U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of Hearings 

Washington, D. C. 

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2012-0477 

(EIR 2011-GL-03-0070) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

RECEIVED 

NOV 0 6 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

Hon. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

Respondent, The Liberty Foundation, Inc. (Liberty), by and through its 

undersigned attorney, respectfully moves the Court for the entry of an order compelling 

Complainant to properly and completely respond to Liberty's Interrogatories and 

Requests For Production related to Complainant's Amendment To Complaint. In 

support of its Motion, Respondent shows: 

1. Pursuant to the Court's Order served August 27, 2013 ("Order"), 

Respondent propounded Interrogatories and Requests For Production limited to the 

issues raised by Complainant in its Amendment To Complaint. Attached hereto as 

Composite Exhibit A and made a part hereof are Respondent's Interrogatories and 

Requests For Production limited to the issues raised in Complainant's Amendment To 

Complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof is Complainant's 

"Response To Limited Discovery Requests." 

2. Complainant waived its right to object to Respondent's Limited 

Interrogatories and Requests For Production by failing to timely respond/object. 

STUART A GOLDSTEIN, P. A 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380, Miami,FL 33156 

T: (305) 670-1222 F: (305) 400-0685 EMAIL: STUARTGOI OSTEINPA®AHNET 
2 

Paragraph 6 of the Order clearly requires "any objection(s) or motions regarding 

additional discovery shall be filed within ten (10) days after receipt (Emphasis in the 

original). Complainant received Respondent's limited discovery requests on September 

11, 2013, as seen on the attached proofs of service (Exhibit C). Although the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and the case law interpreting them are not binding in these 

proceedings, they are considered instructive. There is a plethora of federal case law 

holding a failure to timely respond/object to discovery waives the right to object, absent 

compelling circumstances. A party that does not assert an objection to discovery within 

the time permitted by rule, stipulation, or court order waives objections and is precluded 

from asserting objections in response to a motion to compel. Siddiq v. Saudi Arabian 

Airlines Corp., 2011 WL 6936485 (M.D. Fla. 2011); Brenford Environmental Systems, 

L.P. v. Pipeliners of Puerto Rico, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 143 (D. P.R. 2010); Applied Systems, 

Inc. v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York, 1997 WL 639235 (N.D. IL 1997); Morock v. 

Chautauqua Airlines, Inc., 2007 WL 4247767 (M.D. Fla. 2007); First Nat'/ Bank v. Civic 

Partners Sioux City, LLC, 2011 WL 6013847 (N.D. lA Bankr'y) ("A failure to file a timely 

objection to interrogatories constitutes a waiver of any objection unless good cause is 

shown," citing Byrd v. Reno, 1998 WL 429676 (D.D.C.); "It is well established that a 

failure to object to a discovery request within the time required constitutes waiver of any 

objection" (Richmark Corp. v. Timer Falling Consultants, 959 F2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992). 

3. As Respondent noted in its Motion To Stay Or Revise Scheduling Order, 

etc., dated August 6, 2013, the Amendment adds or changes five paragraphs of the 

original Complaint (paragraphs 7(a), 16(a), 5(a), 5(b), and 18), and adds five new 

purported violations of the FARs (14 C.F.R. 43.5(a), 43.9(a), 43.9(d), 43.13(a), and 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite sao, Mlami,FL 33156 

T: (305) 670-1222 F: (305) 400-0685 EMAIL: STIJARTGOLQSIEINPA@ATTNET 
3 

43.13(b)). In addition to asserting the Foundation is legally responsible for the acts of 

Mr. Schneider, the FAA also asserts the aircraft was "unsafe for flight". This is a new 

allegation, not appearing in the original Complaint. It appears (although one cannot be 

certain from the FAA's response to Respondent's limited discovery requests), the FAA 

will rely on the purported expert testimony of Timothy Bourgoine on this issue. Despite 

the FAA's claim that it previously disclosed all Respondent needs to know on this fact 

issue, Mr. Bourgoine has not previously addressed this issue - either in his deposition, 

in his affidavit in support of FAA's motion for summary judgment, or in the FAA's 

description of his testimony. Attached hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof, is 

the FAA's description of Mr. Bourgoine's expected testimony. None of it refers to the 

FAA's new charge the aircraft was "unsafe for flight." 

