U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONr'l! 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS It"~ CEIV'ED 

WASHINGTON, D.C. .. 

.. 1 2015 

HI=AFUNG DOCKET 

In The Matter Of: 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No. 201280090053 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULE TO EXTEND 

DISCOVERY AND SET DEADLINES FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 

On August 20, 2015, the FAA filed a request to amend the schedule in this case, noting 

that discovery remained substantially incomplete and that a time for filing dispositive motions 

was appropriate. Respondent opposed that Motion. 

Respondent's Discovery Responses 

Contrary to Respondent's representation in its response, see Response ~ 6, Respondent 

has not complied with its discovery obligations. As noted in the FAA's Motion, the FAA served 

discovery requests on Respondent on July 7, 2015, and as of August 19, 2015, Respondent's 

counsel represented that he had not yet begun working on responses to that discovery. On August 

21, 2015, Respondent then provided "responses" to those discovery requests. See Exhibit F. 

However, as is perhaps unsurprisiug for discovery responses generated so briskly, these 

responses were in no way complete, and in no way fulfilled Respondent's discovery obligations. 

Indeed, Respondent's discovery responses are so deficient as to make it appear that they were 

submitted solely for the purpose of being able to represent to the Court that it had "complied" 

with its discovery obligations. While this motion is not the appropriate venue to argue all of the 

I 
deficiencies in those responses, 

1 the FAA notes by way of example that (1) Respondent 

repeatedly refuses to answer discovery requests without the interposition of any valid objectionit refuses to answer questions about the basis for its denials of the allegations of the Complaint, 

refused to answer a question asking it to describe the circumstances surrounding the flight, 

questions asking it to identifY any inaccuracies, and refused to answer a question about whether 

it operated the flight, see Exhibit F 1-7; (2) Respondent answers several other discovery requests 

with non sequiters - it answers a request about sanction by simply reiterating its denial of the 

allegations, answers a question about whether it actually flew a demonstration flight by talking 

only about whether it intended to make a demonstration flight, and answers a question about its 

relationship with the pilots by citing other materials that do not directly answer the question, see 

Exhibit F ~ 2-3, 6-7. These deficient responses not only fail to comply with Respondent's 

obligations, but the need for the FAA to engaged in good faith efforts to obtain compliance, and 

then likely file a Motion to Compel, followed by additional time for Respondent to properly 

respond to discovery requests, will ultimately take even more time that if Respondent had simply 

worked diligently on producing proper responses in the first place. Respondent presents this as a 

reason why an adjustment of the schedule is urmecessary, but it is in fact further demonstration 

that it is necessary. 

FAA 's Discovery Responses 

Respondent asserts that during the August 19, 2015, telephonic conversation between the 

undersigned and Respondent's counsel, Respondent's counsel specifically requested that the 

FAA provided responses to its discovery requests by August 21, 2015. See Response ~ 8. 

Respondent then asserts that it requested responses by September 1, 2015. See id Although it is 

1 The FAA must complete its good faith efforts to obtain compliance from Respondent, and then file a Motion to 

Compel if those are unavailing. 

2 
unclear what relevance there is to whether Respondent's counsel's requested discovery responses 

by a particular date during a conversation on August 19, 2015, after a month and a half of 

ignoring the undersigned's efforts to discuss these matters, Respondent's representations on this 

point are not accurate; no such specific requests were made during that conversation. 2 

Parties in litigation are under an obligation to engage with each other in good faith 

regarding discovery matters, including timely bringing problems to each other's attention. In this 

matter, while the undersigned acted with due diligence in repeatedly attempting to contact 

opposing counsel about the status of the case and whether there remained any pending discovery 

matters to be addressed, the Respondent chose not to engage on these issues until two days 

before the close of discovery. While the FAA can, and will, work to provide responses to these 

requests, Respondent's failure to timely discuss these matters with the undersigned means that 

these responses cannot be provided within the originally-scheduled time frame. 3 

Summary Judgment 

In response to the FAA's request that the schedule be amended so there is time for 

dispositive motions, Respondent frrst argues that "the FAA had many months to file such a 

motion." Response ~ 9. This is incorrect. Dispositive motions are filed after discovery, not 

during discovery, so that all of the evidence is now known to the parties. As noted above, 

Respondent has still not complied with its discovery obligations. Indeed, Respondent did not 

provide any sort of discovery response, beyond denying requests to admit, until August 1, 2015. 

