# TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 W ashington, D.C. 20005

- 4018 (202) 628

- 4888 contracts@hrccourtreporters.com IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) FDMS No. FAA

- 2011

- 0069 DEAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., )

Pages: 1 through 71

Place: Washington, D.C.

Date: October 24, 20111

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 FEDERAL AVIA TION ADMINISTRATION

IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) FDMS No. FAA

- 2011

- 0069 DEAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., )

1220 L Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C.

Monday, October 24, 2011

The parties met, pursuant to the notice, at

2:30 p.m.

BEFORE: HONORABLE J.E. SULLIVAN Administrative Law Judge

APPEARANCES: (Via Telephone)

For the Complainant :

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON, Esquire Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO

- 7 Sou thern Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 (404) 305

- 5200

For the Respondent :

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, Esquire Law Offices of Goldstein & Sordo 9350 South Dixie Highway, 10th Floor Miami, Florida 33 156 (305) 670

- 12222

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 P R O C E E D I N G S 1

(2:30 p.m.) 2

JUDGE SULLIVAN: We're on the record in the 3

matter of Dean International, Inc. This is an FAA 4

docket number that has yet to be assigned. We do have 5

an FDMS number which is FAA

- 2011

- 00 69. Today is 6

Monday, October 24, 2011, and the parties have 7

convened by telephone for a motion conference. The 8

Respondent, Dean International, Inc., is represented 9

by its attorney, Stuart A. Goldstein. The Agency, the 10

Federal Aviation Administration, is represented by its 11

attorney, Christopher R. Stevenson. 12

Also present at the Office of Hearings with 13

this Administrative Court is Priya Krishna, and I'll 14

spell that. P

- R

- I

- Y

- A, last name Krishna, K

- R

- I

- S

- H

15

N

- A. She's an attorney intern in this office, and 16

she's here as an observer only. Good afternoon, 17

counsel. 18

ALL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 19

JUDGE SULLIVAN: We have a lot of things to 20

cover in a very short period of time, so what I'm 21

going to do is simply note for you all that I've read 22

all of your materials, which includes reading all the 23

legal citations. I think I'm up to speed as to what 24

the disputes are, what the motions are, what the 253

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 requests for relief are and what types of sanctions 1

are included in those requests for relief. 2

I do hav e a couple questions to ask each of 3

you and I'm going to start with you, Mr. Goldstein. 4

When I ask these questions you don't need to go into a 5

lot of detail. You may not understand why I'm asking, 6

but it will become apparent as we talk. The first 7

questi on to you, sir, is just for my edification. Were 8

subpoenas issued and served on any of the FAA 9

inspectors after you filed your notice of amended 10

deposition? 11

MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, there were not. 12

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. There has been a 13

notation by both p arties that the FAA served discovery 14

requests upon your client on or about May 13, 2011. 15

It appeared to me that you responded with your answer 16

to those discovery requests on or about May 22, 2011, 17

is that correct? 18

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Judge, I don't have the 19

date, except I believe we responded timely. 20

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. 21

MR. GOLDSTEIN: I mean I just don't have the 22

whole complete file in front of me. 23

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. 24

MR. GOLDSTEIN: I don't think there's any 254

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 dispute that we responded timely. 1

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. In terms of your 2

client's three week vacation, can you tell me or can 3

you give a best guess as to when it started and when 4

it stopped. 5

MR. GOLDSTEIN: No. Not without looking in 6

the file. I don't even know if it's in the file . I 7

only know that I believe that he was due back the week 8

that we, and Chris can correct me if I'm wrong about 9

this, he was due back the Monday before the first. I 10

believe

-- I'm going to say August 22, which was the 11

week that we had initially planned t o do the 12

depositions. Because he had just gotten back I 13

believe that Sunday night or Monday, at my request, I 14

wanted to move the depositions one week ahead, farther 15

back, so that I could get with him during that week to 16

prepare. 17

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Then I' ll turn to you, Mr. 18

Stevenson. Do you recall if Mr. Dean's vacation ended 19

on or about August 22, 2011? 20

MR. STEVENSON: I would also have to double 21

check for the specific date, but I believe at the time 22

the discussion was that his vacation was going to e nd 23

the day before I think when we were going to start 24

doing the depositions or in that ballpark. 255

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Which was the 22nd. 1

MR. STEVENSON: Okay. 2

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. 3

Stevenson, I'm going to go to you next just with a 4

coup le questions. It appears that there was a 5

response of some type from the Respondent on or about 6

May 22, 2011 from your original discovery request. Is 7

there some particular reason that you didn't send a 8

letter to the Respondent about these eight 9

deficienc ies that you highlighted for him that was 10

indicated in the letter dated July 29, 2011? What was 11

the reason for that gap, if you have any? 12

MR. STEVENSON: Frankly, because until

-- I 13

continued to believe that ultimately there is not 14

much, that when we ge t down to brass tacks, there will 15

not be much in the way of actual disputes, and up 16

until that point in time I had hoped that we would be 17

able to narrow down what the actual issues in the case 18

were. 19

It was at some point in time within the 20

week or two p rior to that letter that Mr. Goldstein 21

had made it clear that he was not going to stipulate 22

or concede to anything or engage in any narrowing of 23

the issues until after discovery was over, and so at 24

that point I felt that I had to issue the letter to 256

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 make s ure that we could get the answers that we may 1

need. 2

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. In that July 29, 3

2011 letter you indicated that there were about eight 4

deficiencies, and then in Mr. Goldstein's response 5

dated August 25, 2011 he indicated that he had certain 6

r esponses to give and then no other records of six of 7

the remaining problems. It appeared to me from the 8

dialogue the two of you had in those letter exchanges 9

that there was

-- and I'm going to identify them. 10

There were five identified items that didn't 11

seem to be addressed from your client's perspective 12

adequately, and those were records on: 1) the nature 13

flights; 2) the actual bases for two of the 14

Respondent's affirmative defenses; 3) information 15

supporting the Respondent's request for a de minimis 16

pe nalty; 4) information regarding the Respondent's 17

communications with FAA personnel; and 5) maintenance 18

records on aircraft. 19

I didn't want to make an assumption so I'm 20

going to ask you whether the allegation that there was 21

insufficient records on the fa ctual bases from two of 22

the Respondent's affirmative defenses, was that 23

something that I should count twice so that I have six 24

remaining problems instead of five? 257

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Judge, are you asking me or 1

are you asking Mr. Stevenson? 2

JUDGE SULLIVAN: I'm still having or trying 3

to have a conversation with Mr. Stevenson, the FAA 4

attorney. 5

MR. STEVENSON: Okay. I apologize, Your 6

Honor. I guess I'm not sure what the question is. 7

There are two that went to two distinctive affirmative 8

defenses. Maybe there's another nuance I'm missing, 9

but I don't know that it would affect anything if that 10

was treated as two different subjects or one. 11

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. I'm just saying that 12

you had identified in your letter what you considered 13

to be six remaini ng problems, but when you had them 14

identified and listed out, I only counted five. 15

MR. STEVENSON: Okay. I see, Your Honor. 16

JUDGE SULLIVAN: So I wasn't sure if I 17

should count the two affirmative defenses as two 18

separate problems or if the six was act ually a five. 19

MR. STEVENSON: If I could have a moment, I 20

can review that passage. 21

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Sure. 22

MR. STEVENSON: I believe this is my 23

response to the amended notice of deposition. 24

JUDGE SULLIVAN: If you don't know off hand, 258

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 it may come ou t a little later. I just thought I 1

would ask now. 2

MR. STEVENSON: Glancing at my response, I 3

believe that, yes, the two affirmative defenses was 4

that that's numbers five and six. 5

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you. Now let 6

me ask, and I'm still with y ou, Mr. Stevenson

-- 7

MR. STEVENSON: Okay. 8

JUDGE SULLIVAN:

-- let's assume just for 9

the sake of a hypothetical that we keep the December 10

date for trial. As I understand it from the material 11

that's before me, we have six FAA inspectors and 12

potentially three employees of Dean International yet 13

to be deposed, is that correct? 14

MR. STEVENSON: I think we're down to five 15

depositions for inspectors. I believe the amended 16

notice of deposition went from six to five. 17

MR. GOLDSTEIN: That's correct. 18

MR. S TEVENSON: Okay. The Agency's 19

depositions were issued in the form of primarily a 20

corporate deposition on particular subject matters, 21

and I believe that the Respondent was planning on 22

providing just the company president, Mr. Dean, in 23

response to that. 24

With the possible exception of the actual 259

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 dispatch of the flights in question, I don't think 1

that there would be any problem with just Mr. Dean 2

responding to that, although on the subject of the 3

dispatch, I'm not sure if Mr. Dean alone would be 4

sufficient to answer that, but I didn't want to worry 5

you about that until we got to the deposition and I

-- 6

and maybe he can. 7

JUDGE SULLIVAN: So there's a possibility of 8

depositions still needing to be taken? 9

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. 10

MR. STEVENSON: Yes. 11

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Stevenson, still 12

with you. Mr. Goldstein, I will get to you. You 13

don't need to kind of add in at this point. Mr. 14

Stevenson, in looking at your calendar and considering 15

all of the upcoming holidays, and when I say that, I 16

mean the Veterans Day holiday that's a federal holiday 17

in November, as well as the Thanksgiving period, how 18

likely is it in your calendar that you will be able to 19

do those depositions prior to the start of the trial 20

that's currently set on my calendar? 21

MR. STEVEN SON: Well, my calendar is 22

actually pretty clear for that time period. I could 23

not speak right now to the exact availability of the 24

inspectors. Whether or not we'd be able to complete 2510

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 the depositions prior to the hearing would probably 1