4. Respondent has an absolute right to know which of FAA's witness(es) will 

testify on this issue. Respondent cannot be required to presume or guess which 

witness(es) FAA will call. Respondent also has an absolute right to know which 

document(s), if any, this witness(es) will refer to in support of the testimony. FAA's 

response that it has already produced documents related to this issue is not useful nor 

is the reference to its summary judgment motion. 

5. FAA's objections/responses to Interrogatories 1-5 that "these witnesses 

have previously been identified" is only a partial answer to the Interrogatories. As seen 

from the attachments, the Interrogatories go beyond asking for the mere identification of 

the witnesses. FAA has neither objected to nor responded to the remaining parts of 

these Interrogatories. 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive. Suite 380. Miami,FL 33156 

T (305) 670-1222 F: (305) 400·0685 EMAIL: STlJARTGO! pSTEINPA®ATI NET 
4 

6. Respondent's undersigned counsel made a good faith effort to 

communicate with FAA counsel to discuss the issues in this Motion, but was rebuffed by 

FAA counsel. A copy of the relevant emails between counsel are attached hereto as 

Exhibit E and made a part hereof. 

Respectfully submitted, 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305) 670-1222 

Fax: (305) 670-7065 

Email: stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net 

l ' r '! ' ~~' / f/ 1 I' L~""' By: , ~·tuJ \ft ({ "-'#i.t:J!f[}:---"' 

Stuart A. Goldstein 

Attorney for Respondent 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been served on this 3 I {day of 

October, 2013, as set forth below: 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

By Facsimile (404) 305-5223 

and regular U. S. Mail 

and that an original and one copy was served upon: 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, D. C. 20591 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380, Mlami,FL 33156 

T: (305) 670·1222 F: (305) 400-0685 EMAIL: SIUAR_[_GOLDSTEINPA®ATT NET 
and that a copy was served upon: 

Honorable J. E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S. E. (E11-310) 

Washington, D. C. 20590 

By Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

and regular U. S. Mail 

j ~ !',i·:l_ tl- /! 

By:~f,irJC[]j3} t[ \i!JJWt~ Stuart A. Goldstein 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380, Miami,FL 33156 

T: {305) 670-1222 F: (305) 400-0685 EMAIL: .S.Li.!ABI..GQJ • .Q$TE!NPA (iliATTNET 

5 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of Hearings 

Washington, D. C. 

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2012-0477 

(EIR 2011-GL-03-0070) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Hen. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

RESPONDENTS INTERROGATORIES BELATED TO 

FAA'S AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 

The following interrogatories are related to the Complainant's Amendment To 

Complaint dated July 31, 2013. 

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINmONS 

The words "document" and "exhibit" mean every manner of document in 

whatever media including, but not limited to, electronically stored documents, and 

includes without limitation, all tangible items and papers, whether printed, recorded, 

visually reproduced, or reproduced by an other mechanical process, written or produced 

by hand, or maintained as part of any electronic or computer database, including: 

affidavits, agreements, bills, cartoons, checks, communications, contracts and other 

official documents, correspondence, emails, drawings, files, invoices, photographs, 

receipts, sketches, test results, published materials of any kind, telegrams, ledgers, 

memoranda, orders, audio or video recordings, statements, notes, summaries or 

records of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal conversations or 

STUART A GOLDSTEIN, P A 

7300 North Kendall Orrve. Suite 380, Miam1. FL 33156 - --- --- - .AA .. , ........ ""'"' CTI <81:1Tt::f"'o nC::TI"INPAiii-ATT \lET A 
2 

interviews, diaries, calendars, reports, notebooks, charts, graphs, summaries or records 

of meetings or conferences, summaries or reports of investigations or negotiations, 

drafts, letters, any marginal comments or notes appearing on any documents an any 

and all other writings and data compilations. 

