## u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

# R E

# cE

# 'vE0
'· : OF'FICE OFHEARINGS 

## JUN 65**201~** FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
. .. 

## KET ' I,,
.. ·. . '
...., . . . 

## HE 11

## ·RING DO.

# c
I ' ·,' •' : ,.,, '·-· '·' '·-: i '_
..,'' M·
.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMTI\!ISTRATION, I Complainant,
vs. AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERJNGSERVICES,
.. Respondent. '.i ,:c 

# I \, ,, ·ouocketNoOFAA-2013-029.1. FAA CaseNo. 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 ofthe information providedby those individuals. As discussed in Respondent's Motionto Corhpel, the FAA informed Respondentthat due to a medical emetgyncy inthe family ofthe 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'ofidimtity ofthe persons consulted. Respondent did not contactthe undersigned about any potential prol:JJ<:ljlS withthis supplemental discovery response, but instead immediately filed the instant Motion to Compel the FAA to identify the general scope ofthe informationprovided by fnose indi·viduak

1In 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 FAAwhen itreceived the May 14, 2014 e-mail. 

### See Motion at 1. Itis unclear whyRespondent, havingjustcomplainedthat 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 ofthe information obtained from those individuals. 1 It is also unclear why Respondent filed a Motionto Compel without speakingwiththe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe FAA, much less engage in a good faith effortto resolve it.



# ... r ;.,.

.... 

# Rc7**~<<ed** <hi"

# 50 <by ofMoy, 2014.

# CHRISTOPH~ Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel

1 Atthe timethe original supplementalresponse was provided, the undersignedhad a complete list ofpersons consulted, butnotthe general scope ofinformationprovidedfor all ofthose individuals. 2CERTIFICATE OJF SERVICE I hereby certify thatthe foregoing FAA'sMotionto Compel**wa~** sent: original and one copyviacertified mail to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding- Suite 2Wl000
one copy viacertified mail to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536
one copyviacertifiedmailto: RobertP. Silverberg, Esq. 1101 3Oth Street, NW, Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Facsimile: (202) 944-3306

Dated



### 3U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant,
vs. AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, Respondent. DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 FAA CaseNo. 2011S0290032
Judge Sullivan

FOURTH RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS

The FAA hereby supplements its prior discovery responses as follows:
Interrogatory #9: Judge Sullivanindicatedthat Respondent was entitled to knowthe general scope ofinformation providedby tbe individuals consulted bythe identified Inspectors. The general scope ofinformationprovided by the pertinent individuals is as follows: Alan J. Wilkinson: Inspector Wilkinsonprovided 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. RichardD'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/!\ ITBobby Evans: Inspector Evans provided information on the physical condition ofthe 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 atthe time the discoveredproblems were being addressedby Respondent. Michael Dziurgalski: Inspector Sandmann provided information onthe physical condition of the aircraft at the time the discovered problems were being addressed byRespondent. 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: Templetonprovided information on Respondent's quality control system. Jeffrey Becker: Becker provided information on corrective action taken by Respondent to attempt to prevent the recurrence ofthe problems at issue inthis 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: ofMay, 2014.

CHRISTOPHERR. STEVENSON Attorney Office ofthe Regional CounselCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Fourth Response to Respondent's First Discovery Requests was sent:
onecopy viacertified mail to: Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Facsimile: (202) 944-3306

Leg A !Stant Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

## lt.!AY 2.8 201! Dated