depend, given the number of people that we'd have to 2

try to schedule all in one week, on how much of a 3

grace period there is between the depositions and the 4

hearing. 5

I know one of the things that opposing 6

counsel had wanted was in the ballpark of a month 7

after the depos itions so that there was the option to 8

promulgate additional discovery requests based on the 9

information learned at the deposition. If that was 10

accommodated, that obviously I think would make it 11

difficult to accomplish the depositions because we'd 12

have to do them in the next two weeks. 13

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Goldstein, I'm 14

going to turn to you next and ask you the same 15

question. Looking at your calendar and assuming that 16

we stick with the December trial date, how likely or 17

unlikely is it that you w ould be able to schedule 18

those depositions prior to the trial? 19

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, I think I can schedule 20

the depositions prior to the trial, Your Honor. The 21

problem is that there may be further discovery needed 22

and almost no time to accomplish it if the trial's 23

going to be on December 1. I'm sorry, December 13 or 24

14. 2511

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 I was just noting my calendar before we got 1

on the phone and I have a minimum of three, possibly 2

four, arbitrations, three of which are out of town and 3

require travel before and aft er the day of the 4

arbitration and other court hearings and proceedings 5

that, you know, are scheduled. I think that Chris and 6

I could get together and schedule the deposition. 7

It's the follow up that's always been my concern, as 8

I've said a couple times i n the filing. I think that 9

December 13 wouldn't work for me. 10

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you. Now, Mr. 11

Stevenson, I'm going to turn to you next about this 12

particular issue because I think that it's a trouble 13

spot in this particular motion for your cl ient. 14

There's been an allegation from Dean International 15

that you did not have legal authority to cancel 16

depositions to which the parties had stipulated. I'm 17

wondering if you can cite to me any other authority 18

other than C.F.R. 49 pt. 9 for the authority that you 19

thought you might have had to unilaterally cancel the 20

FAA deposition. 21

MR. STEVENSON: I would disagree with the 22

characterization that we had stipulated to these 23

depositions and that they were unilaterally canceled. 24

It was made very clear to Re spondent that in order 2512

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 for these depositions to take place, in order for me 1

to properly conduct the deposition of Respondent, that 2

I needed to actually get in advance of the deposition 3

answers to our interrogatories and the responses to 4

our request for pro duction. 5

I felt that it was more conducive to moving 6

the schedule along to agree to a tentative date and 7

rather than insist on having those in hand before we 8

set a date, but the scheduling of that deposition was 9

made fairly contingent upon the presuppo sition that 10

Respondent was actually going to respond fully to the 11

depositions. 12

It was not until a few business days before 13

the scheduled time for those depositions that 14

Respondent sent a letter iterating that it was not 15

going to comply any further with the discovery 16

request, and it was that, you know, written statement 17

of their belief that they did not need to do anything 18

else for discovery that prompted the informal 19

objection to the amended notice. 20

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. And in terms of your 21

underst anding of what happened in setting up these 22

depositions, it looked to me in reviewing the file 23

that you were attempting to identify those concerns in 24

your July 29, 2011 letter to the Respondent. 2513

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. STEVENSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor. 1

There was some sort of break or pause in there. There 2

was a beep in the phone line, so I didn't hear all of 3

that. 4

JUDGE SULLIVAN: So essentially, as I 5

understand it from your client's perspective, you were 6

trying to identify all of those contingencies in your 7

July 29, 20 11 letter to the Respondent, making the 8

depositions contingent upon full disclosure prior to 9

the depositions starting. 10

MR. STEVENSON: Yes, Your Honor. 11

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Is there anything 12

else that you have in writing other than the July 29, 13

2011 letter that codifies what the parties had 14

discussed by telephone or email or otherwise? 15

MR. STEVENSON: No, Your Honor. 16

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Let me turn to you, 17

Mr. Goldstein. It sounds to me from your materials on 18

behalf of your client that your client didn't have 19

that same perspective because you are making a motion 20

to the Court for sanctions for Mr. Stevenson's 21

canceling of those depositions. 22

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor. 23

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Can you identify what you 24

disagree with in terms o f the July 29, 2011 letter or 2514

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 what you think Mr. Stevenson's perceptions are that 1

you disagree with? 2

MR. GOLDSTEIN: What I disagree with in his 3

July 29 letter I think is contained in some of the 4

filings that I made and my letter to him of August 25, 5

but what Mr. Stevenson was talking about was his 6

taking of Mr. Dean's deposition, not my taking of the 7

FAA witness's depositions. I think he could cancel 8

Mr. Dean's deposition whenever he likes and pursue a 9

discovery issue with the Court, but he didn't reall y 10

address his cancellation of the

-- or his withdrawal 11

of his permission for me to take the FAA inspector's 12

deposition. 13

That, I don't think he had the authority to 14

do for the reasons that I've stated in, you know, the 15

papers that I've filed. You know, as I understand it, 16

his sole reason for canceling the inspector's 17

deposition or withdrawing his approval of them was he 18

didn't want to make two trips. That's my 19

understanding of it. I believe he's said that a 20

couple of times. 21

JUDGE SULLIVAN: In your discussions with 22

Mr. Stevenson, he's asserting that you and he 23

discussed the efficacy of him coming to Florida once 24

as opposed to multiple times for depositions. Is that 2515

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 not your understanding as well of your conversation? 1

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, we did a gree that we 2

would do them all in one week, but I certainly had no 3

contemplation that he was going to withdraw his 4

approval to do, for me to take his inspector's 5

depositions. I mean it would be good for me too to do 6

them all in one week, although it didn' t really make 7

that much difference to me. I wasn't traveling very 8

far. 9

JUDGE SULLIVAN: As I understand it, you 10

would have had about a 30 minute drive north of where 11

your office is. 12

MR. GOLDSTEIN: It's Miami, so maybe a 13

little bit longer, but yes, an hour. Half hour to an 14

hour depending on the time. 15

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Other than Mr. Stevenson, 16

to your knowledge, was anyone else coming in from out 17

of town? 18

MR. GOLDSTEIN: To me? No. I believe the 19

inspectors were all local. 20

MS. SULLIVAN: Mr. Ste venson, turning back 21

to you, as I understand it, you're currently in the 22

Atlanta, Georgia region. 23

MR. STEVENSON: Correct, Your Honor. 24

JUDGE. SULLIVAN: And how much time and cost 2516

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 does it usually take you to fly to Miami and back? 1

MR. STEVENSON: Wel l, that depends on 2

exactly how long I would be there for a particular 3

day. If it's an all day event, then that means that I 4

would have to fly out the day before, which takes up 5

at least half the day, and then fly out the day back, 6

which is at least half t he day. We'd probably fly 7

into Ft. Lauderdale. 8

The city pair flights on AirTran to Ft. 9

Lauderdale are much cheaper than the city pair flights 10

on American Airlines to Miami and it's not much of a 11

difference driving

- wise from Ft. Lauderdale to Mirimar 12

v ersus Miami to Mirimar. 13

I couldn't tell you off the top of my head 14

precisely what that city pair is, but I would imagine 15

somewhere between $200 and $300 for the flight, plus, 16

you know, baggage fees, a hotel, that would be two 17

nights of hotel, along with the taxes and all that is 18

probably another couple hundred dollars, and an 19

additional car rental for a couple of days isn't that 20

much, but it's probably somewhere less than $100 for 21

the two days' car rental. So I mean that's already 22

about $600 in travel ex penses just to go down. 23

Additionally, then the Agency

-- obviously you 24

should know this is me personally. The Agency then 2517

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 has to pick up, if there's an additional trip, the 1

Agency has to pick up effectively two and a half days 2

of per diem, which is ano ther, I don't know, maybe 3

$130. So I mean you're probably talking in the 4

ballpark of 750 bucks in addition to the additional 5

travel time for me doing that instead of something 6

else. 7

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Let me ask you this, Mr. 8

Stevenson. Let's assume that you took Mr. Dean's 9

deposition without the requested discovery from the 10

Respondent. Respondent has asserted in some of his 11

materials that much of the material that you wanted in 12

writing prior to the deposition could have been 13

elicited from Mr. Dean durin g a deposition. 14

Assuming that's true for the sake of this 15

hypothetical question, how much time do you think it 16

would have taken you, and this is a guess and I know 17

that, to depose Mr. Dean with all this information 18

provided ahead of time versus deposin g Mr. Dean 19

without having the information you requested ahead of 20

the deposition? What, if any, additional time do you 21

think might have been added to your deposition? 22

MR. STEVENSON: I'm not sure how I could 23

even venture a guess, Your Honor. As far as 24

a dditional time, I don't know. I think more 2518

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 importantly the problem would be that without answers 1

