SILVERBERG 

GOLDMAN& 

B IKO FF, L.L.P. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

VIAFEDEX 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

GEORGETOWN PLACE • SUITE 120 • 1101 30TH STREET, NW • w ASHINCTON, D.C. 20007 

VOICE (202) 944-3300 • FACSIMILE (202) 944-3306 

November 7, 2014 

RECEIVED 

NOV 1 0 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Re: In the Matter of Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services 

Docket: FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No.: 2011S0290032 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case please find an original and one copy of 

Respondent's Motion for Suspension of Litigation Dates. 

Also enclosed is an additional copy of the Motion and a pre-addressed, postage paid 

envelope. Please date-stamp the additional copy and return it to our office in the enclosed 

envelope. 

Thank you for your assistance. Please call me at the telephone number listed above if 

you have any questions regarding this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, LLP 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

"' ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7?~4) 
In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEIVED 

NOV 1 0 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

Administrative Law Judge 

I.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR 

SUSPENSION OF LITIGATION DATES 

Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") moves for 

suspension of all remaining litigation dates as most recently set by Your Honor's Order served 

on September 30,2014. This motion is made necessary due to the unavailability of FAA 

deponent, Inspector Lipinski. FAA counsel cannot advise Respondent's counsel when the 

witness will be available to be deposed. Under the circumstances, suspension of all of the 

upcoming litigation dates is necessary to avoid any unfairness to the Respondent. However, 

suspension of the litigation schedule should not preclude the filing of any dispositive or other 

motion that might be filed by Respondent even while the remaining procedural dates are in 

suspension. In further support of this motion, the Respondent states as follows. 

Respondent has sent out no less than three different deposition notices in an attempt to set 

a date for the deposition oflnspector Lipinski, including the most recent notice dated October 

15,2014, which was sent after agreement with FAA counsel as to the deposition date and which 

established October 28,2014 as the date the Inspector's deposition would be taken. 

Nevertheless, counsel for the Respondent was notified in the late afternoon of October 27'h that 

the Inspector would not be available the next day for the scheduled deposition. This information 
was not relayed to Respondent's counsel until after he had traveled to Orlando from Washington, 

D.C. and after the AMES corporate representative and deponent had traveled from Wilmington, 

Ohio earlier in the day. 1 

FAA counsel advised the undersigned that the Inspector's unavailability was due to the 

fact that the Inspector's wife was ill and in the hospital. According to FAA counsel, she had 

been hospitalized prior to October 27'11 , but her condition changed, presumably on October 27, 

such that Inspector Lipinski could not appear the next day for the scheduled deposition. 

Complainant proceeded to take the deposition of the AMES representative and the Respondent 

deposed another FAA inspector as previously arranged. At the conclusion of the depositions, 

counsel for the FAA advised Respondent that he would keep the undersigned advised of the 

availability of the deponent. 

On Friday, October 31, 2014, the undersigned spoke by telephone to Mr. Cody Smith 

advising him of the scheduling issue and on the same day wrote to FAA counsel inquiring about 

the availability of the deponent. Exhibit. After further inquiry by the undersigned on November 

3'd, counsel for the FAA replied that afternoon stating that the Inspector would not be available 

this week (week of November 3'd) and that he does not know when he will be available. I d. 

Further, Respondent was advised in the same communication that unless cases FAA counsel is 

currently handling are settled or decided on motions, that we will not be available for depositions 

until some unspecified time "next year." Id. 

1 As an accommodation to the FAA, and in the interest of moving the case along, the corporate 

and fact witness for AMES traveled to Orlando for the purpose of sitting for his deposition rather 

than requiring FAA counsel to travel to the AMES facility in Wilmington, Ohio. 

- 2-
While one cannot help but be sympathetic to the fact that the Inspector's spouse has a 

serious medical issue, the impact of this fact on the recently reset litigation schedule is 

significant and unknown. However, had Complainant's counsel been more responsive and 

accommodating in setting the dates Respondent had previously sought to depose Inspector 

Lipinski, Respondent would not now need to request a suspension of the remaining litigation 

dates 2 Nor would additional time consuming and expensive travel be necessary had the 

Complainant addressed the prior discovery deadlines as if they were real deadlines and ones not 

to be missed3 Nonetheless, without any information about the availability of the deponent, 

suspension of all of the litigation dates is the only workable solution. Without knowing the 

extent of any delay, it is simply impracticable to set alternative litigation dates. 

In addition to considering the impact of the unavailability of the Inspector on the 

previously fixed litigation dates, the yet additional delay works a considerable unfairness on the 

Respondent. Management attention and time must continue to be devoted to this very old 

matter, dating back to 201 0. As noted, the FAA has been lackadaisical in meeting procedural 

deadlines and the fact that this matter has dragged on for over 4 years without resolution should 

be troubling to all. Justice delayed is justice denied and, seemingly, counsel for Complainant 

was not reticent in the least to suggest another possible delay of two months or more. If the 

2 Not counting the Notice of Deposition for Mr. Lipinski's deposition sent last spring, 

Respondent sought to schedule the Inspector's deposition by notices dated September 17, 

September 25 and October 15, 2014 for depositions to be conducted on September 23, 

September 30 and October 28,2014, respectively. 