The words "identify" and "identity" when related to a person mean to list the 

person's name, address, telephone number, employer, and position of employment 

When related to a document or exhibit, they mean to describe the document with 

sufficient specificity and the applicable page(s) thereof. 

To the extent a claim of privilege is made, please identify the privilege and the 

specific reasons you believe it applies. 

INTERROGATORIES 

1. With regard to new paragraph 7(b), which alleges: "The aluminum fuel tanks 

fabricated and installed in N390TH In February, 2011 by Mr. Schneider rendered the 

aircraft unsafe for flight and unalrworthy": 

A. Identify which witness(es) will testify as to this allegation. 

B. As to each witness identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 A, state whether 

such witness will testify as a fact witness, an expert witness, or both. 

C. As to each witness identified as an expert witness, in whole or in part, 

provide the Information required by Rules 26(a)(1 ), 26(a)(2)(A), and 26(a)(2)B) 

(including all of its subparts), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

D. As to each witness identified as a fact witness, in whole or in part, specify 

in detail the expected testimony of such witness in support of the allegations of new 

paragraph 7(b). 

STU ... RT A. GOLDSTEIN, P_ A 

.. .,....., """"" 1(-.vi"'M nn- Sude380. Mianu,FL 33156 
3 

E. As to each witness identified in answer to Interrogatory 1 A, identify 

precisely which exhibit(s) that witness referred to or relied upon as a basis for his/her 

expected testimony. 

2. With regard to new paragraph 16(a), which alleges: "Mr. Schneider did not make 

a maintenance record entry concerning the June 13, 2011, maintenance before 

returning the aircraft to service": 

A. Identify which witness(es) will testify as to this allegation. 

B. As to each witness identified in answer to Interrogatory 2A, state whether 

such witness will testify as a fact witness, an expert witness, or both. 

C. As to each witness identified as an expert witness, in whole or in part, 

provide the information required by Rule 26(a)(1), 26(a)(2)(A), and 26(a)(2)8) (including 

all of its subparts), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

D. As to each witness identified as a fact witness, in whole or in part, specify 

in detail the expected testimony of such witness in support of the allegations of new 

paragraph 1B(a). 

E. As to each witness identified In answer to Interrogatory 2A, identify 

precisely which exhiblt(s) that witness referred to or relied upon in his/her expected 

testimony. 

3. With regard to new paragraph S(a), which alleges: "When Mr. Schneider replaced 

the bladder fuel tanks with the fabricated aluminum tanks, he failed to use the methods, 

techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual 

or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by Its manufacturer, or other 

methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator": 

STUART A GOLDSTEIN. P_ A 

7300 North Kendall Ori11e, Surte 380. Miaml,FL 33156 -··- -~-· ·-~-,...,.,.,..,, • ., <'ToJAJ::oTr.:f'l•ri<::T~INPA@AlTNFT 
4 

A. Identify which witness(es) will testify as to this allegation. 

B. As to each witness identified in answer to Interrogatory 3A, state whether 

such witness will testify as a fact witness, an expert witness, or both. 

C. As to each witness identified as an expert witness, in whole or in part, 

provide the information required by Rule 26(a)(1), 26(a)(2)(A}, and 26(a)(2)B} (including 

all of its subparts), Fed. A. Civ. P. 

D. As to each witness identified as a fact witness, in whole or in part, specify 

in detail the expected testimony of such witness in support of the allegations of new 

paragraph S(a). 

E. As to each witness identified in answer to Interrogatory 3A, identify 

precisely which exhibit(s} that witness referred to or relied upon in his/her expected 

testimony. 

4. With regard to new paragraph 5(b), which alleges: "When Mr. Schneider replaced 

the bladder fuel tanks with the fabricated aluminum tanks, he failed to do the work in 

such a manner and use the materials of such a quality that the condition of the aircraft 

was restored to its original or properly altered condition"; 

A. Identify which witness( es) will testify as to this allegation. 

B. As to each witness identified In answer to Interrogatory 4A, state whether 

such witness will testify as a fact witness, an expert witness, or both. 

