u.s. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTA'Jim.tt:::'CE IV ED 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS n &:: 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

NOV 0 4 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

VS. 

LIBERTY FOUNDATION, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 

FAA Case No. 2011GL030070 

Judge Sullivan 

FAA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND 

FAA'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

The FAA, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby responds in opposition to 

Respondent's Motion to Strike. Additionally, the FAA hereby files its Motion to Compel 

Respondent to properly answer the FAA's discovery requests. 

Factual Background 

Pursuant to the Judge's August 27, 2013, Order, discovery was re-opened in this case for 

the limited purpose of examining new matters identified in the Amended Complaint. On 

September 11, 2013, Respondent served new discovery requests, which were received by the 

FAA that day via facsimile. On September 12, 2013, the FAA served new discovery requests, 

which were received by the Respondent via facsimile that day. Exhibit A (FAA's Limited 

Discovery Requests). 

On Sunday, September 22, 2013, the undersigned's daughter was born. Accordingly, the 

undersigned was not in the office beginning on Monday, September 23, 2013. This absence 

1 
continued through October 1, 2013, when the undersigned was, pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency 

Act, prohibited from being present in the office during the government shutdown. 

Respondent's discovery responses were submitted on October 8, 2013, and were received 

by the FAA on Thursday, October 17, 2013, when the federal government shutdown ended, and 

the undersigned briefly returned to the office. See Exhibits B, C, D (Respondent's Responses to 

FAA's Discovery Requests). The FAA responded to Respondent's Discovery Requests on 

October 18, 2013, including routine discovery objections. 

The undersigned was out of the office from October 21-23, 2013, while attending a 

previously-scheduled out-of-town NTSB hearing. The undersigned was out of the office from 

October 28-29, 2013, while attending an NTSB emergency hearing that had been rescheduled 

due to the government shutdown1 

On October 29, 2013, Respondent moved to strike the FAA's objections to some of its 

discovery requests. 

Respondent's Motion to Strike Should Be Denied 

Respondent's Motion to Strike is founded on Paragraph 6 of the August 27, 2013 Order. 

Respondent's motion quotes that paragraph as saying "any objection(s) or motions regarding 

additional discovery shall be filed within ten (10) days after receipt." (emphasis in original). See 

Motion to Strike ~ 2. However, Respondent leaves out the opening clause of that sentence from 

the Order- "Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(f)-(k), ... "The Order places a 10-day time limit on 

the specialized objections, pursuant to § 13.220(f)-(k), that must be filed with the Judge. 

_However, the objections that Respondent moves to strike were routine discovery objections as 

1 TheNTSB general counsel's office determined that, once an airman had surrendered his certificates pursuant to an 

emergency order of the Administrator, the emergency hearing was not itself a matter of public safety and, therefore, 

holding such hearings during the shutdown would have violated the anti-deficiency act. However, once the 

shutdown ended, the emergency hearings had to be held immediately because the airman is entitled to such by 

statute, given that the airman is already without his certificates. 

2 
covered by § 13.220(d), which are not "filed" with the Judge at all. Accordingly, those 

objections were due to be submitted - and were submitted - along with the FAA's discovery 

responses. 

That the parties did not understand these objections to be due at an earlier time frame is 

highlighted by Respondent's own discovery responses, which include discovery objections, and 

which were submitted on October 8, 2013, well more than 10 days after Respondent received the 

FAA's discovery requests on September 12,2013. See Exhibit B ,, 7, 8, 11, 12. 

Further, even if the 10-day time limit referenced in, 6 of the August 27, 2013 Order 

applied to the sort of routine discovery objections at issue here, the Motion to Strike should be 

denied. As Respondent notes in its Motion to Strike, if a 1 0-day deadline was applicable, that 

would have made the objections due on September 23, 2013. The birth of the undersigned's 

daughter on September 22, 2013, followed almost immediately thereafter by the federal 

government shutdown (a time period during which it would have been illegal for the w1dersigned 

to work on this case), is more than ample good cause for any late filing of these objections, 

which were served on Respondent on the second day after the shutdown ended. Additionally, as 

outline in the FAA's discovery response, the information covered by the objections either has 

already been identified more than once, or is llilrelated to the Amended Complaint. No purpose 

would be served by fulfilling Respondent's request to strike these objections, other than to place 

a burden on the FAA that did nothing to advance the resolution of this litigation. 

