TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION

Official Reporters

1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600

Washington, 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, 2011
1

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

FEDERAL AVIATION 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

Southern 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 33156

(305) 670-1222
2

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 (2:30 p.m.)

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

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

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

6 an FDMS number which is FAA-2011-0069. Today is 

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

8 convened by telephone for a motion conference. The 

9 Respondent, Dean International, Inc., is represented 

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

11 Federal Aviation Administration, is represented by its 

12 attorney, Christopher R. Stevenson. 

13 Also present at the Office of Hearings with 

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

15 spell that. P-R-I-Y-A, last name Krishna, K-R-I-S-H16 N-A. She's an attorney intern in this office, and 

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

18 counsel.

19 ALL: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

20 JUDGE SULLIVAN: We have a lot of things to 

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

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

23 all of your materials, which includes reading all the 

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

25 the disputes are, what the motions are, what the 
3

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 requests for relief are and what types of sanctions 

2 are included in those requests for relief. 

3 I do have a couple questions to ask each of 

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

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

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

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

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

9 subpoenas issued and served on any of the FAA 

10 inspectors after you filed your notice of amended 

11 deposition?

12 MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, there were not.

13 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. There has been a 

14 notation by both parties that the FAA served discovery 

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

16 It appeared to me that you responded with your answer 

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

18 is that correct?

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

20 date, except I believe we responded timely.

21 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay.

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

23 whole complete file in front of me.

24 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay.

25 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I don't think there's any 
4

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 dispute that we responded timely.

2 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. In terms of your 

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

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

5 it stopped.

6 MR. GOLDSTEIN: No. Not without looking in 

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

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

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

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

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

12 week that we had initially planned to do the 

13 depositions. Because he had just gotten back I 

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

15 wanted to move the depositions one week ahead, farther 

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

17 prepare.

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

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

20 on or about August 22, 2011?

21 MR. STEVENSON: I would also have to double 

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

23 the discussion was that his vacation was going to end 

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

25 doing the depositions or in that ballpark.
5

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Which was the 22nd.

2 MR. STEVENSON: Okay.

3 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. 

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

5 couple questions. It appears that there was a 

6 response of some type from the Respondent on or about 

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

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

9 letter to the Respondent about these eight 

10 deficiencies that you highlighted for him that was 

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

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

13 MR. STEVENSON: Frankly, because until -- I 

14 continued to believe that ultimately there is not 

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

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

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

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

19 were. 

20 It was at some point in time within the 

21 week or two prior to that letter that Mr. Goldstein 

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

23 or concede to anything or engage in any narrowing of 

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

25 that point I felt that I had to issue the letter to 
6

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 make sure that we could get the answers that we may 

2 need.

3 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. In that July 29, 

4 2011 letter you indicated that there were about eight 

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

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

7 responses to give and then no other records of six of 

8 the remaining problems. It appeared to me from the 

9 dialogue the two of you had in those letter exchanges 

10 that there was -- and I'm going to identify them. 

11 There were five identified items that didn't

12 seem to be addressed from your client's perspective 

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

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

15 Respondent's affirmative defenses; 3) information 

16 supporting the Respondent's request for a de minimis 

17 penalty; 4) information regarding the Respondent's 

18 communications with FAA personnel; and 5) maintenance 

19 records on aircraft. 

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

21 going to ask you whether the allegation that there was 

22 insufficient records on the factual bases from two of 

23 the Respondent's affirmative defenses, was that 

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

25 remaining problems instead of five?
7

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 are you asking Mr. Stevenson?

3 JUDGE SULLIVAN: I'm still having or trying 

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

5 attorney.

6 MR. STEVENSON: Okay. I apologize, Your 

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

8 There are two that went to two distinctive affirmative 

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

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

11 was treated as two different subjects or one.

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

13 you had identified in your letter what you considered 

14 to be six remaining problems, but when you had them 

15 identified and listed out, I only counted five.

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

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

18 should count the two affirmative defenses as two 

19 separate problems or if the six was actually a five.

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

21 can review that passage.

22 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Sure.

23 MR. STEVENSON: I believe this is my 

24 response to the amended notice of deposition.

25 JUDGE SULLIVAN: If you don't know off hand, 
8

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 it may come out a little later. I just thought I 

2 would ask now.

3 MR. STEVENSON: Glancing at my response, I 

4 believe that, yes, the two affirmative defenses was 

5 that that's numbers five and six.

6 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you. Now let 

7 me ask, and I'm still with you, Mr. Stevenson --

8 MR. STEVENSON: Okay.

9 JUDGE SULLIVAN: -- let's assume just for 

10 the sake of a hypothetical that we keep the December 

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

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

13 potentially three employees of Dean International yet 

14 to be deposed, is that correct?

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

16 depositions for inspectors. I believe the amended 

17 notice of deposition went from six to five.

18 MR. GOLDSTEIN: That's correct.

19 MR. STEVENSON: Okay. The Agency's 

20 depositions were issued in the form of primarily a 

21 corporate deposition on particular subject matters, 

22 and I believe that the Respondent was planning on 

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

24 response to that. 

25 With the possible exception of the actual 
9

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

3 responding to that, although on the subject of the 

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

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

6 you about that until we got to the deposition and I --

7 and maybe he can.

8 JUDGE SULLIVAN: So there's a possibility of 

9 depositions still needing to be taken?

10 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes.

11 MR. STEVENSON: Yes.

12 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Stevenson, still 

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

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

15 Stevenson, in looking at your calendar and considering 

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

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

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

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

20 do those depositions prior to the start of the trial 

21 that's currently set on my calendar?

22 MR. STEVENSON: Well, my calendar is 

23 actually pretty clear for that time period. I could 

24 not speak right now to the exact availability of the 

25 inspectors. Whether or not we'd be able to complete 
10

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the depositions prior to the hearing would probably 

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

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

4 grace period there is between the depositions and the 

5 hearing. 

