SEU.VED: .January 12, 2017 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFI?ICE OF HEARINGS 

W ASIIINGTON, DC 

DEPARTMENT OF . TRANSPORTATION 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

2811 JAr• 13 p 3: 28 

DOCKET OPERATIONS 

PUERTO RICO Docket No. FAA-2013-1086 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Case No. 2011S0190181 

Respondent 

ORDER DENYING THE RESPONDENT'S 

MOTIONS, GRANTING IN PART THE FAA'S MOTION TO COMPEL, 

AND GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF 

On August I 0, 2016 an Order Resetting the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference 

and Directing Submission of a New Rule 26(f) Scheduling/Discovery Plan was filed. Among 

other things, this August 10, 2016 Order notified the parties how to timely file documents with 

the Court. (August 10,2016 Order, 3 ~ 4.) 

On October 13,2016, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. 

Among other things, this October 13, 2016 Order directed the parties to begin exchanging 

discovery requests, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(a)-(e), on or before November 1, 2016, and to 

respond to any requested discovery "no later than 30 days after service of the request." (Order, 2 

~ A.2.) 

On December 22, 2016, the Respondent, Puetio Rico Police Department, filed with the 

Court a Motion Requesting Extension of Time ("Motion for Extension") in which it requested an 

20 additional days to respond to the FAA's first discovery requests. 

On December 27, 2016, the FAA filed a Motion to Compel ("Motion to Compel"). 

On December 30, 2016 an Order Setting a Deadline for Filing Responses to Motions and 

a Motion Conference was filed. Among other things, this December 30, 2016 Order directed the 

Page 1 of 6 
parties to file their responses (if any) to the pending Motions on or before Friday, January 6, 

2017, and to appear for a Motion Conference on January II, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time. 

On January 4, 20 I7 the FAA filed a Response to Motion Requesting Extension of Time. 

On January I1, 2017, the parties appeared by telephone for the Motion Conference, and 

presented arguments on the pending Motions. This order codifies and supplements the oral 

rulings made during the Motion Conference. 

1. Respondent's Oral Motion for Continuance 

During the January 11, 2017 Motion Conference, the Respondent stated that it had not 

filec! any Response to the FAA's December 27, 20 I6 Motion to Compel, nor had it ever served 

the Respondent with any responses to the FAA's Initial Requests for Discovery. The 

Respondent noted, however, that it was currently engaged in settlement negotiations with the 

FAA. Because settlement negotiations appeared promising, the Respondent orally requested a 

continuance of the Motion Conference. The FAA orally opposed this request. The Respondent's 

oral Motion for a Continuance was denied. 

2. Respondent's Motion for Extension 

In its December 22, 2016 Motion for Extension, the Respondent agreed that it received 

by certified mail the FAA's First Discovery Request of Interrogatories, Request for Production 

of Documents and Request for Admission ("Discovery Request") on November 9, 20 I6. (Mot. 1, 

~ 1.) During oral argument, however, the Respondent asserted that its' counsel had not received 

the FAA's discovery packet until November 22, 2017. 

Based on the evidence presented, the FAA served the Respondent on Novemb-er 1, 2017 

with the discovery, when it mailed its Discovery Request by certified mail to the Respondent's 

counsel's address of record. The Respondent's counsel received the certified mail at their 

address of record on November 9, 2017. 

A. Time to Respond to Discovery Requests 

The October 13, 2016 Order required the parties to conduct discovery pursuant to, among 

other sections, 14 C.F .R. § 13 .220( d). (1 0/23/16 Order § A, ~ 2.) Section 13 .220( d) requires a 

Page 2 of 6 
party to respond to a request for discovery within thirty (30) days of service of the request. 14 

C.F.R. § 13.220(d). However when service of the discovery occurs by mail, five (5) days shall be 

added to the thirty (30) day period, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.2ll(e). In the instant case, the 

FAA served its Discovery Requests by certified mail. Therefore, absent agreement or court 

order, the Respondent had 35 days to serve the FAA with timely responses to the Discovery 

Requests. 

B. Requests for Extension of Time 

If a party needs an extension of time to respond to discovery, and the parties cannot agree 

to such an extension, "[a] party shall file a written motion" with the Judge asking for an 

extension oftime. 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b). This written motion must be filed with the Judge "not 

later than 7 days before the document is due unless good cause for the late filing is shown." (Jd, 

with emphasis added.) If the Judge does not rule on a motion for an extension of time by the 

original date the document was due, the motion for an extension of time is deemed automatically 

granted "for no more than 20 days after the original date the document was to be filed." 14 

C.F.R. § 13.213(c). However, if a motion for an extension is filed less than 7 days before the 

original due date, the movant must provide good cause for the late filing, as well as grounds for 

the extension request. 1 

C. December 7, 2016 Due Date for Discovery Responses 

In its Motion for Extension, the Respondent did not offer its own time calculation for the 

original due date for its discovery responses. During oral argument, however, the Respondent 

asserted that its due date would have been December23, 2016, based on its counsel receiving the 

material on November 22, 2016. 

1 Based on a pragmatic reading 14 C.F.R, § 13.213(c), that the 20 day automatic extension provision does not apply 

to any motion filed less than 7 days b~fore the original due date. In those instances, the Judge must make a finding 

of good cause for the untimeliness of the motion, before reaching the merits of the request for extension. Thus. a 

party filing an untimely motion for an extension cannot assume it may have the benefit of an automatic 20 day 

extension prior to the court issuing a ruling on the good cause issue. To interpret the rule otherwise would create the 

perverse result of rewarding a pa11y with an automatic extension when it may not have good cause for the 

untimeliness of its motion (or underlying merit supporting its motion for extension). The same rationale applies to a 

motion for extension filed after the original due date has expired. 