for

-- on the subject of just interrogatories re: 2

providing an answer, without having the answers in 3

advance, that would deny me the opportunity to 4

properly p repare for the deposition. 5

Then I would have to be going in and trying 6

to make sure that I on the fly came up with whatever 7

the appropriate follow

- up questions or clarifications 8

might be on that subject instead of having the basic 9

answers in advance an d being able to think about it. 10

In addition, once you get beyond the 11

interrogatories, if you get beyond the interrogatories 12

or in the interrogatories, I manage to figure 13

everything out perfectly without production of 14

documents in advance of the deposit ion, I've 15

completely lost the ability to ask the Respondent 16

questions about those documents. 17

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Which would lead to a 18

second deposition, no doubt. 19

MR. STEVENSON: I guess it could. I 20

generally would try to avoid having

-- I would prefer 21

to avoid ever having to depose a witness twice in a 22

case, but I guess potentially could. 23

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Let me ask you this 24

too, Mr. Stevenson. You would be flying into a place 2519

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 where the inspectors already work. Is this a location 1

at the FAA w here you have access to video equipment? 2

MR. STEVENSON: Yes. 3

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Have you in your practice 4

ever utilized the telephone or video equipment for 5

depositions for long

- distance purposes? 6

MR. STEVENSON: I will check my, rattle my 7

memory arou nd. I have never taken a deposition via 8

videoconference. I have defended a deposition that 9

the other side took via videoconference. 10

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Goldstein, let 11

me ask you this question. Have you ever had occasion 12

to travel with your cli ent to a location outside of 13

the state of Florida to answer a notice of deposition? 14

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Obviously you mean other 15

cases, Judge. Yes. 16

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Why don't I do this. 17

I want to make sure everybody has a chance to say 18

what they w ant to say before I start making some 19

rulings. Mr. Stevenson, I'll start with you. Do you 20

want to take five minutes and just talk about anything 21

that you think you would like to highlight for me 22

before I start making some rulings? Please feel free. 23

If there are certain areas that you would like the 24

Court to indicate an interest, I'm happy to do that. 2520

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 Do you have anything you'd like to add to your written 1

materials at this point? 2

MR. STEVENSON: Well, Your Honor, I think 3

that the written materials wou ld cover the details of 4

it sufficiently. I mean the only note that I think I 5

would make as a general matter is that, you know, the 6

Agency remains in the same position that it was, 7

whereas we're not refusing to do these depositions, 8

but that, you know, we should try to conduct this 9

litigation and all litigation in an efficient manner 10

that does not impose undue burdens on either party. 11

You just mentioned that 12

Mr. Goldstein traveling out of town with Mr. Dean. I 13

have not tried to, you know, compel Mr. Dean and Mr. 14

Goldstein to travel to Atlanta. There's no need, in 15

my opinion, for them to make an additional sort of 16

trip. If one of us has to travel one direction, we 17

may as well just do that. 18

Our position is, it always has been, that 19

in order to co nduct this litigation efficiently and 20

with a minimum of burden and expense on both sides, 21

that the written and documentary discovery should be 22

completed before and in a manner such that the 23

depositions can be conducted efficiently rather than 24

fragmenting t he depositions so as to impose undue 2521

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 burdens on anyone, but, you know, obviously my client. 1

That's all I have. 2

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Thank you. Mr. Goldstein, 3

I'll turn to you. Do you want to take five minutes to 4

highlight anything on behalf of your client materials, 5

you know, just to make sure that I know what's 6

important to your client, or otherwise, in response to 7

some of the inquiry you've already heard? 8

MR. GOLDSTEIN: I would rely on what we 9

wrote, Your Honor. I don't think I could be any more 10

prec ise. I guess the only thing I would add is that 11

my client has been as cooperative as he knows how to 12

be. Naturally, he feels put upon by the FAA. All 13

respondents in these kinds of cases do, but he's been 14

compliant. He responded to the discovery promptly

. 15

You know, there was some delay in writing to 16

me by Mr. Stevenson, although I don't think my 17

responses would have been any different. In terms of 18

efficient discovery, you know, Your Honor, I've been 19

litigating cases for over 40 years and almost always

, 20

you know, there's more than one round of discovery. I 21

mean there's either written discovery first or there's 22

depositions first, and then there's follow

- up 23

discovery. 24

I would never say that you can get all 2522

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 discovery done in one round. Sometimes you ask a 1

question in a deposition that leads you to request 2

more documents or you get a document that leads you to 3

ask for additional documents. I mean that's normal 4

practice. 5

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Let me ask you this, Mr. 6

Goldstein. Is it your normal practice to expect the 7

opposing party to go in cold to a deposition and 8

simply ask the witness questions about materials that 9

have not been provided? You've indicated that at 10

least at some level in some of your responsive 11

materials. 12

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, first of all, that's 13

not what happened here. I mean we provided

-- well, 14

that's not what happened. We answered the 15

interrogatories and the FAA did a very thorough 16

document search of my client's premises. It had tons 17

and tons of documents already. We furnishe d them, I 18

believe, some additional documents. I'm not sure. 19

They did an investigative search of my client and had 20

lots and lots of discovery, so there's no way we 21

considered that they would be going in cold. 22

Beyond that, the FAA made allegations as t o 23

certain, three flights that occurred in I think 24

February and March of 2010. In some of their document 2523

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 requests they wanted to go back a whole year prior to 1

those allegations, and, you know, I didn't see the 2

relevance in that. I think we have a right to say 3

what's the relevance. Why are you burdening my client 4

more with those kinds of

-- 5

JUDGE SULLIVAN: I don't dispute that. We 6

can talk about that more in a little while, but I did 7

see in your October 3, 2011 omnibus reply some 8

statements throughout t hat reply which indicated that 9

clarification could have been resolved by simply 10

deposing the witness or asking the witness about 11

documentation that was requested, and so I got the 12

impression, and perhaps this was a mistake on my part, 13

but I got the impress ion that it was part of your 14

argument that Mr. Stevenson should have just been 15

willing to go into the deposition and use the 16

deposition as a discovery tool in lieu of asking for 17

documents in advance. 18

MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, I wasn't saying that. I 19

believe t hat my argument about asking Mr. Dean's 20

questions had to do with interrogatories, not 21

documents. I believe. 22

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. 23

MR. GOLDSTEIN: I believe that's the case, 24

but I would only repeat that they would, no sense 2524

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 going in cold because they did a very thorough 1

document search and copying of my client's records 2

before they ever issued a complaint. 3

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes. As I understand it, 4

this was during the investigatory phase of the 5

complaint process before the complaint was actually 6

issu ed. 7

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. That's correct, Your 8

Honor. 9

JUDGE SULLIVAN: I did interrupt you during 10

your comments, Mr. Goldstein. Do you have anything 11

else that you would like to add before I start making 12

some rulings? 13

MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, I don't thin k so, Your 14

Honor. We rely on what we've raised. 15

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you both very 16

much for your presence and your arguments. It seems 17

to me that there are two problems that kind of rose up 18

before me as I was reviewing all of your material. 19

P erhaps I should say three. Number one, this case 20

languished for a while in this office in part because 21

we had some change of staff, and when that happens 22

it's very easy, I think, for counsel to be diverted 23

into other pressing matters. 24

The procedural o rder that counsel provided 2525

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 to Judge Yoder didn't get an immediate response. When 1

I came on board there was a shortened time already, 2

and as you both know, you then revised the procedural 3

schedule to try to accommodate that shortened time and 4

still meet th e original November 2011 trial date. 5

By stipulation, the parties agreed then that 6

it would not work and they moved the trial date one 7

month to our current December 2011 schedule. So 8

that's one problem. A second problem I think is the 9

dispute between th e parties about the scope of 10

discovery and written materials and production of 11

documents, and in the answering of interrogatories. 12

Mr. Stevenson is requesting more detail. Mr. Goldstein 13

is saying nothing else needs to be offered. 14

The third dispute is what the stipulation 15

was between the parties, if there was such a 16

stipulation, and what the scope of the stipulation 17

included. Mr. Stevenson, he's saying that the 18

stipulation was conditional, if such stipulation was 19

entered into. Mr. Goldstein takes the position that 20

there was a stipulation that was limited in scope and 21

that did not include the conditional depositions of 22

the FAA inspectors. So I'm going to try and address 23

all that in these rulings today. I'm also going to 24

suggest a couple things to coun sel for the future. 2526

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 I know every judge before whom you've 1

appeared at the Office of Hearings handles cases 2

slightly differently and that you have not had a 3

chance to appear before me much at all, so I think I 4

should probably add that as a fourth proble m in this 5

particular case because there were avenues of relief 6

that you might have used had you worked with me 7

before. 8

For example, Mr. Stevenson, in July of 2011 9

you would have been welcome to confer with Mr. 10

Goldstein, and then while the two of you wer e both on 11

the phone, call my office, talk to Ms. Mayes, my 12

assistant, and set up on my calendar an expedited 13

motion conference to address any and all motion 14

disputes before those depositions were taken. I'm 15

happy to address those kinds of problems by tele phone 16

on an expedited basis if the parties agree to that. 17

Secondly, there was a continuing hope by 18

you, Mr. Stevenson, that Mr. Goldstein would see the 19

light of discovery in your own perceptions and come to 20

the table, as it were, and Mr. Goldstein never got on 21

board with your perceptions of what discovery should 22

be and there was too much of a time lag for that, so 23

that by the time the discovery problems were noted and 24

the letters sent to Dean International, Mr. 2527

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 Goldstein's primary witness, Mr. Dean, was off on a 1