6 I know one of the things that opposing 

7 counsel had wanted was in the ballpark of a month 

8 after the depositions so that there was the option to 

9 promulgate additional discovery requests based on the 

10 information learned at the deposition. If that was 

11 accommodated, that obviously I think would make it 

12 difficult to accomplish the depositions because we'd 

13 have to do them in the next two weeks.

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

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

16 question. Looking at your calendar and assuming that 

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

18 unlikely is it that you would be able to schedule 

19 those depositions prior to the trial?

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

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

22 problem is that there may be further discovery needed 

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

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

25 14. 
11

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 I was just noting my calendar before we got 

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

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

4 require travel before and after the day of the 

5 arbitration and other court hearings and proceedings 

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

7 I could get together and schedule the deposition. 

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

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

10 December 13 wouldn't work for me.

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

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

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

14 spot in this particular motion for your client. 

15 There's been an allegation from Dean International 

16 that you did not have legal authority to cancel 

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

18 wondering if you can cite to me any other authority 

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

20 thought you might have had to unilaterally cancel the 

21 FAA deposition.

22 MR. STEVENSON: I would disagree with the 

23 characterization that we had stipulated to these 

24 depositions and that they were unilaterally canceled. 

25 It was made very clear to Respondent that in order 
12

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 to properly conduct the deposition of Respondent, that 

3 I needed to actually get in advance of the deposition 

4 answers to our interrogatories and the responses to 

5 our request for production. 

6 I felt that it was more conducive to moving 

7 the schedule along to agree to a tentative date and 

8 rather than insist on having those in hand before we 

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

10 made fairly contingent upon the presupposition that 

11 Respondent was actually going to respond fully to the 

12 depositions. 

13 It was not until a few business days before 

14 the scheduled time for those depositions that 

15 Respondent sent a letter iterating that it was not 

16 going to comply any further with the discovery 

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

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

19 else for discovery that prompted the informal 

20 objection to the amended notice.

21 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. And in terms of your 

22 understanding of what happened in setting up these 

23 depositions, it looked to me in reviewing the file 

24 that you were attempting to identify those concerns in 

25 your July 29, 2011 letter to the Respondent.
13

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

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

4 that.

5 JUDGE SULLIVAN: So essentially, as I 

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

7 trying to identify all of those contingencies in your 

8 July 29, 2011 letter to the Respondent, making the 

9 depositions contingent upon full disclosure prior to 

10 the depositions starting.

11 MR. STEVENSON: Yes, Your Honor.

12 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Is there anything 

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

14 2011 letter that codifies what the parties had 

15 discussed by telephone or email or otherwise?

16 MR. STEVENSON: No, Your Honor.

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

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

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

20 that same perspective because you are making a motion 

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

22 canceling of those depositions.

23 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor.

24 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Can you identify what you 

25 disagree with in terms of the July 29, 2011 letter or 
14

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 you disagree with?

3 MR. GOLDSTEIN: What I disagree with in his 

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

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

6 but what Mr. Stevenson was talking about was his 

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

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

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

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

11 address his cancellation of the -- or his withdrawal 

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

13 deposition. 

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

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

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

17 his sole reason for canceling the inspector's 

18 deposition or withdrawing his approval of them was he 

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

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

21 couple of times.

22 JUDGE SULLIVAN: In your discussions with 

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

24 discussed the efficacy of him coming to Florida once 

25 as opposed to multiple times for depositions. Is that 
15

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 not your understanding as well of your conversation?

2 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, we did agree that we 

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

4 contemplation that he was going to withdraw his 

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

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

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

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

9 far.

10 JUDGE SULLIVAN: As I understand it, you 

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

12 your office is.

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

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

15 hour depending on the time.

16 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Other than Mr. Stevenson, 

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

18 of town?

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

20 inspectors were all local.

21 MS. SULLIVAN: Mr. Stevenson, turning back 

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

23 Atlanta, Georgia region.

24 MR. STEVENSON: Correct, Your Honor.

25 JUDGE. SULLIVAN: And how much time and cost 
16

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 MR. STEVENSON: Well, that depends on 

3 exactly how long I would be there for a particular 

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

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

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

7 which is at least half the day. We'd probably fly 

8 into Ft. Lauderdale. 

9 The city pair flights on AirTran to Ft. 

10 Lauderdale are much cheaper than the city pair flights 

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

12 difference driving-wise from Ft. Lauderdale to Mirimar 

13 versus Miami to Mirimar.

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

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

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

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

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

19 probably another couple hundred dollars, and an 

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

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

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

23 about $600 in travel expenses just to go down. 

24 Additionally, then the Agency -- obviously you 

25 should know this is me personally. The Agency then 
17

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

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

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

5 ballpark of 750 bucks in addition to the additional 

6 travel time for me doing that instead of something 

7 else.

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

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

10 deposition without the requested discovery from the 

11 Respondent. Respondent has asserted in some of his 

12 materials that much of the material that you wanted in 

13 writing prior to the deposition could have been 

14 elicited from Mr. Dean during a deposition. 

15 Assuming that's true for the sake of this 

16 hypothetical question, how much time do you think it 

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

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

19 provided ahead of time versus deposing Mr. Dean 

20 without having the information you requested ahead of 

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

22 think might have been added to your deposition?

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

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

25 additional time, I don't know. I think more 
18

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 importantly the problem would be that without answers 

2 for -- on the subject of just interrogatories re: 

3 providing an answer, without having the answers in 

4 advance, that would deny me the opportunity to 

5 properly prepare for the deposition. 

6 Then I would have to be going in and trying 

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

8 the appropriate follow-up questions or clarifications 

9 might be on that subject instead of having the basic 

10 answers in advance and being able to think about it. 

11 In addition, once you get beyond the 

12 interrogatories, if you get beyond the interrogatories 

13 or in the interrogatories, I manage to figure 

14 everything out perfectly without production of 

15 documents in advance of the deposition, I've 

16 completely lost the ability to ask the Respondent 

17 questions about those documents.

18 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Which would lead to a 

19 second deposition, no doubt.

20 MR. STEVENSON: I guess it could. I 

21 generally would try to avoid having -- I would prefer 

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

23 case, but I guess potentially could.