Respondent's Motion to Strike should be denied. 

Motion to Compel 

The Agency also moves to that the Judge compel Respondent to properly respond to the 

FAA's discovery requests. Respondent has simply refused to answer some of the FAA's 

3 
discovery requests without any rational basis. Respondent, having challenged the allegations in 

the Amended Complaint, is not permitted to simply refuse to disclose the basis (if any) for those 

denials. 

As an initial matter, the FAA notes that there is good cause for the apparent untimely 

filing of this Motion to Compel. As discussed above, the FAA received Respondent's discovery 

responses on October 17, 2013. The 10-day limit outlined in the August 27, 2013 Order ended on 

October 28, 2013. Accordingly, this motion, filed on October 30,2013, is two days outside of the 

1 0-day period. However, as indicated in the factual background above, there is good cause for 

the slight untimeliness of the motion. The FAA received Respondent's deficient discovery 

responses on October 17, 2013. In the nine business days following, the undersigned was at 

hearing or traveling for a hearing on five of them - including an emergency hearing on the date 

that the motion to compel would have been due, and the following date. The undersigned also 

had to spend time preparing for each of these hearings, which he could not have done prior to 

receiving the discovery responses on October 17, 2013. The need to prepare for and conduct 

these hearings on such a short time frame was necessitated by the govermnent shutdown, which 

was outside the control of the undersigned or the FAA. Furthermore, as one might reasonably 

guess, these two hearings and Respondent's discovery response were far from the only urgent 

matters awaiting the undersigned at the conclusion of the government shutdown. For example, it 

seemed appropriate and professional to prioritize getting the Agency's discovery responses to 

Respondent, rather than prioritizing a review to see whether Respondent had complied with its 

discovery obligations. Under these extraordinary circumstances, which were beyond the control 

of the undersigned or the FAA, two-day delay in filing the Motion to Compel should not permit 

Respondent to get away with simply refusing to answer appropriate discovery requests. 

4 
Regarding the discovery requests in particular, Respondent has failed to properly respond 

to Interrogatories 3, 4, 7, 8, 12 and Request for Production 2. As to most of these discovery 

requests, Respondent did not even object, but simply refused to respond. Even where it did 

object, these objections are without merit. 

In Interrogatories #3 and #4 was asked to state the basis for his denial of paragraphs 5(a) 

and 5(b) of the Amended Complaint, including but not limited to its basis for denying the 

allegations that work was not performed in a manner acceptable to the Administrator and that the 

aircraft was not restored to its original or properly altered condition. See Exhibit A. Complainant 

declined to provide an explanation for either denial, instead stating that (1) it is the 

Administrator's burden to prove his allegations and (2) it had a right to rely on the work of 

maintenance personnel. See Exhibit B ~~ 3-4. This answer is non-responsive. It is true that the 

FAA has the burden of proof. It is also irrelevant. In almost all types of litigation, it is the 

Complainant who bears the burden of proof. This does not mean that the Respondent is permitted 

to deny the allegations in a Complaint, and then refuse to explain the basis for that denial. If 

Respondent has a basis for denying the allegations in the Complaint, it must explain that basis. If 

Respondent has no basis for denying the allegation, then it is required to admit it. The questions 

asked by the FAA in these discovery requests are not obscure ones. Respondent has denied that it 

improperly performed maintenance and alterations, and if it wishes to maintain this denial, it 

must explain the basis for the belief that its work was properly performed2 Respondent has 

denied that it failed to restore the aircraft to its originally or properly altered condition, and if it 

wishes to maintain that denial, it must explain the basis for the belief that the aircraft was 

2 The FAA, as discussed at length it its Motion for Summary Judgment, has already explained myriad ways in which 

the work perfotmed was improper. If Respondent has no explanation to counter that provided by the FAA and the 

several expert witnesses, then there is no genuine dispute of fact and the FAA is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law on this point. 

5 
restored to its original or properly altered condition? Finally, Respondent's assertion that it is not 

legally responsible for any improperly performed work on the aircraft does not mean that it does 

not have to address the question of whether the work was improperly performed in the first 

place. Respondent should be required to answer these Interrogatories. If Respondent can provide 

no basis for its denial of paragraphs S(a) and S(b) of the Amended Complaint, then those 

allegations should be deemed admitted. 