three week cruise and unavailable for assistance. 2

So he's the one person that Mr. Goldstein 3

would need to have in terms of approval for many of 4

these requests or to obtain them, and he was in 5

absentia. So that made it a little more time 6

sensiti ve, I think, for everyone. 7

In terms of the stipulation itself, the 8

only type of stipulation I have is the parties' 9

agreement for the amended notice of deposition 10

schedule and the accompanying letters of July 29, 2011 11

and August 25, 2011. As I read the July 29, 2011 12

letter, I came to the same perception that Mr. 13

Goldstein was arguing, that from the letter it could 14

be read that the only deposition that was in 15

conditional peril if discovery was not provided was 16

the deposition of Mr. Dean. 17

Now, that may be not what the parties had 18

actually discussed, and it certainly seemed from the 19

parties' materials as a whole that everyone was trying 20

to work toward the goal of only having one period of 21

time when all depositions were taken, and given the 22

fact that only Mr. Stevenson was traveling and no one 23

else, that seemed to go hand in hand with Mr. 24

Stevenson's assertion that there was a joint attempt 2528

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 to conserve his time and Agency resources in coming to 1

these depositions in Florida. 2

I don't have before me a spec ifically 3

written stipulation that actually says that, and so I 4

would simply recommend to the parties in the future 5

that if you have those kinds of conditions that you 6

believe are important, they need to be put in writing 7

and signed, dated and exchanged. 8

It's very helpful so that when you have 9

these very unusual circumstances when something like 10

this kind of all implodes, then you have that material 11

available and a fewer, a less need to argue for 12

interpretation. Because there was, I think, a 13

disagreement, in essence, about the scope of the 14

agreement of the parties, and because of the shortened 15

period of time, Mr. Stevenson then acted in what I 16

would call a unilateral fashion to cancel the 17

depositions of his FAA witnesses. 18

Mr. Stevenson has asserted as authority 19

for that 49 C.F.R. pt. 9, Section 1 as authority, and 20

I would respectfully disagree that this authorizes any 21

FAA attorney to unilaterally cancel depositions 22

because of the attorney's time or expense. I think 23

that that particular section is only with the 24

scheduling of witnesses' testimony and how to address 2529

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 the witness's time away from work and/or the burden of 1

expense for having the witness not be at work. 2

I think when we start to talk about 3

attorney time and attorney expense that goes beyond 49 4

Part 9, Section 1, we're back into the Civil Rules of 5

Procedure , we're back into the Rules of Professional 6

Conduct . The Civil Rules of Procedure encourage the 7

parties to engage in as much stipulation as possible 8

and to engage in stipulations and in di scovery 9

practice that will minimize, as Mr. Stevenson so 10

correctly noted, extra time, expense or burdens upon 11

the parties that don't need to be made. 12

In the end, any of those kinds of issues are 13

really in the Court's province and are uniquely within 14

the Court's province to guide, direct and decide, so 15

ideally, on August 25, 2011, Mr. Stevenson, I think 16

your better option might have been either to request 17

an expedited ruling from this Court by telephone with 18

both parties on the line. 19

Unfortunately, you haven't worked with me 20

enough to know that you had that option. You could 21

have also filed a formal motion in objection to a lack 22

of discovery, canceled the deposition of Mr. Dean, 23

asked for sanctions, which would have included having 24

Mr. Dean and Mr. Gol dstein come to you for a 2530

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 rescheduled deposition, and then gone down to Florida 1

and appeared in person to oversee the depositions of 2

the FAA inspectors. 3

You could have also done the deposition of 4

Mr. Dean after filing a motion in objection for the 5

added b urden and expense and then asked for a 6

supplemental deposition at your own convenience and 7

with any costs of yours covered if, in fact, you 8

decided to travel back to Florida for that second 9

deposition. There were also alternatives of appearing 10

by telephon e or by video for the FAA inspectors' 11

depositions if you so chose to or by alternatively 12

scheduling Mr. Dean's deposition in that way so that 13

you didn't have to travel back to Florida. There are 14

lots of different things that you might have done as 15

opposed to simply canceling all the depositions. 16

I simply say that so that you have those 17

options available to you to think about if in fact 18

this ever occurs again, which I would hope that it 19

would not, but just so that you know. In terms of the 20

discovery itse lf, I think Mr. Stevenson is correct. 21

The interrogatories and request for production 22

provided in May of 2011 were inadequate. 23

Discovery is a very broad process. It is 24

set up so that a party may even go on what's called a 2531

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 fishing expedition to a certai n extent so long as 1

there's some reasonable nexus to the case at hand. 2

The fact that materials may have been provided prior 3

to the issuance of the complaint does not relieve Dean 4

International from providing those materials again, 5

and there is other autho rity to support that. 6

So what I'm going to do is this. In terms 7

of the motion by Dean on September 13, 2011 to produce 8

the FAA witnesses for a rescheduling of the 9

depositions, that motion is granted, and I don't think 10

the parties disagree that those dep ositions should be 11

taken ultimately for a fair trial for all parties. In 12

terms of vacating the current litigation procedural 13

order and issuing another one, I will again grant 14

that. That means that I will also grant by inference 15

a continuance of the Decem ber 2011 trial dates. 16

I think that even though both of you, of 17

counsel, could be available to take depositions, in my 18

own litigation experiences throughout the years I've 19

found that my witnesses often will not be available on 20

the ideal day, particularl y when there are holidays 21

coming up. The week of Thanksgiving and the week 22

following Thanksgiving has been one of the most 23

difficult times, I think, to even get people to come 24

into court on expedited motions, much less to come for 2532

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 a deposition. 1

Thirdl y, the Respondent's motion in the 2

September 13, 2011 materials for a sanction to 3

prohibit the FAA from calling its witnesses is 4

respectfully denied. I think there are problems that 5

have been exhibited by both parties regarding the 6

sanction. I think that is a sanction that far exceeds 7

what has happened here today, and I don't think it is 8

an appropriate sanction to request in this particular 9

case or to even consider granting, so it's 10

respectfully denied. In terms of the FAA's motion to 11

compel that was file d on September 22, 2011, there was 12

a motion to compel full disclosure or, in the 13

alternative, to have the Respondent withdraw some 14

affirmative defenses. 15

I think essentially we can go through some 16

of these interrogatories and requests for production 17

and w hat I'm going to do is ask a couple more 18

questions and then tailor the order so that they're 19

quite specific and have time deadlines so that 20

everybody's clear on what needs to be provided, why it 21

needs to be provided and when it needs to be provided. 22

At th at point, I can then talk about the time period 23

for rescheduling the depositions, and then for 24

rescheduling the trial. 2533

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 I know that in the FAA's final reply there 1

was a withdrawal of some of the requests, so the 2

request for production under number 10 an d the request 3

for production number 11 have been withdrawn as noted 4

by the FAA in its October 3, 2011 response. Is that 5

correct, Mr. Stevenson? 6

MR. STEVENSON: Yes, Your Honor. 7

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Then what I'm going 8

to do is ask both counsel if y ou'd be so kind as to 9

take a look at the September 22, 2011 motion by the 10

FAA to compel certain responses, and I'm going to also 11

have before me, as I hope you will as well, the 12

Respondent's omnibus reply so that we can take a look 13

at them together. As I u nderstand it, Mr. Stevenson, 14

you are moving to compel further answers to 15

Interrogatories 2, 7, 8 and 17 at this point, or 10 16

and 17, is that correct? 17

MR. STEVENSON: Well, I believe the 18

interrogatories covered are two, five, seven, eight, 19

10, 13, 14 and 17. 20

MS. SULLIVAN: Right, but I'm looking right 21

now at your September 22, 2011 motion to compel, page 22

2. 23

MR. STEVENSON: Okay. Yes, those are the 24

ones identified on page 2. 2534

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes. And the way that you 1

identified them in your motion i s also the way in 2

which the Respondents answered your motion, and so I 3

think that it would be easiest for our appellate 4

record to follow that particular line up. 5

MR. STEVENSON: Okay. I apologize, Your 6

Honor. I did not

-- I thought you were listing the 7

totality of the interrogatories the Agency identified. 8

I apologize. 9

JUDGE SULLIVAN: No problem. I'm looking 10

right now at page 2 of the FAA's September 22, 2011 11

motion to compel, and in that you indicate that each 12

of these five interrogatories, those being Nos. 2, 7, 13

8, 10 and 17, should have produced some sort of 14

response about both the Respondent's first affirmative 15

defense and its second affirmative defense. 16

MR. STEVENSON: Yes, Your Honor. 17

JUDGE SULLIVAN: And just so that we are 18

aware, what is it that you think specifically is 19

missing? 20

MR. STEVENSON: Okay. Those specifically, 21

the issues and questions in this case concern two 22

different inspections. One is an inspection required 23

in an airworthiness directive. One is an inspection 24

that is ju st the 100 hour inspection that's required 2535

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 by the regulations for commercial aircraft. 1