24 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Let me ask you this 

25 too, Mr. Stevenson. You would be flying into a place 
19

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 where the inspectors already work. Is this a location 

2 at the FAA where you have access to video equipment?

3 MR. STEVENSON: Yes.

4 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Have you in your practice 

5 ever utilized the telephone or video equipment for 

6 depositions for long-distance purposes?

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

8 memory around. I have never taken a deposition via 

9 videoconference. I have defended a deposition that 

10 the other side took via videoconference.

11 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Goldstein, let 

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

13 to travel with your client to a location outside of 

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

15 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Obviously you mean other 

16 cases, Judge. Yes.

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

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

19 what they want to say before I start making some 

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

21 want to take five minutes and just talk about anything 

22 that you think you would like to highlight for me 

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

24 If there are certain areas that you would like the 

25 Court to indicate an interest, I'm happy to do that. 
20

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 materials at this point?

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

4 that the written materials would cover the details of 

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

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

7 Agency remains in the same position that it was, 

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

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

10 litigation and all litigation in an efficient manner 

11 that does not impose undue burdens on either party. 

12 You just mentioned that 

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

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

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

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

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

18 may as well just do that. 

19 Our position is, it always has been, that 

20 in order to conduct this litigation efficiently and 

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

22 that the written and documentary discovery should be 

23 completed before and in a manner such that the 

24 depositions can be conducted efficiently rather than 

25 fragmenting the depositions so as to impose undue 
21

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 That's all I have.

3 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Thank you. Mr. Goldstein, 

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

5 highlight anything on behalf of your client materials, 

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

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

8 some of the inquiry you've already heard?

9 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I would rely on what we 

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

11 precise. I guess the only thing I would add is that 

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

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

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

15 compliant. He responded to the discovery promptly. 

16 You know, there was some delay in writing to 

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

18 responses would have been any different. In terms of 

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

20 litigating cases for over 40 years and almost always, 

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

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

23 depositions first, and then there's follow-up 

24 discovery.

25 I would never say that you can get all 
22

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 discovery done in one round. Sometimes you ask a 

2 question in a deposition that leads you to request 

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

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

5 practice.

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

7 Goldstein. Is it your normal practice to expect the 

8 opposing party to go in cold to a deposition and 

9 simply ask the witness questions about materials that 

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

11 least at some level in some of your responsive 

12 materials.

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

14 not what happened here. I mean we provided -- well, 

15 that's not what happened. We answered the 

16 interrogatories and the FAA did a very thorough 

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

18 and tons of documents already. We furnished them, I 

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

20 They did an investigative search of my client and had 

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

22 considered that they would be going in cold. 

23 Beyond that, the FAA made allegations as to 

24 certain, three flights that occurred in I think 

25 February and March of 2010. In some of their document 
23

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

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

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

5 more with those kinds of --

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

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

8 see in your October 3, 2011 omnibus reply some 

9 statements throughout that reply which indicated that 

10 clarification could have been resolved by simply 

11 deposing the witness or asking the witness about 

12 documentation that was requested, and so I got the 

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

14 but I got the impression that it was part of your 

15 argument that Mr. Stevenson should have just been 

16 willing to go into the deposition and use the 

17 deposition as a discovery tool in lieu of asking for 

18 documents in advance.

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

20 believe that my argument about asking Mr. Dean's 

21 questions had to do with interrogatories, not 

22 documents. I believe.

23 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay.

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

25 but I would only repeat that they would, no sense 
24

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 going in cold because they did a very thorough 

2 document search and copying of my client's records 

3 before they ever issued a complaint.

4 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes. As I understand it, 

5 this was during the investigatory phase of the 

6 complaint process before the complaint was actually 

7 issued.

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

9 Honor.

10 JUDGE SULLIVAN: I did interrupt you during 

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

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

13 some rulings?

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

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

16 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you both very 

17 much for your presence and your arguments. It seems 

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

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

20 Perhaps I should say three. Number one, this case 

21 languished for a while in this office in part because 

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

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

24 into other pressing matters. 

25 The procedural order that counsel provided 
25

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

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

4 schedule to try to accommodate that shortened time and 

5 still meet the original November 2011 trial date.

6 By stipulation, the parties agreed then that 

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

8 month to our current December 2011 schedule. So 

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

10 dispute between the parties about the scope of 

11 discovery and written materials and production of 

12 documents, and in the answering of interrogatories. 

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

14 is saying nothing else needs to be offered. 

15 The third dispute is what the stipulation 

16 was between the parties, if there was such a 

17 stipulation, and what the scope of the stipulation 

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

19 stipulation was conditional, if such stipulation was 

20 entered into. Mr. Goldstein takes the position that 

21 there was a stipulation that was limited in scope and 

22 that did not include the conditional depositions of 

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

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

25 suggest a couple things to counsel for the future.
26

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 I know every judge before whom you've 

2 appeared at the Office of Hearings handles cases 

3 slightly differently and that you have not had a 

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

5 should probably add that as a fourth problem in this 

6 particular case because there were avenues of relief 

7 that you might have used had you worked with me 

8 before.

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

10 you would have been welcome to confer with Mr. 

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

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

13 assistant, and set up on my calendar an expedited 

14 motion conference to address any and all motion 

15 disputes before those depositions were taken. I'm 

16 happy to address those kinds of problems by telephone 

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

18 Secondly, there was a continuing hope by 

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

20 light of discovery in your own perceptions and come to 

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

22 board with your perceptions of what discovery should 

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

24 that by the time the discovery problems were noted and 

25 the letters sent to Dean International, Mr. 
27

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 three week cruise and unavailable for assistance.

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

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

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

6 absentia. So that made it a little more time 

7 sensitive, I think, for everyone.

8 In terms of the stipulation itself, the 

9 only type of stipulation I have is the parties' 

10 agreement for the amended notice of deposition 

11 schedule and the accompanying letters of July 29, 2011 

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

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

14 Goldstein was arguing, that from the letter it could 

15 be read that the only deposition that was in 

16 conditional peril if discovery was not provided was 

17 the deposition of Mr. Dean.