In requesting that discovery be reopened, Respondent asserted (among other things) that 

it needed to conduct new depositions of the witnesses it had already deposed -those individuals 

being Thomas Soerens, Thomas Duellman, Donald Dodge and Timothy Buorgoine. See Motion 

for Continuance; Transcript of August 23, 2013 Conference Call at 16-19, 42-46. However, 

Respondent declined to disclose during the conference call what it sought to re-depose those 

witnesses about. Transcript at 43, 46, 53. As a result, the FAA issued interrogatory 7 on this 

topic. Exhibit A. Respondent objected to the request as "incomprehensible." Exhibit B ~ 7. A 

deposition of a witness may be conducted where that witness has knowledge of relevant, 

admissible facts, or had knowledge that could lead to relevant, admissible facts. Interrogatory 7 

asked Respondent to identify what, if anything, it believes these four witnesses know that is 

germane to the Amended Complaint. Respondent's objection is without foundation. If 

Respondent is aware of any facts as discussed in the interrogatory, it must disclose them. If 

Respondent does not have any basis for believing that these witnesses have relevant, 

discoverable information, then it must disclose that as well. Respondent should be required to 

fully respond to Interrogatory 7. 

3 Again, the FAA, as discussed at length in its Motion for Summary Judgment, has already explained myriad ways 

in which the work perfonned was improper. If Respondent has no explanation to counter that provided by the FAA 

and the several expert witnesses, then there is no genuine dispute of fact aud the FAA is entitled to judgment as a 

matter oflaw on this point. 

6 
As discussed at length in the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment, the August 23, 2013 

conference call, and the Amended Complaint, the Amendment to the Complaint was based on 

statements made by Mr. Schneider and Mr. Fowler during their depositions. As a result, the FAA 

asked in interrogatory 8 whether Respondent asserted that there had been any error in the 

statements of Mr. Schneider and Mr. Fowler during those depositions, as it pertained to the 

Amended Complaint. Exhibit A. Although Respondent has been informed repeatedly and with 

specific citations as to how the statements of Mr. Schneider and Mr. Fowler relate to the 

Amended Complaint, and although the discovery request was explicitly limited to matters 

relating to the Amended Complaint, Respondent refused to answer this interrogatory on the basis 

that it was "confusing" because the depositions took place prior to the Amended Complaint. 

Exhibit B ~· 8. This objection is specious. Respondent is well aware that statements made by Mr. 

Schneider and Mr. Fowler relate to the Amended Complaint. Respondent should be required to 

disclose whether it believes that any of the pertinent statements made by Mr. Schneider and Mr. 

Fowler were in error. 

In Interrogatory 12, Respondent was asked to state the basis for denying any of the 

Requests for Admission that accompanied the interrogatories. Respondent denied most of the 

Requests for Admission. See Exhibit D. However, Respondent refused to answer Interrogatory 

#12 on the basis that "Respondent is required only to admit or deny each Request for 

Admission." Exhibit B ~ 12. This is accurate, but irrelevant. When responding to a Request for 

Admission, one need only admit or deny the request. However, this has not relation to whether 

one must respond to an interrogatory on the subject. An interrogatory requesting the basis for a 

party denying Requests for Admission is commonplace and appropriate. Respondent has no basis 

for refusing to answer this interrogatory, and should be required to do so. 

7 
Respondent has asserted that, although Rodney Schneider was its Director of 

Maintenance at the time the improper alterations and maintenance were performed, he was not 

its agent. Since all of the evidence presented so far indicates that the Director of Maintenance 

was an agent on the subject of aircraft maintenance and alterations, the FAA asked in Request 

for Production #2 for documentation on this work, including communications between the three 

of Respondent's personnel who were involved - Rodney Schneider (its Director of 

Maintenance), Ray Fowler (its Executive Director and Chi'efPilot), and Cullen Underwood (one 

of its pilots). Respondent provided no documentation in response to this request, asserting that 

"all such documents have been produced previously" and that Respondent itself is not in 

possession of the written communications between those three individuals. Exhibit C ~ 2. The 

undersigned notes that what has been "previously produced" by Respondent on this subject is 

limited to the maintenance log entry itself and photographs, with no documentation produced 

concerning the decision-making process for the alteration. Additionally, Respondent's response 

to this request for production concerning written communication implies that such documents do 

exist, but that they are not in Respondent's possession. However, the fact that such 

documentation may be in the possession of Mr. Fowler, Mr. Schneider, or Mr. Underwood- a 

litigant's discovery responsibilities are not limited to documents and information in its personal 

possession. If any of these three individuals are in possession of the requested documents, 