The Respondent asserts, among other things, 2

that there were not violations on most of these 3

flights even though the aircraft were operated past 4

the standard

-- I nee d to phrase this a way that 5

everyone can agree on. Everyone would agree, I think, 6

that these aircraft were operated past the 100 hour 7

mark since each of those inspections. Respondent 8

asserts that despite this there was no violation on 9

those flights. 10

Wh at I am looking for is the factual basis 11

for that assertion. There was a request about legal 12

basis as well I believe that was answered as to the 13

regulatory 100 hour inspection in the Respondent's 14

omnibus reply. But that, basically, what are the 15

facts tha t support the Respondent's assertion that 16

there was no violation even though they went past the 17

100 hour mark specified in the regs? What are the 18

facts that support the Respondent's assertion that 19

they were in compliance with the airworthiness 20

directive d espite the fact that they went past the 100 21

hours? 22

Specifically, Interrogatory 17 applied to 23

the other timing requirement in the AD is 100 hours or 24

next scheduled inspection, and so I asked about that. 2536

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 I mean, it may be that Respondent's defense doesn 't 1

have anything to do with the next scheduled inspection 2

requirement, and they can say that and then it's not 3

at issue anymore, but at present they just decline to 4

answer that interrogatory. 5

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Goldstein, in 6

your response, as I understand it, to these particular 7

interrogatories, you're saying essentially that either 8

it doesn't matter or you don't have to answer, if I 9

recall. 10

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, I don't think so at 11

all, Your Honor. I don't have the discovery in front 12

of me. I 'm looking at the omnibus response, but with 13

regard to the first affirmative defense, which is 14

there was no violation because the inspection could be 15

completed within 10 hours after the 100 hours, we 16

definitely provided legal basis, as Mr. Stevenson 17

said, which is that there's an FAR that specifically 18

addresses that. 19

Secondly, we have provided copies of the 20

maintenance log entries which showed when the 21

inspections occurred, when the next one was due. So 22

those are the factual bases for the response. I don't 23

mind putting it in words, but I mean we've already 24

provided that information. 2537

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 I'm just not sure when someone says what's 1

the factual basis for something. We say because it 2

can be completed within 10 hours after the due date. 3

That's our legal alle gation and it was. They have not 4

alleged that it wasn't completed within 10 hours after 5

the alleged due date. That's not an allegation that 6

they've made. I don't think it's an allegation. 7

Well, that's not an

-- so I believe the facts are out 8

there that , as I said, I don't have a problem saying 9

that then, like I'm saying it now, but I mean I 10

believe we've already said it, provided them the log 11

book entries that show that. 12

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Mr. Goldstein, in terms of 13

the actual response, typically in my experience, and 14

apparently your experience may be different from mine, 15

in response to each and every interrogatory you 16

basically identify who the person is that's going to 17

be testifying to the factual evidence and a summary of 18

the factual evidence to which they are going to 19

provide evidentiary testimony. 20

So in the responses that I saw that you 21

gave in May of 2011, for example, at Interrogatory 2, 22

let's start with two since that's our first one, the 23

interrogatory says for each person identified, please 24

s tate with specificity the subject matter upon which 2538

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 each is expected to testify, summarize the substance 1

of the testimony and identify the source of the 2

person's knowledge. 3

I have in your response for No. 2 that Mr. 4

Dean is going to talk about systems an d procedures 5

regarding scheduling flights and maintenance of 6

aircraft, who is and is not an inspector, and some 7

other matters. It doesn't identify really that he's 8

going to be testifying to any particular affirmative 9

defenses. It doesn't identify what hi s source of 10

knowledge is. It doesn't identify how he knows about 11

these things. 12

And I say that because I've known many 13

different owners of companies who've never been on the 14

property or who only visit the property once every 15

five years. So typically p eople will say things like, 16

and I'm just making this up as an example, Mr. Bob 17

Jones, the owner of the company, spends five hours 18

every day at the business. He was present at the time 19

of the flight on February 28, 2010. He was present at 20

the time of the flight on March 1, 2010. He was also 21

present on the flight of April 22, 2010. He's going 22

to testify to A, B, C and D because of his presence 23

and personal knowledge of dates and times. 24

I didn't see that kind of specificity 2539

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 regarding the facts. The same was true in the 1

identification of Mr. Zeidee and Mr. Prinitzer who are 2

also identified under Interrogatory Response No. 2. 3

So I'm going to direct you at this time to more fully 4

respond to Interrogatory No. 2 so that the answer is 5

fully compliant with the full discovery, which 6

includes the source of personal knowledge and the 7

specific facts that these people are planning to 8

testify to. 9

This isn't the same, as you know, like a 10

criminal trial where you can hope that people don't 11

ask you certain questions and then you don't have to 12

respond. You do have to respond, and the more 13

detailed you are, the better it is and the shorter the 14

depositions will be essentially. 15

So you and your client do have the 16

obligation to provide an answer to these questions to 17

th e very best of your ability in a very specific 18

manner prior to the depositions, and I'll so direct 19

you to do that. Number two, in terms of interrogatory 20

-- I'm moving between

-- Interrogatory No. 7. I have 21

a request for each and every flight identified i n the 22

complaint, and the complaint I have before me has 23

three different flights identified with two different 24

aircraft. 2540

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 Your answer is essentially the aircraft was 1

dispatched with less than 100 hours since the prior 2

inspection, and the inspections were performed upon 3

return of the flights and in a timely manner. Those 4

are conclusory statements, those are not factual 5

statements. They are conclusionary statements that 6

provide no factual information to your opposing 7

counsel and I would respectfully direc t you to return 8

to Interrogatory No. 7 and more specifically answer 9

that. 10

Interrogatory No. 8. There is a request to 11

state with specificity the facts upon which Respondent 12

bases its affirmative defense that the inspections 13

referenced in the complaint may be identified or 14

completed within 10 hours after the 100 hour time in 15

service has elapsed. This includes identifying the 16

document which permits the 10 hour over fly and acts 17

showing that the flights in question fit into the 18

conditions required. Your answer is so brief that I 19

was tempted to find that it was nonresponsive in its 20

entirety, but it does identify an airworthy directive, 21

and so it just skims the surface of being a good faith 22

answer. 23

It is inadequate in terms of the 24

interrogatory and I will direct your client at this 2541

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 time to answer that question fully, as requested in 1

the interrogatory. At the end of this I'm going to be 2

giving you a deadline for answering these questions. 3

The next interrogatory is Interrogatory No. 4

10. Interrogatory No . 10 says explain in detail why 5

you believe it's relevant if the flights were 6

scheduled to return prior to the expiration of the 100 7

hours. Mr. Stevenson, I'm going to turn to you on 8

this. Explain to me as best you can why this answer 9

is not adequate in your opinion, or is this one of the 10

ones where you withdrew? I think this is one where 11

you're withdrawing. 12

MR. STEVENSON: Well, request for production 13

10 and 11 were withdrawn. If I may, I have

-- let me 14

turn to and pull out the exact text of that res ponse 15

before I answer. 16

JUDGE SULLIVAN: The reason I ask, Mr. 17

Stevenson, is because it seems to give you enough 18

information without needing more and I'm curious as to 19

what it is that you need more of. 20

MR. STEVENSON: Well, looking specifically 21

at the r esponse to No. 10, I mean the last sentence of 22

that is there are time extensions available regarding 23

both the 100 hour and AD compliance. Presumably, the 24

time extension available regarding the 100 hour 2542

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 inspection is the one that has been, we've discussed 1

already. I'm not sure what the time extension is that 2

he's referring to in the AD compliance. So what I 3

wanted additionally there is basically what, I suppose 4

what time extensions you're talking about now. 5

I would also think that given your rulings 6

o n some of the other interrogatories that at this 7

point the relevant response given to Interrogatory 10 8

is a lot like the additional response that's given to 9

the interrogatory you've already indicated that needs 10

to be a more full response, so there may not be 11

anything additional to be gained by, from 12

Interrogatory 10. 13

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Thank you. Mr. Goldstein, 14

what I'm going to do is I'm simply going to limit your 15

response on No. 10 to identifying any statutory 16

authority that you have not already identifi ed either 17

in your original responses, your August 25, 2011 18

letter or in the responses you made to Interrogatories 19

No. 2, 7 and 8. So if there's additional statutory or 20

regulatory authority that you're relying upon, please 21

supplement Interrogatory No. 10 a ccordingly. 22

If there isn't, just say so. No. 17. 23

There is a dispute about whether or not this is even 24

relevant. Mr. Goldstein, the purpose of discovery is 2543

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 actually quite broad, as I mentioned before, and it 1

can encompass matters that are not directl y admissible 2

during the actual evidentiary trial so long as there's 3

a nexus of relevance established by the person 4

requesting the discovery. 5

I find that there has been a nexus of 6

relevance established by the FAA, and I direct you to 7

answer this question. In terms of Interrogatory No. 5 8

there's a motion to compel an answer to Interrogatory 9

No. 5. The Respondent's answer in May of 2011 10

basically said we assert, and I'm adding those words 11

on my own, we assert there was no flight instruction 12

on these flight s, therefore, the question about the 13

flights is irrelevant, immaterial, objected to, so 14

forth. Typically the opposing party in a dispute is 15

reluctant to accept a conclusionary statement by the 16

opposing side. 17

For good or ill, people in litigation are 18

oft en suspicious of each other which is why we so 19

often require a specific factual statement in support 20

of a conclusionary statement. This particular 21

complaint alleges violations of three different 22

regulations, including Federal Regulation 91409, 23

Subsection (b), which talks about operating and 24

engaging in flight instruction without the 100 hour 2544

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 inspection occurring. 1

If in fact as Mr. Dean asserts, this did 2

not involve flight instruction, there's still a 3

relevant nexus to request what the flights were abou t 4

if they did not involve flight instruction, and I will 5

so direct your client to answer this more specifically 6

and fully. 7

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Just for clarification, Your 8