18 Now, that may be not what the parties had 

19 actually discussed, and it certainly seemed from the 

20 parties' materials as a whole that everyone was trying 

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

22 time when all depositions were taken, and given the 

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

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

25 Stevenson's assertion that there was a joint attempt 
28

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 to conserve his time and Agency resources in coming to 

2 these depositions in Florida. 

3 I don't have before me a specifically 

4 written stipulation that actually says that, and so I 

5 would simply recommend to the parties in the future 

6 that if you have those kinds of conditions that you 

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

8 and signed, dated and exchanged.

9 It's very helpful so that when you have 

10 these very unusual circumstances when something like 

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

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

13 interpretation. Because there was, I think, a 

14 disagreement, in essence, about the scope of the 

15 agreement of the parties, and because of the shortened 

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

17 would call a unilateral fashion to cancel the 

18 depositions of his FAA witnesses.

19 Mr. Stevenson has asserted as authority 

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

21 I would respectfully disagree that this authorizes any 

22 FAA attorney to unilaterally cancel depositions 

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

24 that that particular section is only with the 

25 scheduling of witnesses' testimony and how to address 
29

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 expense for having the witness not be at work.

3 I think when we start to talk about 

4 attorney time and attorney expense that goes beyond 49 

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

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

7 Conduct. The Civil Rules of Procedure encourage the 

8 parties to engage in as much stipulation as possible 

9 and to engage in stipulations and in discovery 

10 practice that will minimize, as Mr. Stevenson so 

11 correctly noted, extra time, expense or burdens upon 

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

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

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

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

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

17 your better option might have been either to request 

18 an expedited ruling from this Court by telephone with 

19 both parties on the line. 

20 Unfortunately, you haven't worked with me 

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

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

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

24 asked for sanctions, which would have included having 

25 Mr. Dean and Mr. Goldstein come to you for a 
30

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 rescheduled deposition, and then gone down to Florida 

2 and appeared in person to oversee the depositions of 

3 the FAA inspectors.

4 You could have also done the deposition of 

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

6 added burden and expense and then asked for a 

7 supplemental deposition at your own convenience and 

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

9 decided to travel back to Florida for that second 

10 deposition. There were also alternatives of appearing 

11 by telephone or by video for the FAA inspectors' 

12 depositions if you so chose to or by alternatively 

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

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

15 lots of different things that you might have done as 

16 opposed to simply canceling all the depositions.

17 I simply say that so that you have those 

18 options available to you to think about if in fact 

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

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

21 discovery itself, I think Mr. Stevenson is correct. 

22 The interrogatories and request for production 

23 provided in May of 2011 were inadequate. 

24 Discovery is a very broad process. It is 

25 set up so that a party may even go on what's called a 
31

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 fishing expedition to a certain extent so long as 

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

3 The fact that materials may have been provided prior 

4 to the issuance of the complaint does not relieve Dean 

5 International from providing those materials again, 

6 and there is other authority to support that.

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

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

9 the FAA witnesses for a rescheduling of the 

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

11 the parties disagree that those depositions should be 

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

13 terms of vacating the current litigation procedural 

14 order and issuing another one, I will again grant 

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

16 a continuance of the December 2011 trial dates.

17 I think that even though both of you, of 

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

19 own litigation experiences throughout the years I've 

20 found that my witnesses often will not be available on 

21 the ideal day, particularly when there are holidays 

22 coming up. The week of Thanksgiving and the week 

23 following Thanksgiving has been one of the most 

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

25 into court on expedited motions, much less to come for 
32

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 a deposition. 

2 Thirdly, the Respondent's motion in the 

3 September 13, 2011 materials for a sanction to 

4 prohibit the FAA from calling its witnesses is 

5 respectfully denied. I think there are problems that 

6 have been exhibited by both parties regarding the 

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

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

9 an appropriate sanction to request in this particular 

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

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

12 compel that was filed on September 22, 2011, there was 

13 a motion to compel full disclosure or, in the 

14 alternative, to have the Respondent withdraw some 

15 affirmative defenses.

16 I think essentially we can go through some 

17 of these interrogatories and requests for production 

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

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

20 quite specific and have time deadlines so that 

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

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

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

24 for rescheduling the depositions, and then for 

25 rescheduling the trial. 
33

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

3 request for production under number 10 and the request 

4 for production number 11 have been withdrawn as noted 

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

6 correct, Mr. Stevenson?

7 MR. STEVENSON: Yes, Your Honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 at them together. As I understand it, Mr. Stevenson, 

15 you are moving to compel further answers to 

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

17 and 17, is that correct?

18 MR. STEVENSON: Well, I believe the 

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

20 10, 13, 14 and 17.

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

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

23 2.

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

25 ones identified on page 2.
34

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes. And the way that you 

2 identified them in your motion is also the way in 

3 which the Respondents answered your motion, and so I 

4 think that it would be easiest for our appellate 

5 record to follow that particular line up.

6 MR. STEVENSON: Okay. I apologize, Your 

7 Honor. I did not -- I thought you were listing the

8 totality of the interrogatories the Agency identified. 

9 I apologize.

10 JUDGE SULLIVAN: No problem. I'm looking 

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

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

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

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

15 response about both the Respondent's first affirmative 

16 defense and its second affirmative defense.

17 MR. STEVENSON: Yes, Your Honor.

18 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And just so that we are 

19 aware, what is it that you think specifically is 

20 missing?

21 MR. STEVENSON: Okay. Those specifically, 

22 the issues and questions in this case concern two 

23 different inspections. One is an inspection required 

24 in an airworthiness directive. One is an inspection 

25 that is just the 100 hour inspection that's required 
35

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 by the regulations for commercial aircraft. 

2 The Respondent asserts, among other things, 

3 that there were not violations on most of these 

4 flights even though the aircraft were operated past 

5 the standard -- I need to phrase this a way that 

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

7 that these aircraft were operated past the 100 hour 

8 mark since each of those inspections. Respondent 

9 asserts that despite this there was no violation on 

10 those flights.