C. As to each witness identified as an expert witness, in whole or in part, 

provide the information required by Rules 26(a)(1 }, 26(a)(2)(A), and 26(a)(2)B) 

(Including all of its subparts), Fed. A. Civ. P. 

STUART A GOLDSTEIN. P A 

7300 North KendaU Onve. Surte 380. t.41an\l,FL 33156 
5 

D. As to each witness identified as a fact witness, in whole or in part, specify 

in detail the expected testimony of such witness in support of the allegations of new 

paragraph S(b). 

E. As to each witness identified in answer to Interrogatory 4A, identify 

precisely which exhibits that witness referred to or relied upon in his/her expected 

testimony. 

5. With regard to new paragraph 18, which alleges: "On January 31, 2012, a finding 

of violation of sections 43.9(a), 43.9(d), 43.13(a}, 43.13(b) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations was entered against Mr. Schneider arising out of the above-described 

circumstances. In addition to being directly liable for violations of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations enumerated below, The Liberty Foundation is vicariously liable for the 

violations of Mr. Schneider, it's [sic] Director of Maintenance, which are detailed in the 

January 31, 2012, Order of Suspension, a copy of which is attached and incorporated 

by reference": 

A. Identify which witness(es} will testify as to this allegation. 

B. As to each witness Identified In answer to Interrogatory SA, state whether 

such witness will testify as a fact witness, an expert witness, or both. 

c. As to each witness identified as an expert witness. in whole or in part, 

provide the information required by Rules 26(a}(1}, 26(a)(2)(A), and 26(a}(2)B) 

(Including all of its subparts), Fed. K Clv. P. 

D. As to each witness identified as a fact witness, in whole or in part, specify 

in detail the expected testimony of such witness In support of the allegations of new 

paragraph 18. 

STU ... RT A GOLDSTEIN. P A 
6 

E. As to each witness identified in answer to Interrogatory 5A, identify 

precisely which exhibits that witness referred to or relied upon in his/her expected 

testimony. 

6. With regard to the allegation that Respondent violated 14 CFR 43.13(a), state 

with specificity the "methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current 

manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness" that 

Respondent did not follow or adhere to for the work performed in February, 2011. The 

answer to this Interrogatory should include the identity of all documents upon which the 

answer is based. 

7. With regard to the allegation that Respondent violated 14 CFR 43.13{a), state 

with specificity the "methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current 

manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness" that 

Respondent did not follow or adhere to for the work performed in June, 2011. The 

answer to this Interrogatory should include the identity of all documents upon which the 

answer is based. 

8. With regard to the allegation that Respondent violated 14 CFR 43.13(a), state 

with specificity what tools, equipment, and test apparatus Respondent did not use but 

should have used in connection with the work performed in February, 2011. The answer 

to this Interrogatory should include the identity of all documents upon which the answer 

is based. 

9. With regard to the allegation that Respondent violated 14 CFR 43.13(a), state 

with specificity what tools, equipment, and test apparatus Respondent did not use but 

STUART A GOLDSTEIN, P A. 

7300 North Kendall Dnve. Surte380. Miarru,Fl 33156 

- ~--- --- --- ... ,..,....,, '"" """''"" &:;U.&II l:.TitAATGOLDSTElNPA®ATI NfT 
7 

should have used in connection with the work performed in June, 2011. The answer to 

this Interrogatory should the identity of all documents upon which the answer is based. 

10. With regard to the allegation that Respondent violated 14 CFR 43.13(b), state 

with specificity the fact bases for the allegation that N390TH was not in a condition at 

least equal to its original or properly altered condition with regard to aerodynamic 

function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and/or other 

qualities affecting airworthiness, after the work performed in February, 2011. The 

answer to this Interrogatory should include the identity all documents upon which the 

answer is based. 

