, 2013. Both responses were signed and dated by Mr. Michael a. Honeycutt, the pro 

, se Respondent's representative in these proceedings. Both submission dates by the Respondent 

were noncompliant with the August 26,2013 deadline set out in the June 6, 2013 Order. It 

appeared undisputed that the FAA worked informally with the pro se Respondent to obtain the 

answers, without seeking formal relief as allowed by the June 6, 2013 Order (6/6/13 Order, 

paragraph D), and without moving for amendment in the litigation schedule, as directed by the 

June 6, 2013 Order (6/6/13 Order, paragraph B). Neither party asserted, nor did it appear from 

the written record, that any ofthe.Respondent's answers could be characterized as supplemental 

discovery, which the June 6, 2013 Order set a deadline of September 30, 2013 for completion: 

It was also undisputed that the Respondent chose not to request any discovery from the 

FAA during the period of June 6, 2013 through August 26,2013, or even during the time 

between August 26, 2013 and December 4, 2013- when the Respondent was still responding to 

the FAA's discovery requests. In addition, neither party scheduled or took prehearing 

depositions of any witnesses. Neither party filed any dispositive motions. As a result, the January 

Page 2 of8 

---------------
.......... 

------------

__________________ .............. 
8, 2014 Motion Conference, set by the June 6, 2013 Order, was automatically converted and held 

as a Prehearing Status Conference. 

On January 8, 2014 the prose Respondent orally raised concerns about the lack of 

discovery it had received from the FAA. Upon court inquiry, the Respondent asserted that it 

could show proof that it had formally requested discovery from the FAA during the scheduled 

discovery period. In addition, the FAA asserted that many fact issues had been resolved based on 

the Respondent's answers to FAA discovery. To resolve these matters, additional litigation 

deadlines and another Motion Conference were set. On January 9, 2014 an Order.Setting Motion 

Conference and Additional Litigation Deadlines was filed. · 

II. BRIEF DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 

This discussion is limited to certain matters. Not all motions or arguments are discussed. 

However, all motions for relief, all documents submitted, and all party arguments have been 

fully considered and ruled upon. 

A. Respondent's Motion to Compel Discovery of the EIR 

As previously stated herein, on January 16, 2014 the Respondent filed its Motion to 

Compel the Full Enforcement Investigative Report of Complainant and Memorandum of Law in 

·Support Thereof. It should be noted, however, that this Motion did not contain a copy of any 

Respondent discovery request to the FAA for discovery (e.g., email, fax, etc.) during the 

scheduled discovery period, nor was there a copy of the FAA's response to the Respondent's 

initial request, pursuant to the directive contained in the January 9, 2014 Order (page 1, 

paragraph 3 ). 

During the January 31,2014 Motion Conference, the Respondent conceded that it had not 

requested any formal discovery from the FAA after the June 6, 2013 Order was filed. The 

Respondent argued, however, that it should not be bound by the June 6, 2013 Order and 

litigation schedule, nor should its failure to condl!-ct any discovery be deemed relevant. Instead, 

the Respondent argued that the FAA was at fault, either because the FAA should have known 

that the Respondent wanted additional discovery- specifically, a non-redacted copy of the 

FAA's Enforcement Investigation Report ("EIR")- and/or because the FAA was required to 

produce it without request and did not, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(l)(A)(ii). · 

The Respondent is correct that Rule 26(a)(l)(A)(ii) requires each party to provide, 

without awaiting a discovery request, a copy of "all documents ... that the disclosing party has in 

its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses." 

In addition, 14 C.F .R. § 13 .220(b) allows each party the option of utilizing a variety of 

discovery methods to obtain information (e.g., depositions, written questions, interrogatories, 

requests for production, requests for admission, etc.). Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.220(e), the 

scope of discovery encompasses "any matter that is not privileged and that is relevant to the 

subject matter of the proceeding." A party may also discover "facts known, or opinions held, by 

an expert who any other party expects to call to testify at the hearing." 14 C.P.R. §13.220(e). 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.220(m), if a party is not satisfied with the discovery it receives, it has 

Page 3 of8 
an affirmative obligation to move to compel such discovery "as soon as possible" so that a ruling 

can be made. 14 C.P.R. §13.217(e). This affirmative obligation allows the parties to obtain relief 

and maintain compliance with the litigation schedule. 