Respondent must obtain them. All three work of these individuals work with and for Respondent, 

including Mr. Fowler as a corporate officer. All three of these individuals have been identified 

by Respondent as expected witnesses at the hearing. For the two whose depositions were 

requested, both were produced by Respondent. There has been no indication that any of the three 

individuals has become hostile to Respondent, or has refused to cooperate- and if they do refuse 

8 
to produce documents in their possession, then Respondent must inform the Judge and the FAA 

of this fact so that an appropriate subpoena can be issued. Especially given Respondent's status 

as a corporate entity, it cannot simply rest on the fact that the written communications between 

the individuals who make decisions and take actions on its behalf are in the physical possession 

of those individuals. Respondent should be required to produce the requested documents. 

Conclusion 

Respondent's Motion to Strike the FAA's objections to its improper discovery requests is 

without any foundation, and should be denied. However, Respondent's own refusal to comply 

with discovery should be corrected, and Respondent compelled to fully respond to the FAA's 

discovery requests 

WHEREFORE, the FAA requests that the Judge compel Respondent to comply with the 

FAA's discovery requests and deny Respondent's Motion to Strike. 

Respect lly submitted this~~ of October, 2013. 

CHRISTOPHER STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

9 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Motion to Compel and Response to Motion to Strike 

was 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 2W1 000 

One copy via certified mail and facsimile to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P.A. 

7300 North Kendall Dr., Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Facsimile: (305) 670-7065 

~~rP?~~ Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

OCT 3 0 2013 

Dated 

10 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATlOi·: 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

~FILE 

vs. 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 

FAA Case No. 2011 GL030070 

LIBERTY FOUNDATION. 

Respondent. Judge Sullivan 

COMPLAINANT'S FIRST LIMITED DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

Pursuant to the provisions of 14 CFR § 13.220, please respond to the following 

Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission separately 

and fully under oath within 30 days from your receipt of this request. 

This request is intended to discover information and/or documents not only within your 

personal knowledge or obtainable by you, but also information in the possession of or obtainable 

by your attorneys, investigators, representatives, employees, agents, or anyone acting on your 

behalf or on their behalf. 

Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it 

is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. 

You may respond to the Requests for Production by producing true and accurate copies 

of the originals to the undersigned. If you refuse to produce any documents or other evidence on 

the basis of privilege or other objection, identify specifically the items withheld from production. 

Each response shall be continuing in nature so as to require you to file supplemental 

responses in the following circumstances: 

a) When you become aware of a fact or the identity and location of any document 

that is not identified in your original response; 

b) When your original response was initially correct, but subsequently rendered 

incorrect or inaccurate based upon information discovered after the original response is prepared. 

If your answer to any interrogatory is "N/ A" or "Not Applicable," describe in detail your 

reasons for making such reply. In reply to any interrogatory, do not merely state, "see attached 

records" unless you have no additional memory of the matters referred to in the interrogatory. If 

you have any additional memory of the relevant events, describe it in detail. 
You are reminded that whethec >,he Adm~ndrator has the burden of proof on an issue has 

no effect on whether you are obliged to answer a discovery request. 

DEFINITIONS 

"Documents" include, without limitation, notes, memoranda, mvoices, work orders, receipts, 

reports, letters, audio and video tapes, photographs, facsimiles, transcripts, written statements, 

records of conversations, computer disks or tapes, e-mails, and other tangible or intangible 

materials. 

"You" or "your" refers to Respondent, The Liberty Foundation. 

"Identify," when referring to persons, requires you to provide the full name, address, telephone 

number (business and residence, where available) and any other information pertinent to locating 

such person. When pertaining to an object or place, "identify" means to provide the name, 

location or other description of such object or place. 

"This matter" refers to the events and circumstances underlying the allegations set forth in the 

Complaint, including amendments and other additions to the Complaint. 

INTERROGATORIES 

I. State with specificity the factual and legal bases for your denial of paragraph 7(b) of the 

AmenJed Complaint, including but not limited to specifically any and all bases for your belief 

that the aircraft was safe for flight and airworthy. 

2. State with specificity the factual and legal bases for denial of paragraph 16(a) of the 

Amended Complaint, including but not limited to specifically any and all bases for your belief 

that a maintenance record entry was made concerning the repair of the fuel leak prior to the June 

13, 2011 flight. 