11. With regard to the allegation that Respondent violated 14 CFR 43.13(b), state 

with specificity the fact bases for the allegation that N390TH was not In a condition at 

least equal to its original or properly altered condition with regard to aerodynamic 

function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and/or other 

qualities affecting airworthiness, after the work performed in June, 2011. The answer to 

this Interrogatory should include the identity all documents upon which the answer is 

based. 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN. P A 

7300 Nann Kendall Onve. Suite 380_ Miam1.FL 33156 ---- --- ·--- ~ -M' '""""'-"" o::u•" <::T:,4~:~Tr.nl n.<HFLNPA-..'i;;ATTNET 
8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been served on this I iJh day of 

September, 2013, as set forth below: 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

By Facsimile (404) 305-5223 

and regular U.S. Mail 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305) 670-1222 

Fax: (305) 400-0685 

Email: stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net 

By:~&,_ Jhitt;= 

Stuart A. Goldstein 

Attorney For Respondent 

STUART A GOLDSTEIN. P. A 

7300 North l<endall Onve. Surte 380. M1am1.FL 33158 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of Hearings 

Washington, D. C. 

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2012-0477 

(EIR 2011-GL-03-0070) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Hon. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

RESPONOENT'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION BELATED TO 

FAA'S AMENOMENT TO COMPLAINT 

INSTRUCTIONS ANP DEFINITIONS 

The words "document" and "exhibit" mean every manner of document in 

whatever media Including, but not limited to, electronically stored documents, and 

Includes without limitation, all tangible items and papers, whether printed, recorded, 

visually reproduced, or reproduced by an other mechanical process, written or produced 

by hand, or maintained as part of any electronic or computer database. Including: 

affidavits, agreements, bills, cartoons, checks, communications, contracts and other 

official documents, correspondence, emails, drawings, files. Invoices. photographs, 

receipts, sketches, test results, published materials of any kind, telegrams, ledgers, 

memoranda, orders, audio or video recordings, statements, notes, summaries or 

records of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal conversations or 

interviews, diaries, calendars, reports, notebooks, charts, graphs, summaries or records 

of meetings or conferences, summaries or reports of investigations or negotiations, 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN. P. A. 

7300 North Kendall Otlve, Sulle 380 Miami, FL 33156 

T (305) 670.1222 F (305) 400-0685 STl!AATGQ! OSIEINPAIWAIT NET 
2 

drafts, letters, any marginal comments or notes appearing on any documents an any 

and all other writings and data compilations. 

The documents produced in response to this Request For Production should be 

labeled or tagged so that Respondent's attorney will know to which Request the 

produced documents relate. 

To the extent a claim of privilege is made, please identify the privilege and the 

specific reasons you believe it applies. 

POCUMENTS TO BE PBOPUCEP 

1. Unless previously provided, produce a copy of each document or exhibit referred 

to in your answers to Respondent's Interrogatories Related To FAA's Amendment To 

Complaint. 

2. Unless included In your response to Document Request No. 1, produce a copy of 

all documents or exhibits which the FAA will utilize to attempt to prove Respondent is 

vicariously responsible for the conduct and/or knowledge ot Rodney Schneider. 

3. Produce all documents recovered by FAA or NTSB from N390TH that have not 

been prevlowsly produced that support or relate to the charges in the Amendment To 

Complaint. 

STUART A GOLDSTEIN, P A 

7300 Nontl K6"1dall Drive, S~.ule380, Mlaml. FL 33156 T (305) 670.1222 F 1305) -400-0685 ST! IABIGOLpSIEINfAf$'ATT Nf! 
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been served on this ~day of 

September, 2013, as set forth below: 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

By Facsimile (404) 305-5223 

and regular U. S. Mail 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305) 670-1222 

Fax: (305) 400-0685 

Email: styartgoldsteinpa@att net 

( 

By: A ~a_ .Jkl.d· '. 