Page 3 of 6 
The Respondent's oral assertion that December 23,2016 was the "original" due date for 

it to provide timely discovery responses to the FAA was not factually supported by the record. 

In the instant case, the FAA served the Respondent on November 1, 2017 with its Discovery 

Requests. Because the service ofthe discovery occurred by mail, five (5) days must be added to 

the thirty (30) day response period, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.211(e). As a result, absent 

agreement ofthe parties for an extension oftime regarding discovery, December 7, 2016 (not 

December 23, 2016) was the original due date for the Respondent to have timely served its 

answers to the FAA's Discovery Requests. 

D. Respondent's Motion for Extension Untimely 

It was undisputed that on December 15,2016 (i.e., 8 days after the discovery was due) 

the FAA contacted the Respondent by email requesting the status of the discovery. (Mot. 

Compel, Ex. C.) The Respondent did not respond to this email. Instead, on December 22, 2016, 

. the Respondent filed with this Court its Motion for Extension. 

As noted earlier, the original response due date for the Respondent to have submitted it's 

discovery answers to the FAA was December 7, 2016. As a result, the last date. available to the 

Respondent to file a timely Motion for Extension with the Judge would have been November 30, 

2016 (i.e., seven (7) days before the responses were originally due). The Respondent did not file 

a timely Motion for Extension time on or before November 30, 2016. 

E. Good Cause Showing for Untimely Request 

As noted earlier herein, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(c), if a motion for an extension of 

time is filed less than 7 days before the original due date, the movant must provide good cause 

for the late filing, as well as grounds for the extension request. In the instant case, the 

Respondent in its December 22, 2016 Motion for Extension did not provide any date 

calculations for when its discovery responses had been originally due, nor did it provide any 

explanation for the untimeliness of its request for relief. Even if the grounds the Respondent 

asserted in its Motion for Extension - on the merits of its request were considered - that it had 

"been compiling the pertinent information to respond [to the Discovery Request]" and there was 

"still certain information that Respondent is verifying" (Mot. 1 ). this did not provide an adequate 

basis to find good cause for the untimeliness of the request. 

Page 4 of 6 
3. .FAA's Motion to Compel 

As noted earlier herein, during the January II, 2017 Motion Conference the Respondent 

agreed that it had not filed any Response to the FAA's December 27,2016 Motion to Compel, 

nor had it served the Respondent with ·any responses to the FAA's Initial Requests for Discovery. 

In response to Court inquiry, the FAA clarified that its Motion to Compel was not a waiver of its 

right to assert certain matters admitted (see, 14 C.F.R. § 13.221(1)(1)) given the Respondent's 

failure to timely respond to the FAA's Request [sic] to Admit. 

After hearing oral arguments from both parties,2 the Court ruled that the FAA's Motion 

to Compel should be partially granted, and the Respondent was directed to answer both the 

FAA's Interrogatories (FAA Discovery Requests, 2-3) and Requests for Production (id. at 3-4). 

Although the Respondent had failed to file a Response to the FAA's December 27,2016 Motion 

to Compel, the Court granted the Respondent an opportunity to orally respond during the Motion 

Conference. The Respondent was also granted the opportunity to file a motion for relief under 14 

C.F.R. § 13.221(1)(1) regarding the automatic admissions that the FAA's Request [sic] to Admit 

((FAA Discovery Requests, 4), had generated, based on the Respondent's failure to timely 

respond. 

4. Conclusion 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205, 13.213, 13.218, and 13.220, and after reviewing all 

relevant caselaw, regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Respondent's January 11, 2017 oral Motion for a Continuance of the January II, 

2017 Motion Conference is denied. 

2. The Respondent's December 22, 2017. Motion Requesting Extension of Time is untimely, 

lacks good cause, and is denied. 

2 Although the Respondent had failed to file a written Response to the FAA's December 27, 2016 Motion to 

Compel, the Court granted the Respondent an opportunity to orally respond during the January I I, 2017 Motion 

Conference. 

Page 5 of 6 
3. On or before January 31,2017, the Respondent shall serve the FAA with answers to the 

FAA's Interrogatories and the FAA's Requests for Production. 

4. On or before February 10, 2017 the Respondent may file a Motion for Relief under 14 

C.F.R. § 13.221(1)(1), regarding the FAA's Request [sic] to Admit. 

5. Should the Respondent file a Motion for Relief under 14 C.F.R. § 13.221(1)(1), the FAA 

may then file a Response on or before J?ebruary 24,2017, and the Respondent may file a 

Reply (if any), on or before March 3, 2017. 

6. Clarification or Questions: For clarifications of this order or questions with regard to the 

procedures to be followed in this case, please contact Mrs. Rachael Brown, Judicial StatT 

Assistant, at the Office ofHearings (202-366-2132). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 6 of 6 
Docket No. FAA-2013-1086 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ONE COPY 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Enforcement Division 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Ms. Nazihra M. Abdulrahman Soler 

Ms. Betmar R. Lopez Pagan 

Respondent's Counsel 

Puerto Rico Police Department 

Office of Legal Affairs 

P.O. Box 71200 

San Juan, P.R. 00936 

TEL: 787-793-1234 ext. 3067,2203 

FAX: 787-781-7993 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W I 000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430.