:^EPARTML9!;, ^^CPlU 

i?rTfVnppM10N? Before the U.S. Department of Transportation "^C C 

"'"' " Federal Aviatio Aviation Administratio Administration '••••: - :CC // *>^ •-«M—k ^ ^ 

In the matter of 

M & R HELICOPTERS 

DockeiNo. QP4X)SCiM;I'. 

FAA Case No.' 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yodcr 

COMPLAINANT^S RESPONSE TO M&R HELICOPTERS' 

MOTION FOR DEPOSITION OF LATON YA WILLIAMS. 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY. AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO 

OUASH 

Complainant files this response to Respondent M & R Helicopters' 

(Respondent) Motion for Deposition of Latonya Williams, Motion to Compel Discovery, 

and Motion for Judgment to Quash. 

Motion for Deposition of Latonya Williams 

On December 1, 2010, Respondent filed a Motion for Deposition of Latonya 

Williams, indicating its desire to depose Ms. Williams at the U.S. District Courthouse in 

Allenton, PA. Respondent did not need to tile a motion reqixesting the Administrative 

Law Judge to grant approval for the deposition of Ms. Williams. Under the Rules of 

Practice in Civil Penally Proceedings, depositions are a permitted method of discovery.' 

Accordingly, it is not necessary that Complainant respond to this motion. Nonetheless, 

Complainant is willing to make Ms. Williams available for a deposition at a time and 

location mutually convenient for Ms. Williams and Respondent and to further those 

arrangements, files this response. 

' Respondent's motion does not conform to the procedural rules for a notice of deposition at 14 C.F.R. 

I3.220(jX3) nor did Respondent request a subpoena for Ms. Williams. 

SOO/LOO E SWQ * VVJ S1?LSE61?302 XVd 00-8 L 0L03/GS/2 1 
Ms. Williams is located in Miami, Florida and traveling to Allentowti, PA, solely 

for the purpose of a deposition would pose a hardship for Ms. Williams, and be unduly 

burdensome and expensive for Complainant, However, Ms. Williams would be available 

for a deposition at FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC, a much more accessible 

location, on any of the following dates: January 28, 2010, February 1-4, 2010, February 

8-11, 2010, or February 15-17, 2010. Because Respondent is requesting this deposition, 

it will bear the costs for a court reporter, and must make all arrangements to have the 

couri reporter present for the deposition. Respondent will need to work with 

Complainant to provide information about those attending the deposition, so that they can 

gain access through FAA .security to the building. Respondent will also need to comply 

with the requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§ ]3,220(j) and 13. 229. 

Motion to Compel Discovery 

In its Motion to Compel Discovery, Respondent repeats the same arguments it 

made in its M & R Helicopters' Motion to Quash, Strike, or Dismiss Complaint. 

Complainant has already addressed these arguments in its December 10, 2010, Response 

to M & R Helicopters' Motion to Quash, Strike, or Dismiss Complaint and Motion to 

Strike Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a Drug/Alcohol Program, at pages 6-7. As 

provided in that response, no outstanding discovery requests exist. Although 

Respondent, in its Motion to Compel, cites to requests made in letters and conversations 

prior to the filing of the complaint, those cannot be characterized as discovery requests.^ 

^ 14 C.F.R. § 13.220 (a) provides that "any pany may initiate discovery,...at any lime after a complaint has 

been filed in the procccding.s." 

SOO/SOOll SWO * VVd StLSSetSOS XVd 00:eL 0L0S/6S/2L 
Moreover, the agency has already provided full and complete responses to all requests for 

information that are not publicly available.' 

The FAA has provided all documents requested by Re.spondent that exist, are 

responsive to his requests, and are not privileged. Respondent argues that he received a 

copy of the Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) which was "ahered, redacted and 

spoliated". See Respondent's Motion to Compel at 2. The agency has provided, however, 

all releasable portions of the EIR and indicated the basis for which it was withholding or 

redacting documents at the time the EIR was provided. The portions of the EIR that were 

withheld contain the investigator's analysis, recommendations, and opinion.s and 

constitute delibeiativc, prc-decisional materials, rendered by agency siaffmembers in the 

course of reaching a final determination or position on a particular matter under agency 

consideration. See, e.g., Jordan v. Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (en banc). While Respondent has requested transcripts of a "hearing" held on 

October 1, 2010, no hearing lias been held and no such tran.scripts exist.'* See 

Complainant's Response to M & R Helicopters' Motion to Quash, Strike, or Dismiss 

Complaint and Motion to Strike Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a Drug/Alcohol 

Program, p. 6-7. 

'' Respondent has repeatedly requested regulations and ca.sc.s that are publicly available. Coniplainant ha$ 

provided full and complete citations to all regulations, statutes, and ca-ses upon which il relies. 

On October 1, 2010, M & R participated in sn informal conference to discuss the matter with the agency 

attorney, as is provided for under C.F.R. 13.16(0(2)(iii). This informal conference occurred by telephone 

and it was explained to Mr, Selig, owner of M &. R Helicopters, that it \vas not a hearing but rather an 

informal discussion with the agency attorney that afforded liim an opportunity to submit relevant 

information and the provided the parties an opportunity to discuss the alleged violations and possibly 

resolve the matter. When Mr. Selig asked whether the conversation was being recorded, the agency 

attorney stated "no." There is, therefore, no transcript. 

900/eooi a SWG * VVd St^LSGGtSOS XVd lO:e L 0102/62/3 1 
Motion for Judgment to Quash 

In its Motion for Judgment to Quash, Respondent again repeats the same 

arguments in its Motion to Quash, Strike, or Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Strike 

Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a Drug/Alcohol Program, and Motion to Compel 

Discovery. Complainant has addressed these arguments in its responses to those motions. 

In its Motion for Judgment to Quash, Respondent also mentions Complainant's 

investigation of another mechanic performing .safety-sensitive functions on Respondent's 

aircraft and claims Complainant withdrew the violation for that mechanic. Motion for 

Judgment to Quash at page 4. Complainant determined that an apparent violation existed 

with respect to this other mechanic. But, Complainant decided not to pursue that 

apparent violation in the present case for evidentiary reasons. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Administrative Law 

Judge deny Respondent's Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Judgment to 

Quash. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

X ir LauraPonto 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: December 15, 2010 

SOO/tOOia SNQ * VVd 2tLSeGl7202 XVd L0:S1 0L02/G2/2L 
Certificate of Service 

T hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified return-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response to Respondent's) Motion for 

Deposition of Latonya Williams, Motion to Compel Discovery, and Motion for Judgment 

to Quash In the Matter ofM&R Helicopters, FAA Ca.se no. 2009SO950434, addressed 

to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, 1 hereby certily that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office ol Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.R. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FacsimOc: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date T have .sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified relum-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to; 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

IrM^^A^O-XWi ^ 

Dated: December 15, 2010 

SOO/SOOi a SWQ <- VVd 2l7LSSG1?202 XVd lO:e L 0L02/62/2 L