u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION R E c E 'v E 0 

'· : OF'FICE OF HEARINGS JUN 6 5 201~ 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION . .. KET 

' I I,, ' .. ·,' ·. . •' ' .... 

: ,.,, , . '·-· 

. '·' . '·-: i '_ .. ,'' HEM· 11 ·RING . DO. c 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMTI\!ISTRATION, I 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERJNGSERVICES, .. 

Respondent. '.i ,:c I 

\, ,, 

·ouocketNoOFAA-2013-029.1. 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

Judge Sullivan 

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 

As outlined in the May 2, 2014, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the 

Respondent's Motion to Compel, the Judge considered Respondent's Interrogatory #9, to which 

the FAA had objected, and ruled that Respondent was entitled to the identity of individuals 

consulted by particular Aviation Safety Inspectors, and to the general scope of the information 

provided by those individuals. 

As discussed in Respondent's Motion to Corhpel, the FAA informed Respondent that due 

to a medical emetgyncy in the family of the reportihg inspector, ASI Frank Lipinski, the FAA's ,_ / 

new submission regarding Interrogatory #9 would be delayed. See Motion to Compel Exhibit 1. 

Respondent made no objection or other response to thisnotlce. As'also indicated by Respondent, 

a week later the F M provided a list' of idimtity of the persons consulted. Respondent did not 

contact the undersigned about any potential prol:JJ<:ljlS with this supplemental discovery response, 

but instead immediately filed the instant Motion to Compel the FAA to identify the general 

scope of the information provided by fnose indi·viduak 

1 
In its Motion, Respondent complains that the FAA did not earlier provide a partial 

response with regards to Inspectors other than Lipinski, but provides no explanation for why, if 

such a partial response was desired, it did not raise this issue with the FAA when it received the 

May 14, 2014 e-mail. See Motion at 1. It is unclear why Respondent, having just complained that 

the FAA did not more immediately provide a partial response as to some Inspectors but not 

others, now complains that the FAA did submit a partial response, identifying the individuals 

consulted, but not the general scope of the information obtained from those individuals. 1 It is 

also unclear why Respondent filed a Motion to Compel without speaking with the undersigned at 

all on this matter. 

Regardless, Respondent's Motion to Compel is now moot. The FAA has now provided 

the Respondent with a list of the individuals consulted, and the general scope of information 

provided by those persons, both for those in the FAA and those who were employed by 

Respondent or its sister company. See Attachment A. To the extent the Motion is not moot, 

Respondent's Motion to Compel is due to be denied for violating the Judge's November 7, 2013 

Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, because Respondent failed to even bring its 

dispute to the attention of the FAA, much less engage in a good faith effort to resolve it. 

... r ;.,. .... Rc7 ~<<ed <hi" 50 <by ofMoy, 2014. 

CHRISTOPH~ Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

1 At the time the original supplemental response was provided, the undersigned had a complete list of persons 

consulted, but not the general scope of information provided for all of those individuals. 

2 
CERTIFICATE OJF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Motion to Compel wa~ sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

one copy via certified mail to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

one copy via certified mail to: 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

1101 3Oth Street, NW, Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Facsimile: (202) 944-3306 

Dated 

3 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

Judge Sullivan 

FOURTH RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

The FAA hereby supplements its prior discovery responses as follows: 

Interrogatory #9: Judge Sullivan indicated that Respondent was entitled to know the general 

scope of information provided by tbe individuals consulted by the identified Inspectors. The 

general scope of information provided by the pertinent individuals is as follows: 

Alan J. Wilkinson: Inspector Wilkinson provided general information on AMES' operations. 

Billy R. Steffey: Inspector Steffey provided information on tbe physical condition of the 

aircraft at the time the problems were discovered and discussed tbe applicable maintenance 

procedures. 

Richard D' Arcy: Inspector D' Arcy discussed the applicable maintenance procedures. 

Roy Miller: Inspector Miller was consulted as the POI for CCIA, but did not provide 

information. 

Leonard Beers: Supervisor Beers provided guidance on handling the investigation. 

GOVERNMENT 

EX/!\ IT 
Bobby Evans: Inspector Evans provided information on the physical condition of the aircraft 

at the time the problems were discovered. 

Bryan Bazemore: Supervisor Bazemore was consulted concerning use of personnel in the 

investigation. 

Robert Dom: Supervisor Dorn was consulted concerrung the use of personnel m the 

investigation. 

Ellen Tom: Supervisor Tom was consulted concemmg the use of personnel m the 

investigation. 

Steven Sandmann: Inspector Sandmann provided information on the physical condition of 

the aircraft at the time the discovered problems were being addressed by Respondent. 

Michael Dziurgalski: Inspector Sandmann provided information on the physical condition of 

the aircraft at the time the discovered problems were being addressed by Respondent. 

David Melleby: Inspector Melleby provided information on the physical condition of the 

aircraft at the time the discovered problems were being addressed by Respondent and 

provided documentation. 

Randy Boul: Boul provided information on what procedures should have been followed by 

Respondent. 

Benjamin Buck: Buck provided information on what procedures should have been followed 

by Respondent. 

Michael Loehlein: Loehlein provided information on what procedures should have been 

followed by Respondent. 
Charles Werking: Werking provided information on what procedures should have been 

followed by Respondent and also on the physical condition of the aircraft at the time 

Respondent was addressing the problems discovered. 

Dennis Manabusan: Manabusan discussed the possible enforcement action and complained 

about maintenance problems being caused by Respondent. 

James Savastano: Savastano discussed the possible enforcement action and complained about 

maintenance problems being caused by Respondent. 

John Lippincott: Lippincott discussed the possible enforcement action and complained about 

maintenance problems being caused by Respondent. 

Steven Santangelo: Santangelo discussed the possible enforcement action and complained 

about maintenance problems being caused by Respondent. 

Brady Templeton: Templeton provided information on Respondent's quality control system. 

Jeffrey Becker: Becker provided information on corrective action taken by Respondent to 

attempt to prevent the recurrence of the problems at issue in this case. 

Chris Brown: Brown provided information on how Respondent had not followed proper 

procedures. 

Ed Shockley: Shockley provided information on how Respondent had not followed proper 

procedures. 

Submitted thisz_.~d: of May, 2014. 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Fourth Response to Respondent's First Discovery 

Requests was sent: 

one copy via certified mail to: 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Facsimile: (202) 944-3306 

Leg A !Stant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

lt.!AY 2.8 201! 

Dated