In the case herein, it was undisputed that on June 27, 2013 the FAA servea upon the 

Respondent an Administrator's Notice of Compliance with FRCP 26 (FAA Response, Exh. 3). 

Among other things, this June 27, 2013 FAA Notice of Compliance asserted that the FAA had 

complied with Rule 26(a)(l)(A)(ii), by having previously provided to the Respondent, on or 

about June 22,2011, the "releasable portions" of the EIR. Thus, the FAA put the Respondent on 

notice that the FAA believed it had complied with all disclosures required by Rule 26(a). 

B. Respondent's Responsibility to Participate in the Discovery Process 

Pursuant to the June 3, 2013 Order and 14 C.P.R. §13.220(e), if the Respondent sought a 

complete and unredacted copy of the EIR, then upon receipt of the FAA's June 27, 2013 Notice 

of Compliance, the Respondent had an affirmative obligation to immediately notify the FAA that 

the Respondent did not agree with the FAA's Notice of Compliance. The Respondent had an 

affirmative obligation to contact the FAAand engage in a "good faith" discussion about any 

alleged "missing" EIR discovery (6/6/13 Order, paragraph D). In the alternative, the Respondent 

could have exercised all of its options to request the complete EIR under the general discovery 

phase of the parties' litigation plan ((6/6/13 Order, paragraph A (2)-(7)). 

In the case herein, the Respondent orally asserted, during the January 31, 2014 Motion 

Conference, that it had made a request to the FAA, by informal telephone call, for the unredacted 

EIR. The Respondent did not, however, have any record of such telephone communication (i.e., 

date and time, or scope of discussion). The FAA did not agree with the Respondent that such 

informal communication had occurred. 

Even assuming that such a telephone call had occurred, it was the Respondent's burden 

to seek further relief if the discovery dispute remained unresolved, either by filing a timely 

Motion to Compel the missing discovery (i.e., within 10 days of receipt of the FAA's alleged 

deficient Notice of Compliance with discovery), and/or by serving the FAA with a formal 

discovery request (e.g., Request for Production, etc) pursuant to the deadlines and guidelines 

contained in the June 6, 2013 Order. The Respondent did neither. 

C. Respondent's Argument Asserting the FAA's Obligations 

The Respondent asserts that the FAA had an affirmative obligation to assert and prove 

"privilege" before it could be allowed to produce only redacted portions of the EIR. The 

Respondent is only partially correct. Certainly, if the Respondent had engaged in the discovery 

process, and requested the unredacted EIR, the FAA could have responded by filing a formal 

objection, and then plead privilege or other defenses to the Respondent's EIR discovery request. 

14 C.P.R. §13.220(f), (g), and (h); See also, Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules 

Handbook, West Publishing (2012)(Rule 34)(A party served with a document request must serve 

a writte? response or move for a protective order). 

Page 4 of8 
However, the Respondent did not object to the FAA's Notice of Compliance, nor did the 

Respondent proactively seek discovery. As a result, the FAA was never called upon to produce 

discovery, nor put in a position in which it needed to raise an objection (on privilege or other 

grounds) to a request for the unredacted EIR. See, e.g., Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal 

Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing (2012)(Rule 34)(Common objections to document 

requests may include privilege, attorney work product, non-discoverable expert information, 

burdensome and oppressive, etc.). 