3. State with specificity the factual and legal bases for your denial of paragraph S(a) of the 

Amended Complaint, including but not limited to specifically any and all bases for your belief 

that Mr. Schneider used methods, techniques, and/or practices acceptable to the Administrator. 

4. State with specificity the factual and legal bases for your denial of paragraph S(b) of the 

Amended Complaint, including but not limited to specifically any and all bases for your belief 

that Mr. Schneider did the work in such a way and/or used materials of such quality that the 

aircraft was restored to its original or properly altered condition. 

5. State with specificity the factual and legal bases for your denial of paragraph 18 of the 

Amended Complaint, including but not limited to specifically any and all bases for your belief 

that Mr. Schneider was not found to be in violation as listed in the Order of Suspension against 

him and/or any and all bases for your beliefthat you were not liable for his actions as Director of 

Maintenance. 
6. If you assert that Mr. Schn<:ider was not serving as your agent when serving as your 

Director of Maintenance. state with specificity all factual and legal bases for this assertion. 

7. If you asser1 that Thomas Soerens. Thomas Duellman, Donald Dodge, and/or Timothy 

Bourgoine have knowledge of facts relevant to the amendment of the Complaint, or that arc 

otherwise discoverable, state with specificity the bases for such assertior1, including specifically 

what facts each individual has knowledge of, why you believe such facts are relevant and 

discoverable, and why you believe he has such knowledge. 

8. If you assert any error in the deposition testimony of Mr. Sclmeider or Mr. Fowler 

concerning the matters addressed in the amended Complaint, identify those errors with 

specificity. why you believe they were in error, and what the correct statements would have 

been. 

9. If you assert that all or part of the opinion of the identified metallurgical expert 

previously submitted in this case remains accurate despite the testimony from Mr. Sclmeider that 

the welding on the new fuel tanks had cracked prior to the June 13, 20 II t1ight and fire, state 

with specificity the bases for that belief 

II. With regards to the matter raised in the amendment to the Complaint, please identify each 

witness you may call to testify at hearing and summarize the substance ofthc expected 

testimony. 

12. If you deny any of the Requests for Admission, state with specificity the basis for the 

denial. 

13. With respect to each Interrogatory, Request j()f Production, and Request for Admission. 

identify each and every person assisting in the response to that request for production. 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

I. If you assert that a maintenance record entry was made for the repair of the June 20 II 

fuel leak prior to the June 13, 2011, t1ight, please produce that maintenance record, including the 

entry. 

2. Please produce any and all documents concerning the work performed on the fuel system 

during the winter of! ate 20 I 0 and early 20 II that culminated in the February 20 II return to 

service, including but not limited to any communications to or from Rodney Schneider, Ray 

Fowler, and Cullen Underwood about the type, manner or cost of work performed on the fuel 

system. 

3. Please produce any and all documents consulted in preparing responses to these 

discovery requests. 
4. Please produce any and all documents identified or referenced in your inteuogaiory 

responses. 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

1. Admit that N390TH was not in a condition for safe operation by reason of the work 

performed on the fuel system that culminated in the February 24. 2011, return to service. 

2. Admit that some of the welding done during the work culminating in the February 24. 

2011, return to service failed. 

3. Admit that the June 2011 fltelleak was caused by the work culminating in the February 

24, 2011. return to service. 

4. Admit that the June 20 II fuel leak was caused by a failure of welding performed during 

the work that culminated in the February 24,2011, return to service. 

5. Admit that the expert opinion you previously submitted concerning the quality of the 

welding was in error. 

6. Admit that the expert opinion you previously submitted concerning whether the welding 

had failed prior to the June 13, 2011 fire was in error. 

7. Admit that the maintenance log entry dated June 13, 2011 for the repair of the fuel leak 

was not made until after the aircraft was operated. 

8. Admit the authenticity of the Order of Suspension attached to the Amendment to the 

Complaint. 

9. Admit that the Order of Suspension attached to the Amendment to the Complaint 

constitutes a finding of violation against Mr. Schneider as listed in the Order. 

I 0. Admit that no maintenance log entry was made for the repair of the June 2011 fuel leak 

prior to the June 13, 2 0 II flight. 

11. Admit that N390TH was unsafe for flight at the time of the June 20 II fuel leak. 

Y" 

Respectfully submitted this _il_ day of September, 2013. 