11 What I am looking for is the factual basis 

12 for that assertion. There was a request about legal 

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

14 regulatory 100 hour inspection in the Respondent's 

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

16 facts that support the Respondent's assertion that 

17 there was no violation even though they went past the 

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

19 facts that support the Respondent's assertion that 

20 they were in compliance with the airworthiness 

21 directive despite the fact that they went past the 100 

22 hours? 

23 Specifically, Interrogatory 17 applied to 

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

25 next scheduled inspection, and so I asked about that. 
36

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 have anything to do with the next scheduled inspection 

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

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

5 answer that interrogatory.

6 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Goldstein, in 

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

8 interrogatories, you're saying essentially that either 

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

10 recall.

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

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

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

14 regard to the first affirmative defense, which is 

15 there was no violation because the inspection could be 

16 completed within 10 hours after the 100 hours, we 

17 definitely provided legal basis, as Mr. Stevenson 

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

19 addresses that. 

20 Secondly, we have provided copies of the 

21 maintenance log entries which showed when the 

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

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

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

25 provided that information.
37

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 the factual basis for something. We say because it 

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

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

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

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

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

8 Well, that's not an -- so I believe the facts are out 

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

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

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

12 book entries that show that.

13 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Mr. Goldstein, in terms of 

14 the actual response, typically in my experience, and 

15 apparently your experience may be different from mine, 

16 in response to each and every interrogatory you 

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

18 be testifying to the factual evidence and a summary of 

19 the factual evidence to which they are going to 

20 provide evidentiary testimony. 

21 So in the responses that I saw that you 

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

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

24 interrogatory says for each person identified, please 

25 state with specificity the subject matter upon which 
38

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 each is expected to testify, summarize the substance 

2 of the testimony and identify the source of the 

3 person's knowledge.

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

5 Dean is going to talk about systems and procedures 

6 regarding scheduling flights and maintenance of 

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

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

9 going to be testifying to any particular affirmative 

10 defenses. It doesn't identify what his source of 

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

12 these things.

13 And I say that because I've known many 

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

15 property or who only visit the property once every 

16 five years. So typically people will say things like, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 and personal knowledge of dates and times.

25 I didn't see that kind of specificity 
39

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 regarding the facts. The same was true in the 

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

3 also identified under Interrogatory Response No. 2. 

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

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

6 fully compliant with the full discovery, which 

7 includes the source of personal knowledge and the 

8 specific facts that these people are planning to 

9 testify to. 

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

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

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

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

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

15 depositions will be essentially.

16 So you and your client do have the 

17 obligation to provide an answer to these questions to 

18 the very best of your ability in a very specific 

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

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

21 -- I'm moving between -- Interrogatory No. 7. I have 

22 a request for each and every flight identified in the 

23 complaint, and the complaint I have before me has 

24 three different flights identified with two different 

25 aircraft. 
40

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Your answer is essentially the aircraft was 

2 dispatched with less than 100 hours since the prior 

3 inspection, and the inspections were performed upon 

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

5 are conclusory statements, those are not factual 

6 statements. They are conclusionary statements that 

7 provide no factual information to your opposing 

8 counsel and I would respectfully direct you to return 

9 to Interrogatory No. 7 and more specifically answer 

10 that. 

11 Interrogatory No. 8. There is a request to 

12 state with specificity the facts upon which Respondent 

13 bases its affirmative defense that the inspections 

14 referenced in the complaint may be identified or 

15 completed within 10 hours after the 100 hour time in 

16 service has elapsed. This includes identifying the 

17 document which permits the 10 hour over fly and acts 

18 showing that the flights in question fit into the 

19 conditions required. Your answer is so brief that I 

20 was tempted to find that it was nonresponsive in its 

21 entirety, but it does identify an airworthy directive, 

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

23 answer.

24 It is inadequate in terms of the 

25 interrogatory and I will direct your client at this 
41

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 time to answer that question fully, as requested in 

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

3 giving you a deadline for answering these questions. 

4 The next interrogatory is Interrogatory No. 

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

6 you believe it's relevant if the flights were 

7 scheduled to return prior to the expiration of the 100 

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

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

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

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

12 you're withdrawing.

13 MR. STEVENSON: Well, request for production 

14 10 and 11 were withdrawn. If I may, I have -- let me 

15 turn to and pull out the exact text of that response 

16 before I answer.

17 JUDGE SULLIVAN: The reason I ask, Mr. 

18 Stevenson, is because it seems to give you enough 

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

20 what it is that you need more of.

21 MR. STEVENSON: Well, looking specifically 

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

23 that is there are time extensions available regarding 

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

25 time extension available regarding the 100 hour 
42

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

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

4 wanted additionally there is basically what, I suppose 

5 what time extensions you're talking about now. 

6 I would also think that given your rulings 

7 on some of the other interrogatories that at this 

8 point the relevant response given to Interrogatory 10 

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

10 the interrogatory you've already indicated that needs 

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

12 anything additional to be gained by, from 

13 Interrogatory 10.

14 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Thank you. Mr. Goldstein, 

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

16 response on No. 10 to identifying any statutory 

17 authority that you have not already identified either 

18 in your original responses, your August 25, 2011 

19 letter or in the responses you made to Interrogatories 

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

21 regulatory authority that you're relying upon, please 

22 supplement Interrogatory No. 10 accordingly. 

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

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

25 relevant. Mr. Goldstein, the purpose of discovery is 
43

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 can encompass matters that are not directly admissible 

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

4 a nexus of relevance established by the person 

5 requesting the discovery.

6 I find that there has been a nexus of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 on these flights, therefore, the question about the 

14 flights is irrelevant, immaterial, objected to, so 

15 forth. Typically the opposing party in a dispute is 

16 reluctant to accept a conclusionary statement by the 

17 opposing side.

18 For good or ill, people in litigation are 

19 often suspicious of each other which is why we so 

20 often require a specific factual statement in support 

21 of a conclusionary statement. This particular 

22 complaint alleges violations of three different 

23 regulations, including Federal Regulation 91409, 

24 Subsection (b), which talks about operating and 

25 engaging in flight instruction without the 100 hour 
44

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 inspection occurring. 

