f 

SERVED: OCTOBER 1, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

LEADING EDGE AVIATION, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

. (Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0783 

'/(117 fl"l' 2 1·'·· • i)l,,. .. . p f: 30 

ORDER DENYING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 

AND GRANTING lT AN EXTENSION OF TIME 

Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") has moved for a 

protective order under 14 C.F.R. §13.22o(h) denying the Requests for Production 

propounded by Respondent Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. ("Respondent" or "Leading 

Edge"). Complainant also asks for an extension of time to respond to the Requests for 

Production until3o days following entry of an order on its motion. See Motion for 

Protective Order and Extension of Time to Respond ("Motion"), filed September 20, 2012. 

Leading Edge opposes both Complainant's request for a protective order and its request 

for an extension of time. See Respondent's Response to the FAA's Motion for Protective 

Order and Extension of Time to Respond, filed September 21, 2012. 

Complainant's request for a protective order will be denied and the extension of 

time it seeks will be granted. 
2 

The party seeldng a protective order must demonstrate that it is warranted to 

protect the party from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 

expense." Complainant asserts that Respondent's Requests for Production impose upon it 

undue burden and expense. It makes two principal arguments in support: 

1) Leading Edge's discovery request is duplicative because it covers exactly the same 

material that Respondent seeks in a pending Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") 

request to the agency; and 2) That portion of Respondent's Requests for Production 

which seeks copies of"all communications with Leading Edge ... " asks for records which 

by their nature must already be in Respon4ent's custody. In the alternative, the Motion 

asks for a protective order conditioning Complainant's obligation to produce the 

discovery sought on Respondent's withdrawal of its FOIA request. 

Respondent's filing in opposition argues that the existence of its pending FOIA 

request is irrelevant to the instant matter. The discovery requests at issue, Respondent 

emphasizes, are for the legitimate purpose of preparing its case. Complainant, moreover, 

has failed to set out, beyond summary statements, why Leading Edge's requests would 

cause Complainant undue burden or expense. Asking for "all communications" with itself 

is a appropriate request because it could, Respondent argues, uncover documents Leading 

Edge.never received. Respondent concludes that Complainant has failed to meet its 

burden under §13.22o(h). Respondent also opposes Complainant's request for an 

extension of time to respond to its Requests for Production and asks that Complainant be 

compelled to submit a response by October 9, 2012, as Complainant in earlier 

correspondence had agreed to do. 

I agree that Respondent's FOIA request is entirely separate from the instant 

matter.1 Indeed, the FOIA matter is outside my jurisdiction- as Complainant 

acknowledges (see Motion, p. 3). As such, I will not consider it. When the FOIA issue 

falls away, it is apparent that Respondent's Requests for Production- including its 

request for copies of all communications between itself and Complainant - are entirely 

reasonable and designed to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. I conclude that 

Complainant has failed to carry its burden of showing that Leading Edge's requests place 

upon it an undue burden or cause undue expense. 

· I also will grant that portion of Complainant's Motion which seeks an extension of 

time of thirty days to respond to Respondent's Requests for Production. This request is 

reasonable and will not prejudice Respondent. 

WHEREFORE, the within motions having been read and considered it is hereby 

ORDERED: . 

1 Respondent noted that when it inquired ofF AA counsel on August 21, 2012 about the status of its FOIA request, it 

was told to contact a different individual apparently unconnected with the instant matter. See Respondent's Exhibits 

2 and 3 attached to its response. 
3 

1-Complainant's Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED; 

2 .- Complainant's motion for an extension of time of 30 days from the entry of this order 

to respond to Respondent's Requests for Production is GRANTED; and 

3- All other requests not specifically addressed are DENIED. 

Attachment - Service List 

Richard 

t~C-~t& C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST 

. ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AOC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Fred C. Begy, III, Respondent's Counsel 

Chuhak &Tecson, Attorneys at Law 

30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60606 

TEL: 312-855-5442 

FAX: 312-368-9422 

Carri A. Conlon, Respondent's Counsel 

Chuhak &Tecson, Attorneys at Law 

30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60606 

TEL: 312-855-4617 

FAX: 312-444-9027 

ONE COPY 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 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: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0783 

(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.