D. Respondent's Assertion of Discovery Participation 

The Respondent has presented little evidence that it acted reasonably in attempting to 

obtain a copy of the unredacted EIR pursuant to the litigation procedural schedule in the June 6, 

2013 Order, and/or that the Respondent's failure to conduct any timely discovery is excusable. 

During oral argument on January 31, 2014, the Respondent asserted that two letters it 

mailed to the FAA in June 2009, seeking a copy of the complete EIR pursuant to the Freedom of 

Information Act ("FOIA") should be deemed sufficient to show it acted affirmatively in this 

litigation to seek discovery of the EIR in this proceeding. The Respondent provided no authority 

for this assertion. Indeed, it is doubtful that any authority exists. The Respondent's June 2009 

requests were submitted to an FAA FOIA office in Washington, D.C., and an FAA employee in 

Florida approximately three (3) years and nine (9) months prior to the February 20, 2013 

Complaint being filed. It appears undisputed that neither of these 2009 letters were addressed or 

served upon the FAA's litigation attorney. See, Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules 

Handbook, West Publishing (2012)(Rule 34)(Document requests are limited to the parties in the 

action, and must be served on the parties' representatives). 

During the January 31,2014 Motion Conference, the Respondent orally conceded that it 

had not engaged in any follow-up with its FOIA requests since June 2009. While clearly these 

two letters show the Respondent's historic interest in the unredacted EIR, they failed to show 

participation in court-directed discovery with the FAA's chosen litigation representative from 

June 6, 2013 through August 26,2013. 

E. Parties' Mutual Obligation to Disclose 

Despite the prose Respondent's lack of discovery process in this case, the Respondent is 

correct in asserting that it has a limited right, even absent all discovery process, to be advised as 

to what the FAA's witnesses know, and to be advised as to what opinions or conclusions the 

FAA witnesses have reached based upon such knowledge. 

14 C.F .R. § 13 .220( e) provides in part: "a party may discover facts known, or opinions 

held, by an expert who any other party expects to call to testify at the hearing." · 

The June 6, 2013 Order (paragraph A (10)) provides that the parties must exchange a list 

of witnesses on or before February 7, 2014. This list of witnesses must include a short statement 

of the testimony expected from each witness, as well as the resume of each witness who will be 

offered as an expert. As noted by the administrative court during the January 31, 2014 Motion 

Conference, the summary of testimony for expert witnesses should be in compliance with Rule 

26(a)(2)(B) and (C). 

Page5of8 
F. FAA's Motion to Extend Deadline 

As noted earlier herein, on February 3, 2014, the FAA filed Complainant's Motion to 

Extend "List of Witnesses/Exchange of Exhibits" Deadline. In this Motion to Extend, the FAA 

sought to extend the deadline for witness/exhibit exchange from February 7, 2014 to February 

12, 2014. The FAA did not advise whether or not it had contacted the Respondent regarding this 

Motion, and whether the Respondent had any objection. 

As of the date of this Order, the Respondent has not submitted any objection to the 

FAA's Motion. 

G. Subpoenas for Witnesses 

During the January 31, 2014 Motion Conference, both parties briefly discussed their 

interest in obtaining subpoenas for certain witnesses. Although not mentioned during the Motion 

Conference, it should be pointed out that 14 C.F .R. § 13.227 limits and/or prohibits the ability of 

each party to subpoena the employees of the other. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. §13.205, 14 C.F.R. §13.217, 14 C.F.R. §13.218, 14 C.P.R. 

§13.220, and Rules 26-37, and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulation, statutory 

authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. On or before February 7, 2014, the Respondent shall perfect the record by filing and 

· serving copies of the two 2009 letters it emailed to the FAA and to the Office of Hearings 

attorney staff the morning of January 31, 2013 as part of an untimely supplement to its 

1/28/14 Response to the FAA's Motion in Limine. 

2. The FAA's Motion in Limine ("MIL") to deem admitted as fact the admissions offered 

by the prose Respondent in response to FAA discovery requests (identified in the FAA's 

MIL as Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5) is moot. These admissions, which are 

identical to the allegations in the FAA's February 20,2013 Complaint, paragraph 

numbers 2 and 3 (page 1 ), and paragraph numbers 5 and 6 (page 2), were previously 

confirmed and adopted as admitted facts in the January 9, 2014 Order. 