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

3 not involve flight instruction, there's still a 

4 relevant nexus to request what the flights were about 

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

6 so direct your client to answer this more specifically 

7 and fully.

8 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Just for clarification, Your 

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

10 airplane doing?

11 JUDGE SULLIVAN: What was the nature and 

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

13 saying that no flight instruction occurred. Well 

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

15 statement that, gosh, no flight instruction occurred 

16 is not sufficient in the discovery process in this 

17 case.

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

19 what occurred because -- well, not to interrupt, but 

20 the only reason we know there was no flight 

21 instruction is because there was no flight instructor. 

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

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

24 occur except two guys went out and flew with each 

25 other.
45

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 JUDGE SULLIVAN: You may then want to 

2 identify who the two people were that were on the 

3 plane, the fact that they are not flight instructors, 

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

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

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

7 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes.

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

9 talk about Interrogatory No. 13. Interrogatory No. 13 

10 requests an explanation essentially for an affirmative 

11 defense that only a de minimis penalty should incur. 

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

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

14 specify how the actual penalty was assessed, but 

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

16 about that. 

17 I'm going to assume absent that type of 

18 motion that the parties have exchanged information 

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

20 cannot more specifically identify to the FAA why you 

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

22 Certainly in private negotiations you would want to do 

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

24 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, what we said, Your 

25 Honor, was that we didn't believe there was a 
46

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 actually to all the flights we believed that the 

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

4 detail, show that the operator was attempting to 

5 comply with all regulations and that the sanction 

6 guidance table prohibits lines that are harsh and 

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

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

9 flights.

10 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. That leaves one 

11 violation that carries a maximum penalty of $11,000. 

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

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

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

15 basis as to why that should occur?

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

17 indicated that it was the control systems that were in 

18 place to prevent this from happening and they were 

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

20 already.

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

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

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

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

25 between the Respondent and FAA personnel concerning 
47

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 long period of time that occurs from the period of 

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

4 board as counsel. 

5 Are you looking for something that is more 

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

7 difficult for the Respondent to think of all the 

8 different conversations he may or may not have had 

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

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

11 that's more specific?

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

13 know when any relevant conversations might have taken 

14 place. I imagine immediately after the violations 

15 were discovered might be the most likely time that 

16 there was some sort of conversation. Obviously, I 

17 mean there were conversations that were held later on 

18 after the notice issues that were in my presence and I 

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

20 that. 

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

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

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

24 maybe not often, but sometimes in these enforcement 

25 cases we do, the airmen or the business owner comes in 
48

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 know what sort of statement there might be that he 

9 could raise along those lines. There may not be 

10 anything that was of any substance along those lines, 

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

12 JUDGE SULLIVAN: So essentially you're 

13 looking more specifically for those conversations that 

14 occurred between Mr. Dean and the FAA inspectors prior 

15 to the time the complaint was actually issued.

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

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

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

19 substantial period of time between the notice and the 

20 complaint.

21 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. I have a notice of 

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

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

24 upon Dean International?

25 MR. STEVENSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I 
49

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

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

4 filed as the complaint in this case. The original 

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

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

7 between September of 2010 and when the notice was 

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

9 Mr. Dean sent in a letter to the Agency 

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

11 was involved in the process, I would believe that most 

12 substantive communications would have taken place 

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

14 September notice I wouldn't have been involved with 

15 any statements or conversations Mr. Dean might believe 

16 are relevant.

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

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

19 question for the period between February 28, 2010 and 

20 September 22, 2010 only.

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

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

23 JUDGE SULLIVAN: That's correct. 

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

25 description of conversations between the Respondent 
50

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 and FAA personnel, but there was no particular 

2 timeframe.

3 MR. GOLDSTEIN: The interrogatory also asks 

4 for conversations with students and employees. Is 

5 that now excluded from the question? Because I 

6 believe we answered.

7 JUDGE SULLIVAN: The motion I have indicates 

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

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

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

11 correct. The original interrogatory went beyond the 

12 conversations with FAA personnel and in fact the 

13 primary thrust would probably have been any 

14 conversations that were held between Dean 

15 International and its employees or students.

16 However, in their original discovery 

17 responses, Dean International specifically stated that 

18 it held no conversations with any of its employees or 

19 students about the incidents alleged in this 

20 conversation. I mean that would seem to end that 

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

22 conversations. I don't know what else --

23 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Then it sounds to me 

24 like we're talking specifically about conversations 

25 between Mr. Dean and the FAA personnel, Mr. Goldstein.
51

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay.

2 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And I'm limiting your 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 objecting on the grounds of relevance and materiality. 

11 Not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible 

12 evidence. 

13 I'm a little concerned about that since 

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

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

16 Mr. Dean would be coming in to talk about maintenance 

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

18 produce maintenance records?

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

20 object to producing the maintenance records that are 

21 relevant to the charges, but he says all maintenance 

22 records. I mean that could go back years. How is 

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

24 period February 1, 2010.

25 JUDGE SULLIVAN: In your opinion, and on 
52

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 behalf of your client, what would be more reasonable 

2 in terms of the time period?

3 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Maintenance records related 

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

5 involves an allegation that certain inspections were 

6 not made on relation to the safe tracks on these 

7 airplanes. Those maintenance records.

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

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

10 point. Maintenance on aircraft dating back years is 

11 not necessarily helpful in the litigation. Do you 

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

13 offer?

14 MR. STEVENSON: Well, I would note that we 

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

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

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

18 typographical error. In my original one I -- because 

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

20 May 31, 2010. On the other airplane I -- I'm sorry, 

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

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

23 JUDGE SULLIVAN: February 2010 through May 

24 31, 2010.

25 MR. STEVENSON: No. 7 and 8 ask for a longer 
53

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 period of time but were more specifically concerned 

2 with the inspection records and the AD compliance 

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

4 distinction between even that sort of record and 

5 something that's specifically about these specific 

6 flights. 