4;=~--- CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's First Limited Discovery Requests was sent via certified mail and facsimile to: 

Stuart A Goldstein. P .A. 

93 50 South Dixie Highway. lOth Floor 

Miami. FL 3 3 I 56 

Facsimile: (305) 670-7065 

/F (,lykLJ DONNA STANLEY 

(i 

( 

~ Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

!.. lJ : ~· 

Dated 

7011 2970 0003 9802 0283 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of Hearings 

Washington, D. C. 

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2012-0477 

(EIR 2011-GL-03-0070) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Hon J. E. Sullivan. Administrative Law Judge 

R~SPONDENT~S AN_SWERS_IQ COMF'LA!NANT_'S 

l.IMlT!;J:l INTERFlQGAIQRIE.S 

1. The a1rcrafi was safe for flight and airworthy because the work performed, 

as described in the deposition of M1·. Schneider, was done in a manner which would 

~ave been acceptable to the Administrator as described in Mr Schneider's deposition of 

his conversations with FAA Inspectors David Miller and David Alderman. In addition, the 

return to ser·vice was prepared by competent, professional maintenance providers who 

provided an a.pprotxia;e r·ewrn to service. 

2 A maintenance entry was made 1n the a1rcraft's discrepancy log book 

whrch was kept rc ti-re arrcrart and which was destroyed rn the fire This log entry 

conformed to the mqurrern,~nts of 14 CFR 43 9 A copy of the discrepancy log form has 

been provided to Claimant with Respondent's response to Complainant's Limited 

Request For Product;on 

3. Conlp!ainant bea!'s the burden of proof as to what methods, techmques. 

andior practices were or would have been acceptable to the Administrator. The 

Adminrstrator has not provided such proof in thrs case. In addition. Respondent had R 

right to rely on the maintenance competence of its maintenance providers, Including Mr. 

Schneider, who providet'J Respondent an appropriate return to service. 

4. Complainant bears the burden of proof as to the manner in which the work 

was done and/or in what manner the materials used were not of such a quality that the 

aircraft was not restored to its original or properly altered condition. The Administrator 

has not provided such proof in this case. In addition, Respondent had a right to rely on 

the maintenance competence pi its maintenance providers. includrng Mr. Schneider, 

w110 pmvided Respondent an appropriate return to service. 
2 

5. Mr. Schneiders case was settled with counsel of the Great Lakes Region. 

It was a settlement of a drsputed claim Mr Schneider never admitted any violations 

and none were found in any adjudicatory proceeding 

6 Mr Schneider had no legal authority provided by Respondent other than 

to maintain the Foundation's aircraft in the manner he determined was appropriate 

under his personal A & P certificate. He was never an officer or director of The Liberty 

Foundation At all times material Mr. Schneider was a full time employee of Delta 

Airlines. In addition, Respondent was not required to have a Director of Maintenance. 

7. Respondent objects to this Interrogatory on the bases that it is vague and 

rncomprel1ensible. Messers Soerens and Duelln1an testified by deposition in the 

Schneider case. Messers. Dodge and Bourgorne testified by deposition in this 

proceeding and all such testimony is a matter of record. already rn the possession of 

Complainant. Responclent has not yet determmed whicl1 parts il any. it will use of those 

depositions in its defense. The deposrlions of Messers. Dodge and Bourgoine were 

taken before the Amendment to the Complaint If Respondent already knew what facts 

these four witnesses were in possession of related to the amendments, additional 

discovery would not be necessary. 

8. Respondent objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is confusing in 

that the deposrtions described were taken prior to the amendments to the complaint 

9. All of Mr Genculu's report and opinions remain vaiici for the work 

perfortne(l anci the propnety oi the mater rats used. 

10 There is no Interrogatory 10. 

11. Respondent objects to thrs Interrogatory as ;nvasive of the work product 

privilege and premature. Respondent t1as not made a determination, other trran as 

previously described, as to whicl1 witnesses it will call and !herr expected testimony. 