Stuart A. Goldstein 

Attorney For Respondent 

S'TuART A GOlDSTEIN, p_ A 

7300 North Kendall Dnve, Suite 380, Mlam1, Fl 33156 

T· {305) 670.1222 F (305]400·0685 SlUABlliQlQSJEi!NPMkATI N8 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

o~©~DWIE 

w OCT 2"2 2013 

By 

vs. 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 

FAA Case No. 2011GL030070 

LIDERTY FOUNDATION, 

Respondent. Judge Sullivan 

FAA'S RE8PONSE TO LIMITED DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

Requests for Production 

1. No documents were referred to. 

2-3. Objection. As noted in the Judge's Order authorizing additional discovery, the FAA has 

already produced all documents sought by these discovery requests, and this discovery request is 

unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks reproduction of such documents, which have 

previously been identified aod provided during the first round of discovery, in the Amendment to 

the Complaint, in the FAA's response to the motion seeking reopening of discovery, and in the 

FAA's summary judgment motion. 

Interrogatories 

l•!i. Objection. As noted in the Judge's Order authorizing additioillll discovery, the FAA has 

already ide.ut.ifio;d all witnesses sought by these discovery requests, and this discovery request is 

unduly bmdo;;mome to the e110tent that it seeks repetitive identification of these wiU1o;aao;a, who 

have ~lously been identified during the first round of discovery, in the Amendment to the 

Complaint, in the FAA's response to the motion seeking reopening of discovery, and in the 

FAA's summary judgment motion. 

6. As already admitted hy the Respondent's and its then-Director of Maintenance during 

this litigation, there are no such m~:thods, teclmiques, and practices with which the Respondent 

could have followed. 

7. As already admitted by the Respond~nt and it's then-Director of Maintenance testified in 

his deposition, there are no such methods, techniques, and practices with which the Respondent 

could have followed. 
8-9. Objection. The Amended Complaint made no factual allegation concerning these topics. 

Accordingly, these intell'Ogatories are beyond the scope of discovery for this limited discovery 

period. 

10-11. As explained in the FAA's summary judgment motion and attachments, the use of 

heavily welded aluminum shells as fuel tanks made the aircraft vulnerable to vibrational and 

flight stresses in ways that an original or properly altered fuel tank would not have been, as 

emphasized by the brisk failure of the welding in one of the fuel tanks. 

Submitted this ~y of October, 2013. 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

CERJIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing FAA's Response to Limited Discovery was sent: 

one copy via certified mail to: 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P .A. 

7300 North Kendall Dr., Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Facsimile: (305) 670-7065 

~as Program Analyst 

Office of the Rt~gional Counsel 

OC! ~ I ~- . 

Dated 
Print 

Subject: Successful transmission to 14043055223. Re: UNKNOWN 

From: NoReply@MyFax.com (NoReply@MyFax.com) 

To: stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net: 

Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:03 PM 

Dear Stuart A. Goldstein, 

Re: UNKNOWN 

The 12 page fax you sent through MyFax.com to 14043055223 was 

successfully transmitted at 2013-09-11 20:03:08 (GMT). 

The length of transmission was 498 seconds 

The receiving machine's fax ID: 4043055223 

If you need assistance, please visit our online help center at 

http:;;www.myfax.com/support/. Thank you for using the MyFax 

service. 

myFax.com 

about: blank 

On-Demand 

Scalability 

Flexibility & 

Efficiency 

9/11/13 4:l 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

lm_plement 

Easily 

. TRY OUR CLOUD SERVICES 

·FREE! 

Leam More» 

·[2) I 
:+ vttn\11}' t ~ \2t I Q~( Ia ~ftJ #11\J 0 Q,~ 1~ ,,1--/-

·---.----------------------.---~~--·~~--·------- STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P.A. 

"300 NORTH KE"D"U. DRlVF. S\'ITE 3RO 

\1fAMI. flORIDA" 156 

( 

.1,111111 h 111•1•1•111'1 ··~1·11h·lllnrll•ll'l''lll'llll'll•ln 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq 

Federal Aviation Administration 

PO Box 20636 

Atlanta GA 30320-0636 

I~ II $0.86!1.:;: USPOSTAGE li! 

FIRST .CLASS " ~ FROM :>3156 • ~ 

09111/2013 i 

..... ~~ ~ 
• 

O't ( L:t4 fq.'::li:i 

t-AA GLRC 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of Hearings 

Washington, D. C. 