7 But the Respondent is presenting an 

8 affirmative defense about this general concept that 

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

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

11 on the aircraft is not specific to the instances of 

12 maintenance or lack of maintenance that are alleged in 

13 the complaint but more generally to their maintenance 

14 practices and how they try to stop operation of 

15 unairworthy aircraft.

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

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

18 running a different flight school had exactly these 

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

20 reasons why this is a civil penalty instead of some 

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

22 believe if Mr. Dean is attempting to present some 

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

24 systems in place and a good maintenance record, that 

25 the maintenance records asked for are germane to that.
54

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. GOLDSTEIN: If I may respond?

2 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes, you may.

3 MR. GOLDSTEIN: There are three charges in 

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

5 safe track inspection, was not performed on two 

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

7 looking back and seeing other kinds of maintenance on 

8 these airplanes were done, how can that possibly be 

9 related?

10 I mean they're not trying to show a 

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

12 the reason for the ties of the penalty was because 

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

14 other maintenance I think is completely irrelevant to 

15 whether these particular types of inspections were 

16 performed.

17 They looked at everything they wanted to 

18 look at and they charged him for these three 

19 violations pertaining to one kind of inspection. Now, 

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

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

22 changing tires, annual inspections. 

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

24 maintenance and I think it would be really burdensome 

25 to try to produce those kinds of records, and they 
55

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 was a violation of these seat inspections which were 

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

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

5 AD.

6 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Thank you.

7 MR. STEVENSON: If I could just observe two 

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

9 you don't mind.

10 JUDGE SULLIVAN: You may.

11 MR. STEVENSON: There are two different 

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

13 inspection. There's also the 100 hour regulatory 

14 inspection. Additionally I would note that Mr. 

15 Goldstein is correct that we did not charge a past 

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

17 neither here nor there. In the complaint we charge 

18 the alleged violations. We don't charge every 

19 possible mitigating or aggravating circumstance used 

20 in assessing what the appropriate penalty is nor-- we 

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

22 was all.

23 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Mr. Stevenson, what is your 

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

25 overly burdensome?
56

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 how these aircraft maintenance records are kept. I 

3 would note with regard to the maintenance records 

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

5 of records. I understand that these are flight school 

6 aircraft and sometimes they get flown a lot and maybe 

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

8 but I did not think that-- I thought that the four 

9 months of records requested was a relatively narrow 

10 request. 

11 Concerning records of AD compliance, 

12 typically for commercial operations running aircraft 

13 like this, they usually have a separate AD compliance 

14 that is kept somewhat independently from the rest of 

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

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

17 questions about any and all inspections identified in 

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

19 burdensome because I imagine that those are just 

20 interspersed with normal maintenance records so it 

21 might be hard to pick them out.

22 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And how would those in 

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

24 you discerning admissible evidence if you already have 

25 in Request for Production No. 8 the request for 
57

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 records concerning AD compliance?

2 MR. STEVENSON: Well, the inspections 

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

4 then there's the 100 hour inspections that the 

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

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

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

8 whether or not the AD was complied with in this 

9 specific instance. 

10 I mean I think it appears that whether or 

11 not the AD and the 100 hour inspection were complied 

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

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

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

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

16 inspections were completed within the 110 hours of the 

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

18 significance of that.

19 When you get to the asserted affirmative 

20 defenses and you want to make general assertions that 

21 seem to be along the lines of our maintenance and 

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

23 flight school, dispatched flight school aircraft with 

24 flight school students and personnel on them and they 

25 were operated in an unairworthy condition, we 
58

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

3 your maintenance records, that the FAA should be 

4 allowed to actually review those records.

5 MR. GOLDSTEIN: We never said we were going 

6 to testify about maintenance records in general.

7 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Mr. Goldstein, thank you. 

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

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

10 main interest is for the records concerning any and 

11 all 100 hour inspections.

12 MR. STEVENSON: Yes, Your Honor.

13 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Goldstein, you 

14 were going to say something.

15 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, I think Chris 

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

17 weren't going to testify in general about maintenance 

18 practices. What we were going to testify 

19 specifically, which we identified, was the control 

20 systems that are in place in order that the airplane 

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

22 were going to testify about his maintenance practices 

23 in general.

24 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you for that 

25 clarification. IN terms of Request for Production No. 
59

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 International, to produce those maintenance records 

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

4 through May 31, 2010.

5 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Is that every single 

6 maintenance record, Your Honor, just for 

7 clarification?

8 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes. If you find that the 

9 maintenance records are electronic, we can certainly 

10 talk about the electronic production and whether or 

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

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

13 and hundreds and hundreds of pages of material within 

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

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

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

17 records, for example.

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

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

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

21 with me. Until you agree differently or I order 

22 otherwise, it's all maintenance records for both 

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

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

25 understanding and directive that it concerns only 
60

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 those records involving 100 hour inspections performed 

2 on the two aircraft in question for the period of 

3 February 1, 2009 through May 21, 2010.

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

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

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

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

8 hear that from you. Am I mistaken?

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

10 When I was glancing down at this earlier in this 

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

12 little brain hiccup and I was thinking that six was 

13 about all of the maintenance records for one aircraft 

14 and seven was about all of the maintenance records for 

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

16 typographical error in having those different. 

17 And then I actually read them and I 

18 realized that six was about the maintenance records 

19 and seven was more narrowly about the inspection 

20 records. So I did reference making a typographical 

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

22 not a typographical error.

23 MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Mr. Goldstein, 

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

25 100 hour inspections from the period of February 1, 
61

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 request and there's been a nexus of relevancy 

3 established. The same is true for Request for 

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

5 the AD compliance for both aircraft for the period of 

6 February 1, 2009 through May 21, 2010. 

7 Your client is again so directed to produce 

8 whatever he has in terms of those records. That 

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

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

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

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

13 you really wanted or do you have a narrower timeframe 

14 that you can offer to this Court?

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

16 I thought that the timeframe of any and all records 

17 relating to these flights would not extend much in 

18 time before these flights. I guess I did not 

19 anticipate that there would be much of anything before 

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

21 after that timeframe. I would note that since asking 

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

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

24 make sure.