Honor, in other words, what were the people on the 9

airplane doing? 10

JUDGE SULLIVAN: What was the nature and 11

purpose of the flight? Who was on the flight? You're 12

saying that no flight instruction occurred. Well 13

then, what did occur? Simply to make a conclusory 14

statement that, gosh, no flight instruction occurred 15

is not sufficient in th e discovery process in this 16

case. 17

MR. GOLDSTEIN: I'm not sure we can answer 18

what occurred because

-- well, not to interrupt, but 19

the only reason we know there was no flight 20

instruction is because there was no flight instructor. 21

That's the factual basis for the answer. I'm not 22

sure we'll know from any records that we have what did 23

occur except two guys went out and flew with each 24

other. 2545

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 JUDGE SULLIVAN: You may then want to 1

identify who the two people were that were on the 2

plane, the fact that they ar e not flight instructors, 3

and if you can, identify where they went and why they 4

went there. If you can't identify it that 5

specifically, do the best you can. Does that help? 6

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. 7

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Thank you. Okay. Let's 8

talk about Int errogatory No. 13. Interrogatory No. 13 9

requests an explanation essentially for an affirmative 10

defense that only a de minimis penalty should incur. 11

I'm having a little trouble with this particular one 12

because the complaint that I have before me doesn't 13

s pecify how the actual penalty was assessed, but 14

there's been no motion for a more specific statement 15

about that. 16

I'm going to assume absent that type of 17

motion that the parties have exchanged information 18

about it. Mr. Goldstein, is there some reason w hy you 19

cannot more specifically identify to the FAA why you 20

only should be assessed a $100 de minimis penalty? 21

Certainly in private negotiations you would want to do 22

so if, in fact, you thought this was meaningful. 23

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, what we said, Yo ur 24

Honor, was that we didn't believe there was a 2546

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 violation on two of the three flights. On the other, 1

actually to all the flights we believed that the 2

systems that were in place, which I won't go to into 3

detail, show that the operator was attempting to 4

co mply with all regulations and that the sanction 5

guidance table prohibits lines that are harsh and 6

unfair, so I don't know more than that what I could 7

say. Like we said, no violation on two of the 8

flights. 9

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. That leaves one 10

violatio n that carries a maximum penalty of $11,000. 11

What is it in your client's opinion that would reduce 12

an $11,000 fine, potentially, to a $100 de minimis 13

fine? Does he not have some idea on a more specific 14

basis as to why that should occur? 15

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, I think we've 16

indicated that it was the control systems that were in 17

place to prevent this from happening and they were 18

significant systems, and I think we've said this 19

already. 20

MS. SULLIVAN: I think you might want to say 21

it again in response to Interrogatory 13, and I will 22

so direct you to do that. In terms of Interrogatory 23

No. 14, this was a description of any conversations 24

between the Respondent and FAA personnel concerning 2547

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 this case. Mr. Stevenson, let me ask you. There's a 1

long period of t ime that occurs from the period of 2

February 2010 to the time that Mr. Goldstein came on 3

board as counsel. 4

Are you looking for something that is more 5

specific in nature in terms of time? It might be 6

difficult for the Respondent to think of all the 7

diff erent conversations he may or may not have had 8

with personnel since February 2010. I'm curious. Do 9

you have a way of focusing in on a period of time 10

that's more specific? 11

MR. STEVENSON: Well, Your Honor, I wouldn't 12

know when any relevant conversations might have taken 13

place. I imagine immediately after the violations 14

were discovered might be the most likely time that 15

there was some sort of conversation. Obviously, I 16

mean there were conversations that were held later on 17

after the notice issues that we re in my presence and I 18

don't expect, you know, Respondent to answer about 19

that. 20

It's hard for me to pin down a time because 21

part of the point of an interrogatory like this, at 22

least part of my point in asking it is that often, 23

maybe not often, but som etimes in these enforcement 24

cases we do, the airmen or the business owner comes in 2548

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 at some point and says, but the inspector said such 1

and such to me, and, you know, and argue that there's 2

some significance to whatever that is, so I don't, I 3

wouldn't know what that is supposed to be. 4

If I asked the inspectors, I wouldn't know 5

what that is supposed to be. If there isn't anything, 6

obviously

-- and it would only be Mr. Dean who would 7

know what sort of statement there might be that he 8

could raise along tho se lines. There may not be 9

anything that was of any substance along those lines, 10

but, you know, this is how I find out. 11

JUDGE SULLIVAN: So essentially you're 12

looking more specifically for those conversations that 13

occurred between Mr. Dean and the FAA i nspectors prior 14

to the time the complaint was actually issued. 15

MR. STEVENSON: Well, I guess prior to the 16

time that the notice was issued, which would narrow it 17

down further because in this case I think there was a 18

substantial period of time between the notice and the 19

complaint. 20

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. I have a notice of 21

complaint that was filed with this office on March 29, 22

2011. Can you tell me when it was actually served 23

upon Dean International? 24

MR. STEVENSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I 2549

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 meant the, well, the final notice would have been the 1

document that, you know, the formal title of it that 2

was served upon, that was sent in to the Court and 3

filed as the complaint in this case. The original 4

notice of proposed civil penalty was, let me pull the 5

exa ct date, was filed on September 21 of 2010. In 6

between September of 2010 and when the notice was 7

filed with the Court, we held an informal conference. 8

Mr. Dean sent in a letter to the Agency 9

about the notice, but at that point in time, since I 10

was invol ved in the process, I would believe that most 11

substantive communications would have taken place 12

between myself and Mr. Dean, but prior to that 13

September notice I wouldn't have been involved with 14

any statements or conversations Mr. Dean might believe 15

are re levant. 16

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Then, Mr. Goldstein, 17

I'm going to direct your client to answer this 18

question for the period between February 28, 2010 and 19

September 22, 2010 only. 20

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. Let me just look at 21

-- this is No. 14 you're talki ng about? 22

JUDGE SULLIVAN: That's correct. 23

Interrogatory No. 14 asks for, among other things, a 24

description of conversations between the Respondent 2550

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 and FAA personnel, but there was no particular 1

timeframe. 2

MR. GOLDSTEIN: The interrogatory also asks 3

f or conversations with students and employees. Is 4

that now excluded from the question? Because I 5

believe we answered. 6

JUDGE SULLIVAN: The motion I have indicates 7

that it was focused on FAA employees only, but I'll 8

check in with Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Stev enson? 9

MR. STEVENSON: Your Honor, Mr. Goldstein is 10

correct. The original interrogatory went beyond the 11

conversations with FAA personnel and in fact the 12

primary thrust would probably have been any 13

conversations that were held between Dean 14

International and its employees or students. 15

However, in their original discovery 16

responses, Dean International specifically stated that 17

it held no conversations with any of its employees or 18

students about the incidents alleged in this 19

conversation. I mean that wou ld seem to end that 20

matter for me. I mean they say that there weren't any 21

conversations. I don't know what else

-- 22

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Then it sounds to me 23

like we're talking specifically about conversations 24

between Mr. Dean and the FAA personnel, Mr. Goldstein. 2551

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. 1

JUDGE SULLIVAN: And I'm limiting your 2

answer to the period of time from February 28, 2010 to 3

September 22, 2010, and I'm directing you to answer it 4

more fully. In terms of requests for production, and 5

we're lookin g at Requests for Production 6, 7 and 8, 6

I'm going to take a look at Mr. Goldstein's response. 7

Okay. Mr. Goldstein, in terms of Requests of 8

Production No. 6 and 7, they're identical responses 9

objecting on the grounds of relevance and materiality. 10

Not li kely to lead to the discovery of admissible 11

evidence. 12

I'm a little concerned about that since 13

we're talking about aircraft maintenance and you did, 14

as Mr. Stevenson pointed out in his reply, note that 15

Mr. Dean would be coming in to talk about maintenan ce 16

of the aircraft. So why is it that you would not then 17

produce maintenance records? 18

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, we certainly don't 19

object to producing the maintenance records that are 20

relevant to the charges, but he says all maintenance 21

records. I mean tha t could go back years. How is 22

that possibly relevant for the period, it says for the 23

period February 1, 2010. 24

JUDGE SULLIVAN: In your opinion, and on 2552

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 behalf of your client, what would be more reasonable 1

in terms of the time period? 2

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Ma intenance records related 3

to the alleged violations. In other words, this case 4

involves an allegation that certain inspections were 5

not made on relation to the safe tracks on these 6

airplanes. Those maintenance records. 7

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Why don't I turn to you, 8

Mr. Stevenson. I think Mr. Goldstein makes a good 9

point. Maintenance on aircraft dating back years is 10

not necessarily helpful in the litigation. Do you 11

have a more specific timeframe that you'd like to 12

offer? 13

MR. STEVENSON: Well, I would not e that we 14

did not ask, the FAA did not ask for years worth of 15

documents. I guess it was slightly over a year for 16

each. I believe, if I recall correctly, there's a 17

typographical error. In my original one I

-- because 18

for one plane I asked for February 1, 2010 through 19

May 31, 2010. On the other airplane I

-- I'm sorry, 20

that's not true. I have for No. 6 all maintenance 21

records on the aircraft, and I ask for a four month

-- 22

JUDGE SULLIVAN: February 2010 through May 23

31, 2010. 24

MR. STEVENSON: No. 7 and 8 ask for a longer 2553

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 period of time but were more specifically concerned 1

with the inspection records and the AD compliance 2

records. Now, I will grant that certainly there's a 3

distinction between even that sort of record and 4

something that's specifically abo ut these specific 5

flights. 6

But the Respondent is presenting an 7

affirmative defense about this general concept that 8

they have systems in place to stop this stuff, that 9

Mr. Dean's testimony, as I read it, about maintenance 10

on the aircraft is not specific to the instances of 11

maintenance or lack of maintenance that are alleged in 12

the complaint but more generally to their maintenance 13

practices and how they try to stop operation of 14

unairworthy aircraft. 15

I would also note that, you know, Mr. Dean 16

in the not too distant past while operating a, while 17

running a different flight school had exactly these 18

sorts of issues with the aircraft, which is one of the 19

reasons why this is a civil penalty instead of some 20

lesser sort of administrative action. So, you know, I 21

believe if Mr. Dean is attempting to present some 22

general, a defense of a general culture of safety with 23

systems in place and a good maintenance record, that 24

the maintenance records asked for are germane to that. 2554

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. GOLDSTEIN: If I may respond? 1

