In The Matter Of: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

Respondent. 

DEC 0 1 

FAA Case No. 2012S0090053 

REQUEST TO SET MOTION RESPONSE DEADLINE 

On November 17, 2015, Respondent mailed to the Judge and hearing docket a Motion for 

Sanctions against the FAA. That motion relates to communications between a third-party witness 

and FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) Yancey Rushton. Due to issues with Inspector 

Rushton's and the undersigned's availability, quickly responding to that motion is problematic. 

Ordinarily, this request would be filed as a motion to extend the response deadline. However, 

since Respondent has not properly served the FAA with its Motion, it is unclear that a response 

deadline exists. Accordingly, the FAA requests that the Judge set a response deadline of 

December 14, 2015. 

The rules of practice for these proceedings provide for service by personal delivery or 

mail. 14 C.P.R. § 13.211(b). The date of service is the date of personal delivery or the mailing 

date. 14 C.P.R. § 13.2ll(d). Five days are added to any response deadline when service is by 

mail, rather than personal delivery. 14 C.P.R. § 13.211(e). The default response deadline for a 

motion is 10 days. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(d). If the FAA had been served via personal delivery, the 

deadline to respond would have been November 27, 2015. If the FAA had been served by mail, 

the response deadline would have been December 2, 2015. 

1 
Respondent's Motion concerns e-mails communications between Dr. Alan Long, a thirdparty witness, and Inspector Rushton. See generally Respondent's Motion for Sanctions. In 

particular, Respondent's motion accuses the FAA of having possession of these e-mails, but not 

disclosing them. See id This accusation is false and Respondent's motion appears to be based on 

supposition rather than evidence, but properly responding to it will require evidence, including a 

declaration from Inspector Rushton and possibly other FAA personnel. Due to Inspector 

Rushton's pre-existing travel schedule, a brisk response to the motion will be difficult, if not 

impossible, and the undersigned's upcoming emergency hearing schedule adds further difficulty. 

In particular, the undersigned received Respondent's motion via e-mail on November 18, 

2015 1 Inspector Rushton is currently stationed at the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) in 

Denver, Colorado. However, during the week of November 16, 2015, Inspector Rushton was in 

the field performing inspections in Wyoming. This week, the week of November 23, 2015, 

Inspector Rushton is in Dallas, Texas, for three days of training, and the latter half of this week 

contains the Thanksgiving holiday. For practical purposes, the undersigned will not have a 

meaningful opportunity to review the situation with Inspector Rushton and prepare a declaration 

until the week of November 30, 2015. On November 20, 2015, the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) issued a notice for an emergency hearing, to be held in Miami, Florida, 

from December 7-10, 2015. Accordingly, the undersigned anticipates that his availability to 

work on this matter will be extremely limited during the weeks of November 30 and December 

7, 2015. 

Had Respondent's motion been properly served on the FAA, the above-described 

circumstances would constitute a basis to extend the response deadline, and the FAA would 

1 Respondent's e-mail was on November 17, 2015, but it was after close of business and after the undersigned had 

left the office. 

2 
move the court to extend the response deadline to December 14, 2015. This would be sufficient 

time for the undersigned to review the situation with Inspector Rushton after he is available and 

have a declaration prepared. Here, however, the Respondent did not properly serve the FAA with 

the motion - e-mail is not a proper method of service and there is no 'date of service' from 

which to count a response period. The FAA does not wish to simply ignore the improperly 

served motion, however. Accordingly, the FAA requests that the court set December 14, 2015, as 

the FAA's response deadline for Respondent's motion. 

'l :y-" Respectfully submitted this_t.-_ day of November, 2015. 

Attorney 

~~ON Office of the Chief Counsel, Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

3 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Request to Set Motion Response Deadline was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

one copy via Federal Express to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Paul R. Borth, Esq. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

facsimile: (815) 356-7042 

dtMA~Mr KIMBERLY HOBBS 

Management and Program Analyst 

NOV 2 3 2015J 

Dated 

4