Without waiving suer, objections, and without limiting their testimony in any way by the 

following descriptions, Respondent states it will likely call Rodney Schneider as a 

witnes:;; to testify d0 to tire log entry ne made rn the aircraft discrepancy log book as well 

as the work he performed and all of the matters discussed in his deposition; 

Respondent may call the pilots who flew the aircraft on June 1 i, 2011 (John Hess and 

Bud Sittig), to testify as to their revrew of the discrepancy log book prior to the flight 'rn 

June 11, 2011; Respondent may call Cullen Underwood to describe the process of 

replacing the tanks and the work performed/materials utrlized in the process as well as 

his observations of t11e work performed on tile #1 tank in June, 2011, Respondent may 

call representative(s) of Cobb lnclustrial to testify as to the work they performed on the 

aluminum tanks; Respondent may call FAA Inspectors David Alderman and David Miller 

as to their communications with Mr. Schneider and other persons of The Liberty 

Foundation and their observations of the operation of the Uberty Belle; Respondent 

may call Chuck Giese to testify as to hrs observations of the work performed on the 

arrcraft in clune, 2011 and his observations of the #1 tank alter the fire: Respondent may 
3 

call john Hess to testify as to hrs observatrons of the #1 tank after the fire: Respondent 

may call Scott Maher to testify as to his observations of the #1 tank after the fire. 

12 Respondent is required to only admit or deny each Request For 

Admissions. 

13. The persons assisting in the preparation of these responses are: 

·•·Ray Fowler: as to all lnterrogatones. Requests For Acimissions, and 

Requests for Productron. 

·+Rodney Schneider: as to the log entry made in t!1e discrepancy log. 

,;··John I less: as to the log entry made in tile discrepancy log and Ills 

potential test1mony as described above. 

I HEREBY CERTii=Y that the foregoing has been served on this 14th day of 

OctobeL 2013. as set forth below 

Christopher R. Stevenson, E sq 

Office ol the Reg•onal Counsel 

Federal Aviation Adminrstratron 

P 0. Box ?0636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

By Facsrrnlie (404) 305·5223 

and regular U S Mair 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN. P A 

7300 North Kendall Drive. SLIIte 380 

M:ami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305) 670-1222 

Fax: (305) 400-0685 

Email. ;;;lliartgQIQ~t<"\'D.P·J.C0<tttn,st 
TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

7300 NORTH KENDALL DRIVE, SUITE 380 

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 

T: (305) 670-1222 

F: (305) 400-0685 

FAX TRANSMISSION 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. ( 404) 305-5223 

Stuart A. Goldstein, Esq. 

October 8, 2013 

NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER. 3 

REGARDING: Liberty Foundation/Response To FAA's Limited Request For Production 

COMMENT 

================================================================== 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN 

Board Certified Aviation Attorney 

StuartA. Goldstein, P. A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305) 670-1222 

Fax: (305) 400-0685 

Cell (305) 338-4700 

This electronic mail message contains confidential information which is an attorney-client privileged communication 

work product, proprietary in nature or otherwise protected by law from disclosure and is intended only for the use of 

the addressee(s) named above If you are not an addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an 

addressee, your are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have 

received this electronic mail message in error, please reply to the sender and take the steps necessary to delete this 

message completely from your computer 

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE. Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U. S. Federal Tax advice 

contained in the email message, including attachments, is not intended or written by STUART A. 

GOLDSTEIN, P. A., to be used, and any such tax advice cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties 

that may be imposed by the Internal-Revenue Service. 

I GOVERIIiNIENT 

j EXHIBIT 

i L_ 

' 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of Hearings 

Washington, D. C. 

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2012-0477 

(EIR 2011-GL-03-0070) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Hon J E Sullrvan. Administrative Law ,Judge 

RESPON.DEJ'fCS_A_NSW.f;.EUUQ .. CQM~ 

LIMITED REQUEST FOR PROQ!.!.QJlQl'l 

1. The msrntenance entry that was made following the June 2011 

marntenance was entered in the aircraft's Drscrepancy Log Book. It was destroyed in 

the fire. A copy of the form of the Discrepancy Log Entry is attached hereto as Exhibit 

A Ttl is form appears rn the Maintenance Manual, approved by the FAA 

2. All such documents have been produced previously. fiespondent does 

not 11ave possessron of non-oral cornrnunicatrons between the persons named in this 

Request. 

3 None 

4. f\ii such documents were pr·eviously produced or are almady in the 

possession of tile FAA. After the event of June, 2011, all maintenance records were 

presented to the FAA. n1cluding but not limited to, four binders of inspection records. 
CERTIFJCATE . ..Qf_§ER'liCE 

HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been served on this 8th day of 

October. 2013. as set forth below. 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. 

