### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC 

# RE

InThe Matter Of: NORTHEASTERN AVIATION CORPORATION ) 

### ) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0812 ) ) 

### ) Case No. 2011EA110028 

## JUL 23 

## HEARING

Respondent ) Assigned: Judge I.E. 

### Sullivan RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO AGENCY'S MOTION TO COMPELMORE SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO REQUEST FORADMISSIONS 

### Respondent, by counsel, herewith responds to the Agency's Motion and states as follows: 1. The Agency served Request for Admissions pursuantto Rule 36 ostensibly seekingto obtain admissions that certain documents were "genuine." Responses to the requests
were timely servedby the Respondents. The Agency nowmoves to compel more specific responses. 2. Before filing the Motion, the Agency sent, presumably whatthey considered to be
a good faith letter, in an attemptto resolve a discovery dispute. The letterwas responded to with
an e-mail (ExhibitA) which attempted to engage the Agency counsel in a good faith dialogue to ascertain the nature ofthe Agency's issue withthe response. Apparently, the Agencyhadfiled its motionprior to receiving the e-mail response. The Agency's motionwas not received by the Respondent until after Exhibit A was sent. The scheduling order requires that a good faith effort, be made to resolve any discovery dispute. Apparently the Agency decided it would rather forego that process and file the motion. 3. The responses to the Request for Admissions are clear and complete. To the extent that the Agency does not understand a response, it should be required to meet and confer

### onthe issue. Iftheresponse is not complete or ambiguous to the Agency, then either a thoughtful resolution ofthe issues canbe obtained, or arequest for an amendedresponse. 4. Inthis case, the response to the request for admissions was properly served. Counsel for the Agency was advised as to reasons for the "denial" as part ofthe response. The Agency was advised that the denial only went to any use ofthe admission otherthan authentication, that is, there is no admission as to the truth ofthe matter asserted in the document requested to be genuine. The response was only made for the avoidance ofdoubt. 5. Atthisjuncture, the responses should be deemed adequate. Inthe alternative, the tribunal should directthe parties to properlymeet and confer. A simple meet and confer would likely solve the issues presented, byeither leading the Agencyto withdraw its motion, or allowing for clarity inthe response and further stipulation or amendment to take care ofany issues. 6. Respondent respectfully requests thatthe Motion be denied.

By: 

### Respectfully submitted,

Evelyn D. Sahr Eckert Seamans Cherin & 

### Mellott, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-659-6619 Facsimile: 202-659-6699 E-mail: elongosz@eckertsearnans.com

2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that on



## this2~day ofJuly, 2015, copies ofthe foregoing Response and Opposition to Agency's Motion to CompelMore Specific Responses to Request for Admissions was sent by e-mail and Federal Express as follows:

Federal AviationAdministration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430

Mr. ZacharyM. Berman Complainant's Counsel Office ofRegional Counsel, Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 Tel: 718-553-3273 Fax: 718-995-5699 Judge J.E. Sullivan US. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Tel: 202-366-6941 Fax: 202-366-7537

Edward J. Longosz, II

3Edward Longosz From: Sent: To: Cc: Edward Longosz Monday, July 13, 2015 6:05 PM zachary.berman@faa.gov Edward Longosz Subject: RE: Northeastern Aviation Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2014-0812, Case No. 2011EA110028
Dear Zack: I have been able to review your question and I am notsure the nature ofthe inquiry. The response is clear that ifyou asking aboutthe authenticity of a document, i.e. genuine copy ofthe original, then it is admitted as stated. Ifyou are suggesting anything else from the request, then any inferences or otherwise flowing from the request is denied. The responses are rather simple and ifyou have a question, please give acall and we can meet and confer on any requests orto make clear the nature ofthe response and resolve any ambiguity. Questions as to authenticity are often taken care ofto streamline the discovery and hearing process. These matters are often simply resolved by stipulation. I am out of town and traveling tomorrow and Wednesday, but in the office Thursday and Friday. Thanks. Best regards, Edward J. Longosz, II, Esquire ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. • 12'" Floor • Washington, DC 20006 Direct (202) 659-6619 

### I Fax (202) 659-6699 elongosz@eckertseamans.com
From: zachary.berman@faa.gov [mailto:zachary.berman@faa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 10:01 AM To: Edward Longosz Subject: RE: Northeastern Aviation Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2014-0812, Case No. 2011EA110028 Ok thanks From: Edward Longosz [mailto:ELongosz@eckertseamans.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:36 PM To: Berman, Zachary (FAA) Subject: RE: Northeastern Aviation Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2014-0812, Case No. 2011EA110028 Zack--1 am outfor the holiday and will revert backto you early next week. Thankyou. Regards, Edward J. Longosz, II, Esquire ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. • 12'" Floor • Washington, DC 20006 Direct (202) 659-6619 1 Fax (202) 659-6699 elongosz@eckertseamans.com From: zachary.berman@faa.gov <zachary.berman@faa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 4:00 PM

1 EXHIBITTo: Edward Longosz Subject: Northeastern Aviation Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2014-0812, Case No. 2011EA110028
See attached letter. From: AEA7Lexmark@faa.gov [mailto:AEA7Lexmark@faa.gov] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 4:03AM To: Berman, Zachary (FAA) Subject: Your Scanned Document

This e-mail message and any files transmittedwithit are subject to attorney-clientprivilege and contain confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whomthis email message is addressed. Ifyouhave receivedthis e-mail message inerror, please notify the senderimmediatelybytelephone or e-mail and destroy the original message withoutmaking a copy. Thankyou. Neitherthis informationblock, the typedname ofthe sender, nor anything else in this message is intendedto constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statementto the contrary is included inthis message.

2