In the Matter of 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

W ASlllNGTON, DC 

RECEIVED 

APR 1 0 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

HOTTON ENTERPRISES, INC., FAA Docket No. [To be Assigned] 

DMS No.: FAA 2013-1081 

Respondent 

FAA Region: Western Pacific 

Jndge: Richard C. Goodwin 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY 

DEADLINE AND POSTPONEMENT OF THE HEARING 

To: Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin and Respondent: 

The Federal Aviation Administration ("Agency") hy and through counsel, 

pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.218, hereby moves for an extension of the deadline for discovery 

and a postponement of the hearing in this case. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

This case involves a variety of regulatory violations committed by Respondent, who, 

at the time, operated a repair station certificated under 14 CFR part 145. The Agency served 

the complaint on Respondent via certified mail on February 19, 2014, and it was successfully 

delivered on February 21,2014. Judge Goodwin's Procedural Order, dated February 26, 

2014, ordered the parties to conclude all discovery on or before May 2, 2014. Respondent 

has not filed an Answer. On February 19,2014, the Agency filed a Motion to Deem 

Allegations Admitted, based on Respondent's failure to file an Answer. On April1, 2014, 

Judge Goodwin issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Respondent, by May 2, 2014, to; 
file a response stating why the relief requested by the Agency's Motion should not be 

granted, answer the Complaint, and fully comply with the Procedural Order. 

II. ARGUMENT: THE DEADLINE FOR DISCOVERY SHOULD BE EXTENDED 

THE HEARING SHOULD BE POSTPONED 

The deadline for discovery should be extended since Respondent's failure to file 

an Answer has hampered the Agency's ability to file complete discovery requests. 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.220( d), a party has 30 days to respond to discovery requests, 

unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Respondent has no incentive to agree to a shorter 

time to respond to discovery requests, and given their failure to file an Answer, the 

Agency does not have faith that Respondent would honor any such agreement. Thus, the 

Agency was required to file discovery requests by April2, 2014, to meet the discovery 

deadline. On April 2, 20 14, the Agency filed limited Interrogatories and Requests for 

Production of Documents to ensure Respondent is required to provide basic information 

about their witnesses and evidence by the discovery deadline of May 2, 2014. The 

Agency would like to file more specific Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and 

Requests for Admissions based on Respondent's Answer if and when Respondent files 

the same. Unless the discovery deadline of May 2, 2014, is extended, the Agency will be 

precluded from filing more specific discovery requests. These more specific discovery 

requests support judicial economy by narrowing the scope of disputed issues. These 

requests also allow the Agency to fully explore the bases of Respondent's denials, if any, 

of the Complaint and affirmative defenses. If the Agency is not permitted additional time 

to conduct full discovery in this case, it will be hampered in its ability to prepare for the 

hearing in this case. The Agency requests that the Judge extend the discovery deadline to 

2 
June 161

h to allow for a sufficient amount of time prior to the hearing for the Agency to 

file specific discovery requests based on Respondent's Answer and to resolve any 

discovery disputes that arise from those requests. 

The hearing in this case should be postponed to allow for an extension of the 

discovery deadline and to allow for the possibility of pre-hearing motions that may 

become feasible as a result of discovery. Pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.218(c), motions must 

be made 30 days prior to the hearing. With the hearing as currently scheduled, prehearing motions must be filed by April28, 2014. As explained above, the Agency cannot 

file detailed discovery until Respondent files an Answer. The hearing as currently 

scheduled precludes the possibility of filing dispositive pre-hearing motions that may 

become feasible as a result of discovery, such as a motion for summary judgment or 

partial motion for summary judgment. 

3 
III. CONCLUSION 

The Agency respectfully requests that the Judge extend the discovery deadline in 

this case to June 16,2014, and schedule the hearing in this case to begin on or after July 

28,2014, to allow a sufficient amount of time for pre-hearing motions. 

Please note that the Agency's counsel in this case, Adam Runkel, is unavailable 

for a hearing August 19 through August 28, 2014. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Adam 

~C«2J/ Runkel 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that on this date I have sent by facsimile where indicated and 

placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail- return receipt requested 

Complainant's Motion for Extension of the Discovery Deadline and Postponement of the 

Hearing, addressed as follows: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

ONE COPY 

Dated: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Hotton Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Premier Aviation 

Ashok Vij, CEO/President 

1951 East Airport Drive 

Tucson, AZ 85756 

JeffK~mbdi,t;{aiTechnician 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Lawndale, California 

5