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

ORDERDENYING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FORA PROTECTIVE ORDER AND GRANTING lT AN EXTENSION OF TIME Complainant FederalAviation Administration ("Complainant") has moved for a protective orderunder 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 oftime to respond to the Requests for Production until3o days following entryofan order on its motion. 

### See Motion for Protective Order and Extension ofTime to Respond ("Motion"), filed September20, 2012. Leading Edge opposes both Complainant's request for a protective order and its request for an extension oftime. 

### See Respondent's Response to the FAA's Motion for Protective Order and Extension ofTime 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 itis warrantedto protectthe party from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, orundueburden or expense." Complainantasserts that Respondent's Requests for Production impose upon it undue burdenand 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 pendingFreedom ofInformationAct ("FOIA") request to the agency; and 2) Thatportion ofRespondent's Requests for Production which seeks copies of"all communications with Leading Edge
..." asks for records which bytheir nature must alreadybe in Respon4ent's custody. In the alternative, the Motion asks for a protective order conditioning Complainant's obligation to producethe discovery sought on Respondent's withdrawal ofits FOIA request. Respondent's filing in opposition argues that the existence ofits pending FOIA request is irrelevant to the instantmatter. The discovery requests at issue, Respondent emphasizes, are for the legitimate purpose ofpreparingits case. Complainant, moreover, has failed to set out, beyond summary statements, why Leading Edge's requestswould cause Complainantundue 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 Complainanthas failed to meet its burdenunder §13.22o(h). Respondent also opposes Complainant's request for an extension oftime 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 separatefrom the instant matter. 1 Indeed, the FOIA matteris outside myjurisdiction- as Complainant acknowledges (see Motion, p. 3). 

### As such, I will not consider it. When the FOIA issue falls away, it is apparentthat Respondent's Requests for Production- includingits request for copies ofall communicationsbetween itselfand Complainant

- are entirely reasonable and designed to lead to the discovery ofrelevant evidence. I conclude that Complainant has failed to carry its burden ofshowingthat Leading Edge's requests place upon it an undue burden or cause undue expense.

·I also will grantthatportion ofComplainant's Motionwhich seeks an extension of time ofthirty days to respond to Respondent's Requests for Production. This request is reasonable andwill not prejudice Respondent. WHEREFORE, thewithin motions having been readand considered itis hereby ORDERED:
.

1 Respondent noted that when it inquired ofF AA counsel on August 21, 2012 aboutthe status ofits FOIA request, it was told to contact a different individual apparently unconnected with the instant matter. See Respondent's Exhibits 2 and 3 attachedto its response.3
1- Complainant's Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED; 2 .- Complainant's motion for an extension oftime of30 days from the entry ofthis order to respond to Respondent's Requests for Production is GRANTED; and 3- All other requests not specifically addressed are DENIED.

Attachment
- Service List

# t~C-~t& Richard C. Goodwin Administrative Law JudgeSERVICE LIST

. ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AOC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Fred C. Begy, III, 

### Respondent's Counsel Chuhak &Tecson, Attorneys at Law 30 SouthWackerDrive, 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 SouthWacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 TEL: 312-855-4617 FAX: 312-444-9027 ONE COPY

Jeffrey M. Harper, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-2161 FAX: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0783 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby 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.