o 

l''.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

New England Region 

Office of ttie Regional Counsel 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01803-5299 

Teleptione: (781)238-7045 

FAX: (781)238-7055 

Life . S 9 ^ ,«» ^ , ^ 

£«« 

IT- ,• , 

May 26, 2010 

FEDERAL EXPRESS AND FACSIMILE (202) 366-7536 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Federal Aviation Administration v. City of Bridgeport, Connecticut 

Docket No. CP09NE0001 ( f*^ ^tiCf] ^ ti^l l 

Dear Judge Benkin: 

Enclosed please find the Complainant's Objection to Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration 

and Complainant's Reply to Respondent's Objection to Complainant's Motion for Decision. 

A copy of this is also being sent to Respondent's legal counsel. 

Sincerely, 

u 

)HN R. DONNELLY 

Senior Attorney 

Enclosure 

cc: .Richard Kascak, Jr., Esquire 

fiearing Docket 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

J. RANDOLPH BABBIT, Administrator, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Complainant, 

V. 

CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. CP09NE0001 

Administrative Law Judge 

Isaac D. Benkin 

Date: May 26, 2010 

COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND COMPLAE^ANT'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S OBJECTION 

TO COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1. On April 29, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Imposing Sanctions 

against the Respondent for failure to provide responses to discovery requests. 

2. Complainant initially propounded discovery on February 12, 2010. 

3. On March 25, 2010, (over 40 days after initially serving discovery requests) Complainant 

requested that Respondent answer said discovery no later than March 29, 2010, otherwise 

Complainant would be left with no choice but to file a Motion to Compel. 

4. Respondent failed to answer or object to Complainant's discovery as of March 29, 2010. 

5. As a result. Complainant was forced to file a Motion to Compel on March 30, 2010. 

6. In response, on April 15, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Setting 

Deadline for Respondent to reply to Complainant's Motion to Compel and stated, in pertinent 

part, that the Respondent must reply to the motion [to compel] no later than April 26, 2010. 
7. Respondent failed to comply with this deadline. Thus, the Administrative Law Judge 

issued an Order Imposing Sanctions against Respondent on April 29, 2010, for failure to provide 

discovery responses. 

8. Now, on May 21, 2010, (over three months after Complainant initiated discovery on 

February 12, 2010, and twenty-two days after the Administrative Law Judge imposed sanctions 

on April 29,2010) Respondent seeks relief by filing a Motion for Consideration. 

9. Respondent's May 21, 2010, Motion for Consideration is excessively late and also fails 

to comply with 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(c), "Filing of Motions" which requires that prehearing 

motions shall be filed no later than 30 days before hearing. 

10. The hearing in this matter is scheduled for June 10, 2010. Thus, any prehearing motion 

should have been filed no later than May 11,2010. 

11. Moreover, Respondent fails to show good cause or sufficient grounds to warrant 

reconsideration. 

12. Additionally, reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's valid Order imposing 

sanctions, at this juncture, would result in unfair prejudice to Complainant. 

13. Furthermore, the arguments contained in Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration are 

irrelevant to the issues in the present proceeding. 

14. Accordingly, Complainant objects to Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration. 

II. MOTION FOR DECISION 

15. On May 11, 2010, Complainant filed a Motion for Decision. 

16. On May 21, 2010, Respondent filed an Objection to Motion for Decision. 

17. However, Respondent's blanket objection fails to cite any factual or legal basis for its 

objection. 

18. Likewise, Respondent fails to properly answer Complainant's Motion for Decision by 
supporting its objection with affidavits or other evidence as required by 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d), 

i "Answers to motion", without limitation. 

I 

I 19. Consequently, Complainant's Motion for Decision should be granted. 

I 

I 

WHEREFORE, the Complainant, FAA, hereby respectfially requests that: 

! (1) Respondent's untimely Motion for Reconsideration be denied; and 

(2) Complainant's unanswered Motion for Decision be granted. 

f' 

; Respectfully Submitted, 

R. DONNELLY, Senior At 

Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

12 New England Executive Park 

Buriington,MA 01803-5299 

Tel: 781-238-7045 

Fax: 781-238-7055 

Email: John.Donnellv(a),faa.gov 

May 26, 2010 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that today, May 26, 2010,1 have sent via Federal Express and Facsimile an 

original of Complainant's Objection to Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and 

Complainant's Reply to Respondent's Objection to Complainant's Motion for Decision in the 

matter of FAA v. Citv of Bridgeport. Connecticut. FAA Docket No. CP09NE0001 addressed to 

the following: 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Mr. Richard G. Kascak, Jr. 

Associate City Attorney 

Office of the City Attorney 

999 Broad Sti-eet, T^ Floor 

Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604-4328 

Fax: (203) 576-8252 

I also certify that today. May 26, 2010,1 have sent via Certified Mail-Return Receipt 

Requested and U.S. First Class Mail, a copy of said document addressed to the following: 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

DONNA SORENSEN 

Program Analyst