Office ol the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviat1on Administration 

P 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta. GA 30320 

By Facsimile (404) 305,5223 

and regular U S Mail 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN. P A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive. Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel (305) 670-1222 

Fax (305) 400-0685 

Email : ;7 t1,1 ~.ct.QQ lc.i:sJ e j_n pa (1f.1__1_tttne.t 

By. ·•y;~li£~:_--"j!lr._:c_:.::c. Stuart A. Goldstein 

At1orney For Respondent 

/, '.~UU.J'::'Tt '•. ~- t 

-·;,--,~.-,;} IH<"::·.;r_·:.t_ [.:C:t\F S: -j;:;J; •··,[t,')i i' ]:!'''•3 

:'x··- ---,_.-
B-17 Discrepa nn Form Pl.l~l" -~------ nf _ ----~~ 

lJb-1..'r~·panr\ 

~ - ~ ----~----·------·-

lltHt:: 

.... -·------,-·· 

!};lft: C. InTer led B:.; 

( l'rlifk~H\· M: 

Corn·crh (· .\ction 

~~rr·~·i.:h'd n,: 

l'l·fi!i('<.l!l: ;;: 

~---------·---------------~~~~~------------------~ 

j, orn.-,t~·d g\: 

( \'dH-icJlt· '< 

·-rlr-I "••t;::~~ .. ---· 

i-,_--~-;-~~;:~~~;.·;·1 .,:~ \ : 

( ('rl.tflLai'l' t;: 

1-f(Jhb.;~ 

A 
..OU o-=>-OU-VC> '0'-.>'·o-o <) 0 ('.=<VII) 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

7300 NORTH KENDALL DRIVE, SUITE 380 

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 

T: (305) 670-1222 

F (305) 400-0685 

FAX TRANSMISSION 

TO: Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. ( 404) 305-5223 

FROM: Stuart A. Goldstein, Esq. 

DATE: October 8, 2013 

NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER 3 

REGARDING: Liberty Foundation/Response To FAA's Limited Requests For 

Admissions 

COMMENT 

================================================================== 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN 

Board Certified Aviation Attorney 

StuartA. Goldstein, P. A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel (305) 670-1222 

Fax (305) 400-0685 

Cell (305) 338-4700 

This electronic mail message contains confidential information which is an attorney-client privileged communication 

work product, proprietary in nature or otherwise protected by law frorn disclosure and is intended only for the use of 

the addressee(s) named above If you are not an addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an 

addressee, your are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have 

recefved this electronic mail message in error, please reply to the sender and take the steps necessary to delete this 

message completely from your computer 

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE. Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U. S. Federal Tax advice 

contained in the email message, including attachments, is not intended or written by STUART A. 

GOLDSTEIN, P. A., to be used, and any such tax advice cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties 

that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of Hearings 

Washington, D. C. 

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2012-0477 

(EIR 2011-GL·03·0070) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Hon. J E Suilrvan. Administrative Law Judge 

RESJ:QNO_ENT'~ANSWER~QQMPLAJNfl.I'H'S. 

l.!M..!I_!;QBJ;QlLI;SLEQ.Fl ADMISStQN$ 

Respondent, The Liberty Foundatron. herewith answers the Complainant's 

Limited Requests For Admrssions 

1, Denied 

2. Admittecl 

3 Der11ed 

4 Denred 

5-. Denied 

6. Denied 

7. Admitted that tile log entry referred to tn the Cornplamt was not made until after the 

aircraft was operated An appropriate entry was made in the aircraft Discrepancy 

Log. 

8. Authenticity a elm itt eel 

9 Denied 

10 Den red 

11. Denied 
2013··1 o-OB 1S- -,1 o-o (Grvn) -r 3054000(585 F,-om Stu-art A Golcl"'te•n 

2 

CJ::RTIFICATE OF S!=8VIC_E 

HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been served on this 8th day of 

October, 2013. as set forth below: 

Christopher .R. Stevenson, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0 Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

By Facsimile (404) 305-5223 

and regular U. S Mail 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P ,ll, 

7300 North Kendall Dnve, Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305) 670-1222 

Fax: (305) 400-0685 

Ernaii: st,Jal1~illllQ_a£luarUJet 

By: ~·. ·.~;;;}i;,, '_.I:::/ tJ.:.::~-~·.~~~--·· 

Stuart A Goldstein 

Attorney For Respondent