In The Matter Of: ROTOR FIXLLC Respondent 

### SERVED: February3, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2015-2445 Case No. 2013WP910153

ORDERCANCELLING RULE 16 CONFERENCE

### NUNCPRO TUNC, DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO WITHHOLD, AND DISMISSING THE PROCEEDING OnAugust 11, 2015 the FAA filed its Complaint (dated August 11, 2015). That same day, the FAA also filed a one page Letter, in which it specified various dates ofunavailability from August 24, 2015 through November 27, 2015. On September 17, 2015 the

### prose Respondent, Rotor FIXLLC filed anAnswer. Included in this Answer was an untitled Motion to Withhold, in which the Respondent stated that it "would

.. .like to file a motion to prevent any documents we file from being made public as these contain sensitive andpersonal information". (Ans. 1.) Itwas not clear in the Answer whether the Respondent sought to withhold its Answer as part ofthatrequest. Since the Answer was filed prior to the Courtreceiving and ruling upon the Motion, the Respondent's Answer was published by the FAA Hearing Docket. The Answer does not contain informationthat warrants withholding from the public record under 14 C.P.R.§ 13.226. On October 16, 2015, an Order Setting A Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, .and Directing the Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan was filed. Among otherthings, this Order set a January 19, 2016 deadline for the parties tojointly file a proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan, and directed the parties to appear on January 26,2016 (1:30 p.m.) for the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference. On January 19, 2016 the parties failed to file a Scheduling/Discovery Plan.On January 22, 2016, the FAA informally contacted the attorney staffatthe Office of Hearings ("OH") to advise thatthe parties had reached a settlement. That same day, the FAA filed withthe Court a one-page letter stating, "Theparties inthis matterhave reached a settlement."1 From January 22, 2016 (noon) through January 26,2016, all Federal offices in Washington, DC, including the OH, were closed due to a blizzard. Duringthis closure, on January 25, 2016, the OH attorney staffinformally notified the parties via e-mail thatthe Rule 16 Scheduling Conference scheduled for January 26, 2016 needed to be cancelled, due to the weather-related office closures. Once federal offices reopened, the Court would issue an Order inthe proceeding. The next day, onJanuary 26,2016 (while federal offices remained closed) the OH attorney staffre-contacted the parties informally via e-mail and asked for clarification regarding the FAA's Letternotice ofsettlement. ·The FAA responded viaemail and provided such clarification, which is contained herein. BriefDiscussion The Respondent's Answer was filed with the FAA Hearing Docketpriorto the Court ruling upon the untitled Motion. Thus, the Respondent's Answer has already beenpublishedby the FAA Hearing Docket. It shouldbe noted, however, that based onthe criteriain 14 C.F

### .R. 

### § 13.226, the Respondent's Answer does not contain confidential or sensitive informationthat warrants a withholding from the public record. After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

### ITIS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set on January 26,2016, at 1:30p.m. Easterntime, is cancelled nuncpro tunc due to blizzard conditions and federal office closures inthe Washington, DC area.

1There was no Certificate ofService attached to this Letter, and no indication within the Letter thatthe FAA had filed it with the FAA Hearing Docket or served it on the opposing party, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.211. Page 2 of32. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.226, the Respondent's untitled Motion to Withhold, to the extent itwas intended to include the Respondent's Answer from public disclosure; is denied. 3. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.215, the FAAhaswithdrawn its Complaintbecause the parties have reached a settlement. 4. Based onthe FAA's withdrawal ofits Complaint, this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service List

Page 3 of3

### 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 WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Mr. Robert Spitzer 

### Complainant's Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave., S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAJ(: 425-227-1007 Mr. Steve Dupont, President Rotor FIXLLC 

### Respondent 16209 Victory Blvd #267 VanNuys, CA91406 Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### US. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 

### ONE COPY

1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAJ(: 202-366-7536

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430.