The Uberty Foundation, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET NO. FAA-2012-0477 

(EIR 2011-Gl-03-0070) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Hon. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

COMPLAINANT'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE 

TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES 

REGARDING EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE 

The Complainant provides his second SUI"PLEMENTAL respol'lse to the Respondent's 

first set of interrogatories, disclosing information about the Complainant's potential expert 

witness: Mr. Timothy Bourgoine. Mr. Bourgoine has been previously identified as a potential 

witness on or about October 18,2012. Now, based on further consideration of his experience 

and credentials, the Complainant has decided that Mr. Bourgoine may also be caHed as an 

expert witness. 

Mr. Bourgoine's contact information has been already disclosed on or about October 18, 

2012. However, per Rule 26, here is additional information regarding this witness. 

(i) A complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and 

reasons for them: 

Mr. Bourgoine is an aviation mechanic who had worked and done aircraft maintenance 

for the Respondent. He is intimately familiar with the aircraft in question, including its fuel 

system. As an expert witness, he is expected to testify about the fuel system in the aircraft in 

question, and opine whether or not the maintenance performed on the fuel shells in this aircraft 

(described in the Complaint) was a major alteration of a fuel system, and if so, why. He wlll 

opine that the tanks in the aircraft identified in the Complaint were not repaired but rather 

fabricated from the shells based on the welding of patches and drains to the protective fuel tank 

shells. He will also opine as to the quality of the fabricated tank in relation to an actual tank that 

is suitable for installation in this aircraft. Further, he will explain what constitutes a major 

alteration of the fuel system, and how the process of conducting a major alteration should be 

followed and documented. He will also opine about the airworthiness issues regarding the 

subject aircraft following the installation of the "fabricated" tanks. All the opinions expressed will 

relate to the fuel tanks, and the fuel shells in the subject aircraft, the issue of a major alteration 

of the fuel system in the aircraft, as well as the airworthiness (or a lack thereof) of the subject 

airplane after the "fabricated" fuel tanks had been installed. This is an expected but not an 

exhaustive list of opinions provided by this witness. The full extent ofhis testimony is not yet 

D 
FAA GLRC 

known. When such information becomes available. it will be shared with the Respondent, as 

required and appropriate. 

(il) The facts or data considered by the witness in forming them; 

The facts and data considered by this witness in forming his opinions are already part of the EIR 

and/or other documents. which have been released to the Respondent. The bases and 

reasons for such opinions are the Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR). the relevant FARs 

and Boeing Service Manual excerpts, as well as the witness's education and experience of 

many years in aircraft maintenance. This witness also has personal knowledge about what 

maintenance was performed on this aircraft, when and why. 

(iii) Any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them: 

The documents supporting this witness's testimony, which are currently in the 

Complainant's possession, are part of the releasable portion of the EIR or some other 

documentations that have been already shared wtth the Respondent. These Include 

photographs of the tanks and shells. as well as the fabrication of shells into tanks, the 

photographs of the repair to the #1 main fuel tank, and the PR-2001 Sealant Technical Data 

sheet. The Administrator reserves the rights to disclose the full list of trial exhibits at the later 

date prior to the hearing, after such list has been finalized. If there are any other exhibits used 

by this witness to summarize or support his testimony, these will be shared with the Respondent 

as soon as they become available to the Complainant, at a reasonable date prior to the hearing. 

(iv) The witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the 

previous 1 0 years 

The witness is an Airframe & Powerplant mechanic and a holder of the Inspection 

Authorization. He is intimately familiar with the aircraft in question. He had maintained that 

aircraft for about 4 years before leaving Uberty Foundation Inc. Prior to becoming an aviation 

mechanic, Mr. Bourgeoine worked as a poHce off1cer for 25 years. He also holds a pilot 

certification. The witness has not authored any publications in the previous 10 years. 

(v) A list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as 

an expert at trial or by deposition 

This witness has not testified as an expert at trial or by deposition in any other case in the 

previous 4 years. 

(vi) A statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case. 