25 Yes. The source documents that the 
62

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 request originally included included maintenance 

2 records specifically about those flights. Mr. Dean 

3 has indicated that the specific maintenance records 

4 that the Agency already has are the only ones that 

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

6 respond on that.

7 Additionally after -- the purpose of asking 

8 about billing records was part of going into the 

9 question about whether or not there was flight 

10 instruction on these aircraft and because that would 

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

12 records. In the omnibus reply, Respondent conceded 

13 that the 100 hour regulatory inspection applied 

14 whether or not there was instruction on the flights, 

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

16 dispute. 

17 That factual allegation presently remains 

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

19 100 hour inspection applies regardless, then that's 

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

21 have to, you know, continue to argue about it. So 

22 what remains is broad in terms that it still is 

23 basically any or all records. 

24 It's not purely a business record or a 

25 maintenance record since you already answered about 
63

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 in this case that there are systems in place to 

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

4 interrogatory response is that no discussion was had 

5 whatsoever about this incident with any student or 

6 employee at the flight school.

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

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

9 says.

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

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

12 respond once Mr. Stevenson is finished. Mr. 

13 Stevenson, you're welcome to continue with your 

14 argument.

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

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

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

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

19 Interrogatory 14 was the one that asked for what 

20 discussions had been had about this and the original 

21 response I got was an objection on the basis of 

22 privilege.

23 I believe in my July letter I noted that 

24 my interrogatory response had explicitly excluded a 

25 request to produce conversations between the 
64

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Respondent and counsel, and my recollection is that 

2 the follow-up in the August 2009 letter from Mr. 

3 Goldstein was that the only such conversations were 

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

5 our discussions today about Interrogatory 14 have only 

6 been about those conversations with FAA personnel 

7 because it was represented that all other 

8 conversations were privileged because they were with 

9 counsel, and that was the totality of other 

10 conversations.

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

12 any conversations with the students or employees about 

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

14 document would include was there any written directive 

15 sent out to students or employees about these 

16 incidents.

17 I mean maybe the Court or opposing counsel 

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

19 systems in place to prevent this sort of action from 

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

21 also saying that there was no written documentation 

22 generated by the company about this, no memo to 

23 instructors, no reprimand of the dispatcher for 

24 dispatching an unairworthy aircraft, and no 

25 conversations with the students.
65

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Now, it may be that the answer to this 

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

3 documents, but that representation has not been made, 

4 just an objection that whatever documents there may be 

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

6 is entitled to either have whatever documents there 

7 may be or an affirmative representation that no such 

8 documents exist.

9 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Let me follow up with you 

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

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

12 need the maintenance records. Are you still seeking 

13 invoices, fuel receipts and flight instruction records 

14 for the dates of the three alleged violations?

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

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

17 request that sought business records and flight 

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

19 seeking those. I would have thought of the invoices 

20 and the fuel receipts as purely business financial 

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

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

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

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

25 you're still seeking any and all written records 
66

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 regarding to the flights that were taken on these 

2 three dates? How would you rephrase this request for 

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

4 it is that you now want.

5 MR. STEVENSON: Well, I apologize that it 

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

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

8 of records the Respondent might have generated. I 

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

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

11 broad question and then exclude categories of 

12 documents from it.

13 I feel like if I tried to I could specify 

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

15 be missing something that might have been produced. I 

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

17 disciplinary record or counseling taken against the 

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

19 to see. 

20 If there was any memo sent out to students 

21 or instructors or anyone else that is associated with 

22 Dean International about the fact that these incidents 

23 had occurred and that they were a problem and what 

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

25 seem like a very pertinent document.
67

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

3 is your response?

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

5 interrogatories we specifically said in terms of 

6 discussions with students and so forth, every month we 

7 conduct an instructor/student meeting on safety 

8 issues. During the meeting we discuss 100 hour 

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

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

11 aircraft.

12 Exceeding the sticker times is now grounds 

13 for termination from the school. We also have office 

14 meetings with all dispatchers on a regular basis to 

15 keep everybody informed about this case and to 

16 emphasize the importance of the various due times, so 

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

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

19 anything. 

20 Furthermore, Mr. Dean has already 

21 responded, saying he fired the maintenance provider at 

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

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

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

25 records, and probably all that he can, when he wrote 
68

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 to Mr. Thomas, the regional counsel.

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

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

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

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

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

7 this discovery, we have not talked about rescheduling 

8 the procedural order, and we still need to talk about 

9 resetting the December 11 trial date. 

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

11 that we look at our calendars, we set another 

12 telephone conference to finish up this particular 

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

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

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

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

17 Goldstein for review so that the two of you can 

18 discuss it.

19 Then when we reconvene for our next much 

20 shorter conference, if you have not reached an 

21 agreement about that particular amended and narrower 

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

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

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

25 got to reboot my calendar. You may have to do that 
69

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

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

3 finish up.

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

5 every morning except Friday. Any time except Friday 

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

7 you know, morning or afternoon this week.

8 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And Mr. Goldstein, what 

9 about you?

10 MR. GOLDSTEIN: That was me.

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

12 sorry. Mr. Stevenson, how about you?

13 MR. STEVENSON: I have all of Wednesday and 

14 all of Thursday free. I have several telecons 

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

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

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

18 to schedule it then.

19 JUDGE SULLIVAN: What about then if we 

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

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

22 would that work?

23 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, ma'am.

24 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And Mr. Stevenson?

25 MR. STEVENSON: Work for me, Your Honor.
70

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. I will look forward, 

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

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

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

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

6 there anything else that we can address for your 

7 client today?

8 MR. STEVENSON: No, Your Honor.

9 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And Mr. Goldstein, on 

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

11 MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, Your Honor.

12 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you both very 

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

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

15 We can go off the record.

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

17 above-entitled matter was concluded.)

18 //

19 //

20 //

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //
71

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 proceedings 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

Official Reporter

Heritage Reporting Corporation

Suite 600

1220 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-4018