3. The FAA's MIL to deem admitted as fact the admissions offered by the prose 

Respondent in response to FAA discovery requests (identified in the FAA's MIL as 

Requests for Admission Nos. 12, 15, 16, and 17), are hereby confirmed and adopted. 

Because these matters are admitted as true, neither party needs to offer proof of these 

admitted facts during the March 2014 hearing. 

Page 6 of8 
4; The FAA's MIL to deem admitted as fact the contents of the June 5, 2009 written 

statement made Mr. Eric Price (FAA MIL, Exh. 2), on the grounds that the Respondent's 

discovery response to Interrogatory No.7 was an admission of the truth of the facts 

related in the statement is agreed to by the Respondent, and the motion is granted. 

5. The FAA's MIL to deem admitted as fact the contents of the June 8, 2009 written 

statement made Mr. Brandon Plas (FAA MIL, Exh. 1), on the grounds that the 

Respondent's discovery response to Interrogatory No.6 was an admission of the truth of 

the facts related in the statement, is agreed to by the Respondent, and the motion is 

granted. 

6. The FAA's MIL for a finding that the Respondent's combined admissions conclusively 

support allegation No.3 (page 1) in the FAA's February 20, 2013 Complaint is deemed 

moot. Allegation No.3 (page 1) in the FAA's February 20, 2013 Complaint was 

previously confirmed and adopted as admitted fact in the January 9, 2014 Order. 

7. The FAA's MIL for a finding that the Respondent's combined admissions conclusively 

support allegation No. 10 (page 2) in the FAA's February 20, 2013 Complaint is denied. 

8. The FAA's MIL to prohibit the prose Respondent from presenting affirmative defense 

evidence pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 5123(c) (2006) regarding its ability to pay the proposed 

fine, or its ability to continue to do business, is agreed to by the Respondent, and the 

motion is granted. 

9. The issue of whether the FAA will request that the administrative court consider and rule 

upon a payment plan schedule for any assessed civil penalty is hereby reserved. 

10. The Respondent's Motion to Compel disclosure ofthe full FAA Enforcement 

Investigative Report ("EIR") is denied, for failure of the Respondent to timely seek and 

request discovery and/or discovery relief during the court-ordered discovery phase of prehearing litigation. 

11. The Respondent's Motion to Compel disclosure, to the extent the Respondent seeks 

disclosure of the names of any FAA expert witnesses as well as any expert written reports 

(or summary of expert witness testimony), which are required to be exchanged by the 

parties without specific discovery request pursuant to the June 6, 2013 Order (paragraph 

A (1 0), and Rule 26(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) is granted. 

12. The FAA's Motion to Extend the deadline for the parties to exchange witness/exhibit 

information, from the deadline of February 7, 2014 to a new deadline of February 12, 

2014, is granted. 

Page 7 of8 
13. February 12,2014: New Deadline for Disclosure of Witness Names and Testimony: 

Both parties are hereby re-directed to comply with the June 6, 2013 Order (paragraph A 

(1 0)), and to disclose and serve upon each other the names of their witnesses, and a 

summary of the witnesses' testimony on or before the new deadline of February 12, 2014. 

This testimonial disclosure includes the expert's written report (or summary statement) as 

provided in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C)). 

14. For clarifications of this order or questions with regard to the procedures to be followed 

in this case, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor, at the Office of 

Hearings (202-366-6941 ). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page Sof8 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

Mr. William P. Vines 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ONE COPY 

Office of the Regional Counsel,Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Michael A. Honeycutt, President 

Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc., 

Respondent 

c/o JET I.C.U. 

2561 Rescue Way 

Brooksville, FL 34604 

TEL: 352-796-2540 

FAX: 352-796-2549 

mike@jeticu.com 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. F AA-2013-0045 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.