At this point, no statement of compensation between the Complainant and this witness 

has been compiled or agreed to. The Administrator expects to pay the witness's travel and hotel 

costs, and cover his per cliem expenses. The estimated cost of those expenses has been 

provided along with the Complainant's cost analysis provided for the purposes of the arguments 

on venue. These costs are mere estimates and are subject to change. When and if a more 

concrete statement of compensation becomes available, it will be shared with the Respondents 

when available and as appropriate. ' 
o41L::J414":::10 1-AA l:iU~C 

RESPONDENT'S INTER!!OGATORIES 

3. As to each person identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 2, state whether the person is 

expected to testify as an expert witness, a fact witness, or both. 

ANSWER: As indicated above, Mr. Timothy Bourgoine may be called as both fact and 

expert witness. 

4. A! to each person designated at least in part as an expert witness, provide: 

(i} a complete statement of all opinions each such witness will express and the complete bases 

and reasons for such opinions. 

ANSWER: Answered above, under Rule 26 disclosure. 

(ii) The data and information considered by each such witness in forming his/her opinions 

ANSWER: Answered above, under Rule 26 disclosure. 

(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support his/her opinions. 

ANSWER: Answered above, under Rule 26 disclosure. 

(iv) Each such Witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the 

previous ten years. 

ANSWER: Answered above, under Rule 26 disclosure. 

(v) A listing of each proceeding in the last ten years in which each such witness either testified 

as an expert witness or provided expert consuttation. Identify each such proceeding by style 

and docket/case number of the case or matter, the forum, and the date. 

ANSWER.: Answered above, under Rule 26 disclosure (This witness has not testified as an 

expert at trial or by deposition in any other case in the previous 10 years). 

Submitted on the behalf of the Complainant, . ~~ fV;_' 

Adrienne 

FAA Attorney 

Wojcik J ~ Great Lakes Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 E. Devon 

Des Plaines. IL 60018 

Phone: (847) 294-7057 

Fax: (847) 294-7498 
Subject: Liberty Foundation 

From: Stuart Goldstein (stuartgoldsteinpa@atl.net) 

To: chris.stevenson@faa.gov; 

Cc: stuar1goldstein pa@ att. net; 

Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:21 PM 

Hello Chris: Are you available tomon·ow moming armmd lOAM to discuss your responses/objections to 

Respondent's limited discovery requests? Please let me know as soon as you can. l plan to file a motion to 

compel and will be out of the office Friday, so I need to file it tomorrow. 

Thanks, 

Stuart 

Stuart A. Goldstein, Esq. 

Stuart. A. Goldstein, P. A. 

Board Ce1iified Aviation Law Attomey 

7300 Nmih Kendall Drive, Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305) 670-1222 

Fax: (305) 400-0685 

Cell: (305) 338-4700 

Service by email: stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net 
Subject: Re: Liberty Foundation 

From: Stuart A. Goldstein (stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net) 

To: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov; 

Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:23PM 

Chris: OK. I'll just file a motion. 

Stuart 

Sent from my iPhone 

Stuart A. Goldstein 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 

lOth Floor 

Miami, Florida. 33156 

Tel: (305) 670-1222 

Fax: (305) 670-7065 

Cell: (305) 338-4700 

On Oct 30,2013, at 17:10, Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov wrote: 

Stuart, 

I'm not sure that after filing a Motion to Strike is really the most helpful time to try and have a conversation 

about my discovery responses. But if you want to convey some additional dissatisfaction with my objections, 

I'd request that you do so in writing. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of Regional Counsel 

FAA Southern Region 

(404) 305-5200 

from: Stuart Goldstein <Stuartgoldsteinpa@attnet> 

AS0-007, Office of Regional Counsel 

To: Chris Stevenson/ASO/FAA@FAA, 

Cc: stuart goldstein <stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net> 

Date: 10/30/2013 02:21 PM 

Subject: Liberty Foundation 

Hello Chris: Are you available tomorrow morning around I OAM to discuss your 

responses/objections to Respondent's limited discovery requests? Please let me know as soon as 

you can. I plan to file a motion to compel and will be out of the office Friday, so I need to file it