3 Under the circumstances presented by the ll th hour notification of the cancellation oflnspector 

Lipinski's deposition, there is ample justification to require the Complainant to produce the 

deponent at the location of Respondent's counsel should Respondent make such a request. 

- 3 -
agency does not intent to pursue this action in a timely manner, then the enforcement proceeding 

should not be permitted to proceed. Respondent may file a formal motion requesting such relief 

once Complainant advises if the case will move forward at all during the balance of the year. 

Finally, even with the remaining litigation dates being held in suspense, Respondent is 

not and should not be precluded from filing a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary 

judgment or motion to dismiss for insufficiency at any time during the suspension period. All of 

the documents the Complainant has stated that support its allegations of violations are in the 

FAA's possession and have been supplied to Respondent.4 If Respondent determines that the 

documents and findings of the Inspector are insufficient to support the allegations, and further 

that no additional deposition testimony it essential to support a dispositive motion, Respondent 

should have the right to file a dispositive motion even during the time the procedural schedule 

may otherwise be suspended due to the unavailability of the FAA Inspector and Complainant's 

counsel. Respondent should be entitled to have such a motion heard and considered at the 

4 The FAA stated in its initial disclosures under the heading "Documents The FAA May Use To 

Support Its Case:" ... All applicable documents were included in the ElR and Items of Proof, 

including ... " The FAA went on to state in its initial disclosures "All of these documents have 

previously been provided to Respondent by the FAA, including those that were already in 

Respondent's possession .... " In addition, Respondent's document request no. 3 from 

Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests to Complainant, dated Feb. 6, 

2014, requests "All documents, including but not limited to, opinions, reports, summaries, charts 

or any other written instrument that any witness of the FAA, lay or expert, intends to introduce 

into evidence or rely upon during testimony at the hearing of this case." Complainant responded 

as follows in its Second Response to Respondent's First Discovery Requests, dated March 21, 

2014: "Request for Production #3: There exist no such documents beyond those already 

produced." 

-4-
earliest possible time given the age ofthis case and the FAA's heretofore slow walk though the 

pre-trial schedule of procedural dates. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Respondent respectfully moves for the 

suspension of the current litigation schedule and further requests that in the order so suspending 

the procedural schedule that it provide that such suspension does not preclude the filing and 

consideration of any dispositive motion, and for such further and other relief Your Honor may 

deem appropriate. 

Dated: November 7, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENG~RINGSE;?~ 

By: Ro~ f Si~rbe;~.Lq 

- 5 -

1101 301

h Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
EXHIBIT 
Robert Silverberg 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov 

Sent: 

To: 

Thursday, November 06, 2014 2:10PM 

Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Bob, 

I do not anticipate opposing your request for a continuance, but it's your request, so I was not planning on drafting it. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.com] 

Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 1:S4 PM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Chris, 

I have not heard from you and tomorrow is the fact witness deposition deadline. I will proceed to file a motion with the 

judge on Friday if I do not hear from by the end of the day. 

Bob 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 4:20PM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: AMES 

Bob, 

Inspector Lipinski's wife is still in the hospital (back in the hospital, technically, if you count being released for a few 

hours before being re·admitted). Her prognosis is unknown. Inspector Lipinski wilt not be available this week. We do not 

know when he will be available. Be advised that, unless one of my upcoming hearings settles or is decided by motion, I 

wi!! not be available for depositions until next year. 

! will have to get back with you on Thursday about following up with the Judge. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [rnailto:rsilverberq@sqbdc.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 12:14 PM 

1 
To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: FW: AMES 

Chris, 

Have you been able to determine when Mr. Lipinski would be available to have his deposition taken? Whatever the date, 

can I ask you to take the lead in drafting a joint motion to set off the fact deposition deadline and be prepared to file it prior 

to Nov. 7 due to the unavailability of your witness. 

Please advise. 

Bob 

From: Robert Silverberg 

Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 4:25 PM 

To: 'Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov' 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: AMES 

Chris, 

I spoke with Cody Smith to advise him of the very likely possibility that we will not complete the fact witness depositions by 

the Nov. 7 deadline due to Mr. Lipinski's unavailability and the plan to take the Steffey deposition depending upon the 

results of the Lipinski deposition. I advised him that I would contact you again to find out when Lipinski will be available 

and report back once the calendar comes into sharper focus. I advised him that I have a brief due to the Court of Appeals 

that must be to the printer early in the week of Nov. 10 making travel difficult. 

Bob 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and is (1) subject to attorneyclient privilege; (2) attorney work product; or (3) confidential. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or 

taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 

unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from 

any computer. 

Robert P. Silverberg 

Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P. 

1101 30th Street N. W 

Suite 120 

Washington, D. C. 20007 

rsilverberq@sgbdc. com 

direct line 202-944-3304 

fax 202-944-3306 

mobile 301-922-8895 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 7111 day ofNovember 2014, I caused a true copy of the 

foregoing Respondent's Motion for Suspension of Litigation Dates to be served upon the 

following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Tel: (202) 385-8229 

(original and one copy by F edEx) 

The Hon. J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

(one copy by First Class Mail and facsimile) 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Fax: ( 404) 305-5223 

(one copy by First Class Mail and facsimile)