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes, you may. 2

MR. GOLDSTEIN: There are three charges in 3

this case and that is that one type of inspection, a 4

safe track inspection, was not performed on two 5

airplanes on three occasions. That's the charge. So 6

looking back and seeing other kinds of maintenance on 7

these airplanes were done, how can that possibly be 8

related? 9

I mean they're not trying to show a 10

pattern. They didn't assert in their complaint that 11

the reason for the ties of the penalty was because 12

he's shown a pattern of fau lty maintenance, and so any 13

other maintenance I think is completely irrelevant to 14

whether these particular types of inspections were 15

performed. 16

They looked at everything they wanted to 17

look at and they charged him for these three 18

violations pertaining to one kind of inspection. Now, 19

an inspection is maintenance, I agree, but there's 20

tons of other things that's maintenance: oil changes, 21

changing tires, annual inspections. 22

There's tons and tons and tons of kinds of 23

maintenance and I think it would be really burdensome 24

to try to produce those kinds of records, and they 2555

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 wouldn't tell us anything about whether or not there 1

was a violation of these seat inspections which were 2

done. There's no dispute they were done. It's just a 3

question of when they were done and if that met the 4

AD. 5

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Thank you. 6

MR. STEVENSON: If I could just observe two 7

things since we're on the record here, Your Honor, if 8

you don't mind. 9

JUDGE SULLIVAN: You may. 10

MR. STEVENSON: There are two different 11

inspections in question in this case, not just the AD 12

inspection. There's also the 100 hour regulatory 13

inspection. Additionally I would note that Mr. 14

Goldstein is correct that we did not charge a past 15

violation history in the complaint, but that's frankly 16

neither h ere nor there. In the complaint we charge 17

the alleged violations. We don't charge every 18

possible mitigating or aggravating circumstance used 19

in assessing what the appropriate penalty is nor

-- we 20

-- I mean we don't and we're not required to. That 21

was all

. 22

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Mr. Stevenson, what is your 23

response to Mr. Goldstein's assertion that this is 24

overly burdensome? 2556

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. STEVENSON: Well, I don't know exactly 1

how these aircraft maintenance records are kept. I 2

would note with regard to the maintenanc e records 3

generally, again, we only asked for four months worth 4

of records. I understand that these are flight school 5

aircraft and sometimes they get flown a lot and maybe 6

they have to have a lot of maintenance done on them, 7

but I did not think that

-- I t hought that the four 8

months of records requested was a relatively narrow 9

request. 10

Concerning records of AD compliance, 11

typically for commercial operations running aircraft 12

like this, they usually have a separate AD compliance 13

that is kept somewhat inde pendently from the rest of 14

the maintenance records and I don't think it would be 15

unduly burdensome to produce that. It's possible that 16

questions about any and all inspections identified in 17

Interrogatory 7, that seems like it would be the most 18

burdensome b ecause I imagine that those are just 19

interspersed with normal maintenance records so it 20

might be hard to pick them out. 21

JUDGE SULLIVAN: And how would those in 22

Request for Production No. 7 be helpful or relevant to 23

you discerning admissible evidence if y ou already have 24

in Request for Production No. 8 the request for 2557

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 records concerning AD compliance? 1

MR. STEVENSON: Well, the inspections 2

involved in this case, there's the AD inspections and 3

then there's the 100 hour inspections that the 4

aircraft in this case have to receive, and so that is 5

not identical to the record of AD compliance. Again, 6

a large part of the relevance of this is not about 7

whether or not the AD was complied with in this 8

specific instance. 9

I mean I think it appears that whether or 10

n ot the AD and the 100 hour inspection were complied 11

with is I think going to end up just being a legal 12

question. There's no dispute, I don't think, that 13

they went past the 100 hour mark. If I recall 14

correctly, we don't have any dispute that, yes, those 15

i nspections were completed within the 110 hours of the 16

prior one. There's just a dispute about the legal 17

significance of that. 18

When you get to the asserted affirmative 19

defenses and you want to make general assertions that 20

seem to be along the lines of our maintenance and 21

safety practices are so good that even though we, a 22

flight school, dispatched flight school aircraft with 23

flight school students and personnel on them and they 24

were operated in an unairworthy condition, we 2558

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 shouldn't be held responsible for that, you know, the 1

administrator, and you're going to be testifying about 2

your maintenance records, that the FAA should be 3

allowed to actually review those records. 4

MR. GOLDSTEIN: We never said we were going 5

to testify about maintenance records in general. 6

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Mr. Goldstein, thank you. 7

Mr. Stevenson, let me ask you this in terms of Request 8

for Production No. 7. As I understand it, your 9

main interest is for the records concerning any and 10

all 100 hour inspections. 11

MR. STEVENSON: Yes, Your Honor. 12

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Goldstein, you 13

were going to say something. 14

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, I think Chris 15

mischaracterized, you know, what we said. I mean we 16

weren't going to testify in general about maintenance 17

practices. What w e were going to testify 18

specifically, which we identified, was the control 19

systems that are in place in order that the airplane 20

not be flown beyond the 100 hours. We never said we 21

were going to testify about his maintenance practices 22

in general. 23

JUDGE S ULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you for that 24

clarification. IN terms of Request for Production No. 2559

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 6, I'm going to direct the Respondent, Dean 1

International, to produce those maintenance records 2

for both aircraft for the period of February 1, 2010 3

through May 31, 2010. 4

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Is that every single 5

maintenance record, Your Honor, just for 6

clarification? 7

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes. If you find that the 8

maintenance records are electronic, we can certainly 9

talk about the electronic production and whether or 10

not it would exceed, you know, your computer capacity. 11

If they are paper and you find that you have reams 12

and hundreds and hundreds of pages of material within 13

that four month period of time, I will ask you to 14

contact Mr. Stevenson and see if he is willing to 15

stipulate that he doesn't need all of the oil change 16

records, for example. 17

If he's not willing to stipulate, the two 18

of you can call my office on a joint phone call, talk 19

to Ms. Mayes and set up an expedited motion conference 20

with me. Until you agree differently or I order 21

otherwise, it's all maintenance records for both 22

aircraft for that period of time. In terms of Request 23

for Production No. 7, I will grant that with the 24

understanding and directive that it concerns only 2560

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 those records involving 100 h our inspections performed 1

on the two aircraft in question for the period of 2

February 1, 2009 through May 21, 2010. 3

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm sorry, but 4

Mr. Stevenson said there was a typo and he meant to 5

put February 1, 2010, if I'm not mistaken. 6

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Mr. Stevenson, I didn't 7

hear that from you. Am I mistaken? 8

MR. STEVENSON: No, Your Honor. I misspoke. 9

When I was glancing down at this earlier in this 10

conversation and I saw the different dates, I had a 11

little brain hiccup and I was thinking that six was 12

about all of the maintenance records for one aircraft 13

and seven was about all of the maintenance records for 14

another aircraft and I was thinking I must have made a 15

typographical error in having those different. 16

And then I actuall y read them and I 17

realized that six was about the maintenance records 18

and seven was more narrowly about the inspection 19

records. So I did reference making a typographical 20

error, but my reference was itself a mistake and it is 21

not a typographical error. 22

M S. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Mr. Goldstein, 23

again, I'm going to direct your client to produce the 24

100 hour inspections from the period of February 1, 2561

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 2009 through May 31, 2010. I think it's a reasonable 1

request and there's been a nexus of relevancy 2

establish ed. The same is true for Request for 3

Production No. 8, which is regarding the records of 4

the AD compliance for both aircraft for the period of 5

February 1, 2009 through May 21, 2010. 6

Your client is again so directed to produce 7

whatever he has in terms of those records. That 8

leaves us with Request for Production No. 9. Mr. 9

Stevenson, I'm going to turn to you. This appeared to 10

be quite a broad request. It could last for years in 11

the past the way I read this material. Was this what 12

you really wanted o r do you have a narrower timeframe 13

that you can offer to this Court? 14

MR. STEVENSON: Well, honestly, Your Honor, 15

I thought that the timeframe of any and all records 16

relating to these flights would not extend much in 17

time before these flights. I guess I did not 18

anticipate that there would be much of anything before 19

that timeframe and that there wouldn't be too much 20

after that timeframe. I would note that since asking 21

the interrogatory, I believe that the scope of what's 22

left of it has been narrowed. Let me double check to 23

make sure. 24

Yes. The source documents that the 2562

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 request originally included included maintenance 1

records specifically about those flights. Mr. Dean 2

has indicated that the specific maintenance records 3

that the Agency already has are the only ones that 4

exist, so I don't think that there's anything left to 5

respond on that. 6

Additionally after

-- the purpose of asking 7

about billing records was part of going into the 8

question about whether or not there was flight 9

instruction on these air craft and because that would 10

be the sort of thing that might show up as billing 11

records. In the omnibus reply, Respondent conceded 12

that the 100 hour regulatory inspection applied 13

whether or not there was instruction on the flights, 14

so I don't think that g oing forward that's really a 15

dispute. 16

That factual allegation presently remains 17

in the complaint, but if the parties agree that the 18

100 hour inspection applies regardless, then that's 19

probably something we could just take out so we don't 20

have to, you k now, continue to argue about it. So 21

what remains is broad in terms that it still is 22

basically any or all records. 23

It's not purely a business record or a 24

maintenance record since you already answered about 2563

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 that, but, for example, there's an affirmative defense 1

in this case that there are systems in place to 2

prevent this sort of thing. So far the Respondent's 3

interrogatory response is that no discussion was had 4

whatsoever about this incident with any student or 5

employee at the flight school. 6

MR. GOLDS TEIN: I'm sorry to interrupt, but 7

that's just not what the answer to the interrogatory 8

says. 9

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Goldstein, I'm 10

going to note that I'll be giving you a chance to 11

respond once Mr. Stevenson is finished. Mr. 12

Stevenson, you're welc ome to continue with your 13

argument. 14

MR. STEVENSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor. 15

Well, okay. I'm not going to go back and pull it out 16

unless Your Honor would like me to and we've all got 17

it here, but that was my recollection of our request. 18

Interrogatory 14 was the one that asked for what 19

discussions had been had about this and the original 20

response I got was an objection on the basis of 21

privilege. 22

I believe in my July letter I noted that 23

my interrogatory response had explicitly excluded a 24

request to pro duce conversations between the 2564

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 Respondent and counsel, and my recollection is that 1

the follow

- up in the August 2009 letter from Mr. 2

Goldstein was that the only such conversations were 3

between FAA personnel and Mr. Dean. And that's why 4

our discussions toda y about Interrogatory 14 have only 5

been about those conversations with FAA personnel 6

because it was represented that all other 7

conversations were privileged because they were with 8

counsel, and that was the totality of other 9

conversations. 10

So to me that's saying that you did not have 11

any conversations with the students or employees about 12

this. Then the sort of record asked for in this 13

document would include was there any written directive 14

sent out to students or employees about these 15

incidents. 16

I mean maybe the Court or opposing counsel 17

would disagree, but if you're asserting that you have 18

systems in place to prevent this sort of action from 19

occurring, it's strange to assert that defense while 20

also saying that there was no written documentation 21

generat ed by the company about this, no memo to 22

instructors, no reprimand of the dispatcher for 23

dispatching an unairworthy aircraft, and no 24

conversations with the students. 2565

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 Now, it may be that the answer to this 1

request for production is, in fact, there were no such 2

documents, but that representation has not been made, 3

just an objection that whatever documents there may be 4

don't have to be produced. I believe that the Agency 5

is entitled to either have whatever documents there 6

may be or an affirmative represen tation that no such 7

documents exist. 8

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Let me follow up with you 9

on that, Mr. Stevenson. You've indicated that you 10

don't need the internal billing records; you don't 11

need the maintenance records. Are you still seeking 12

invoices, fuel rece ipts and flight instruction records 13

for the dates of the three alleged violations? 14

MR. STEVENSON: No, Your Honor. I believe, 15

as I put in my response, yes, the portions of this 16

request that sought business records and flight 17

instruction, yes. So, no, Y our Honor, I would not be 18

seeking those. I would have thought of the invoices 19

and the fuel receipts as purely business financial 20

records that I don't believe are relevant any longer. 21

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Well, just so that I'm 22

clear, and it may be that it's past 4:00 and I'm 23

slowing down. In terms of what you're still seeking, 24

you're still seeking any and all written records 2566

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 regarding to the flights that were taken on these 1

three dates? How would you rephrase this request for 2

production in a more narrow sen se? I'm not sure what 3

it is that you now want. 4

MR. STEVENSON: Well, I apologize that it 5

still remains a little vague and I think that's, Your 6

Honor, because partially I don't know what other sort 7

of records the Respondent might have generated. I 8

don't know the interior workings of their company, and 9

so it's hard for me to do something other than ask the 10

broad question and then exclude categories of 11

documents from it. 12

I feel like if I tried to I could specify 13

kinds of documents, but then I'd be conc erned that I'd 14

be missing something that might have been produced. I 15

mean, for example, if there was any sort of 16

disciplinary record or counseling taken against the 17

dispatcher for this, that would be something we'd want 18

to see. 19

If there was any memo s ent out to students 20

or instructors or anyone else that is associated with 21

Dean International about the fact that these incidents 22

had occurred and that they were a problem and what 23

should be done to avoid them in the future, that would 24

seem like a very pert inent document. 2567

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. I'm going to stop 1

you. Mr. Goldstein, you had a response to this. What 2

is your response? 3

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, in our answers to the 4

interrogatories we specifically said in terms of 5

discussions with students an d so forth, every month we 6

conduct an instructor/student meeting on safety 7

issues. During the meeting we discuss 100 hour 8

stickers and the time log, which, by the way, were 9

provided to the FAA, the stickers, as well as the 10

aircraft. 11

Exceeding the stic ker times is now grounds 12

for termination from the school. We also have office 13

meetings with all dispatchers on a regular basis to 14

keep everybody informed about this case and to 15

emphasize the importance of the various due times, so 16

it's not accurate to say they said they don't talk to 17

anybody about this, or never talked to a student or 18

anything. 19

Furthermore, Mr. Dean has already 20

responded, saying he fired the maintenance provider at 21

the time. FAA knows that already. We can say it 22

again. We don't have any problem saying it again, but 23

it's already been said. Mr. Dean provided some of the 24

records, and probably all that he can, when he wrote 2568

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 to Mr. Thomas, the regional counsel. 1

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you. What I'm 2

going to do is this. I'm look ing at my clock and I 3

have gone far beyond the one hour time that I had 4

asked the two of you to put on your calendars, and I 5

apologize. We have not gotten to a due date for all 6

this discovery, we have not talked about rescheduling 7

the procedural order, an d we still need to talk about 8

resetting the December 11 trial date. 9

What I'm going to suggest is the following, 10

that we look at our calendars, we set another 11

telephone conference to finish up this particular 12

process, and between now and then I'm going to ask 13

you, Mr. Stevenson, to put together an amended Request 14

for Production No. 9 that's within the scope of that 15

original request and email it or fax it to Mr. 16

Goldstein for review so that the two of you can 17

discuss it. 18

Then when we reconvene for our next much 19

shorter conference, if you have not reached an 20

agreement about that particular amended and narrower 21

request for production, I can make a ruling on that. 22

What I'd like to have you two do, if you would be so 23

kind, is to take a look at your calend ars, and I've 24

got to reboot my calendar. You may have to do that 2569

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 for yourself as well, and we're going to pick out a 1

time in the next couple of days to reconvene just to 2

finish up. 3

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm available 4

every morning except Friday. Any time except Friday 5

morning. I could do it Friday afternoon or any other, 6

you know, morning or afternoon this week. 7

JUDGE SULLIVAN: And Mr. Goldstein, what 8

about you? 9

MR. GOLDSTEIN: That was me. 10

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Oh, that was you. I'm so 11

sorry. Mr. Stevenson, how about you? 12

MR. STEVENSON: I have all of Wednesday and 13

all of Thursday free. I have several telecons 14

scheduled on Tuesday, and Friday I might have to drive 15

my aunt to the hospital, so I'd prefer not to. I 16

don't know if I'm going to do that, but I'd prefer not 17

to schedule it then. 18

JUDGE SULLIVAN: What about then if we 19

reconvene on Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 1:30 in 20

the afternoon? Starting with you, Mr. Goldstein, 21

would that work? 22

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, ma'am. 23

JUDGE SULLIVAN: And Mr. Stevenson? 24

MR. STEVENSON: Work for me, Your Honor. 2570

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. I will look forward, 1

and the office here will initiate that call 1:30 this 2

week on October 26, 2011. I believe that we'll be 3

able to finish up well within an hour on that date. 4

With that, on behalf of the FAA, Mr. Stevenson, is 5

there anything else that we can address for your 6

client today? 7

MR. STEVENSON: No, Your Honor. 8

JUDGE SULLIVAN: And Mr. Goldstein, on 9

behalf of your client, anything we can address today? 10

MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, Your Honor. 11

JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you both very 12

much for your time today. Our business is complete. 13

I'll look forward to talking to you two days from now. 14

We can go off the record. 15

(Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the hearing in the 16

above

- entitled matter was concluded.) 17

// 18

// 19

// 20

// 21

// 22

// 23

// 24

// 2571

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628

- 4888 71

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

DOCKET NO.: FAA

- 2011

- 0069

CASE TITLE: Dean International, Inc.

HEARING DATE: October 24, 2011

LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

I hereby certify that the proceeding s and

evidence are contained fully and accurately on the

tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the

above case before the Federal Aviation Administration.

Date: October 24, 2011

W. Andre Bellamy O fficial Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation Suite 600 1220 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

- 4018