2 Respondent's counsel did, on the afternoon of August 21, 2015, send an e-mail insisting that the FAA provide 

discovery responses that day. 3 Although Respondent does not otherwise indicate that it is filing a Motion to Compel, it does ask the Court to 

compel the FAA to comply with its discovery requests by September I, 2015. See Response at 5. While, as indicated 

above, the FAA is willing to comply with Respondent's discovery requests, such an order compelling compliance 

would be inappropriate because (1) Respondent failed to bring this matter to the attention of the undersigned, or the 

Court, in a reasonably timely fashion, as required by the Court's scheduling and procedures order; and (2) even if 

the FAA were compelled to comply with the discovery requests, such compliance should not be due until 30 days 

after August 19, 2015, the date on which Respondent's counsel informed the undersigned that there was a pending 

discovery issue and provided the undersigned with complete copies of the Respondent's discovery requests. 

3 
Second, Respondent asserts that, if a summary judgment motion were to be allowed, it 

would be prejudiced because it would have to take depositions "to test the options and factual 

scenarios set forth in the motion." Response ~ I 0. This argument appears to be based on a 

misunderstanding of the general conduct of litigation. As noted above, dispositive motions are 

filed after discovery. One cannot take a deposition in order to "test" the assertions made in a 

motion for summary judgment. Respondent has had months to take depositions, and has given no 

indication that it has any interest in such. Whether the FAA is given an opportunity to file a 

dispositive motion has no effect on that. 

Third, Respondent asserts that summary judgment is inappropriate in this case. 

Respondent notes the FAA's acknowledgement that there are disputes as to some details of the 

flight arrangements, but ignores the FAA's accompanying statement that these disputes are not 

about material facts. For example, there is a dispute about exactly what, if any, conversation took 

place before or during the flight about the operational characteristics of the aircraft. But, for 

example, Respondent has acknowledged in discovery that the passenger on the flight was 

charged an hourly rate for the use of the aircraft, which is not permissible charge on a valid 

demonstration flight, where the charges for such a flight to the actual expenses for the flight 

(such as fuel, airport fees, insurance costs, and pilot travel expenses). See14 C.P.R. § 91.501. If 

the flight could not possibly have been a valid demonstration flight, then it is immaterial whether 

the pilot took a few minutes to discuss the characteristics of the aircraft with the passenger. 

Similarly, Respondent attaches to its response two e-mails sent after the flight, in which 

Respondent's employee and affiliate make references to showing the aircraft to the passenger. 

See Response Exhibit H. 4 These do not create disputes of material fact because (1) there is no 

dispute as to the contents of the e-mail, and no dispute that after the flight Respondent realized 

4 It is unknown why 1hese e-mails, from late 2012, were not disclosed until August 17, 2015. 

4 
there was a problem and began characterizing the flight as a demonstration; and (2) even if it is 

presumed that Respondent thought at the time that it was conducting a legitimate demonstration 

flight while flying the passenger on a previously scheduled business trip, that erroneous 

understanding of the applicable regulations does not somehow negate whether a violation 

occurred. 

Of course, the FAA does not suggest that the Judge make any determinations as to 

whether summary judgment will ultimately be appropriate in this case - that is a determination 

that can only be made after discovery has concluded and the parties have had a full opportunity 

to present evidence and argument to the Court. However, the information currently available, 

including Respondent's admissions during discovery, now indicate that this is an ideal candidate 

for disposition without hearing. 

Conclusion 

Respondent has not yet complied with its discovery obligations, and more time is 

necessary for this to be accomplished. Respondent waited until two days before the end of 

discovery to respond to the undersigned's repeated efforts to discuss the status of the FAA's 

discovery responses and, as a result, additional time is required for this to be accomplished. 

Respondent's admissions during discovery indicate that this case is a strong candidate for 

disposition without a hearing. For all of these reasons, the current procedural schedule should be 

amended to permit discovery to be completed and for the filing of dispositive motions. 

~ 

Respectfully submitted this'27 day of August, 2015. 

CHRISTOPHER 

~ R. STE ENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

5 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Reply in Support of Motion to Amend Schedule to Extend 

Discovery and Set Deadlines for Dispositive Motions 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 2Wl000 

one copy via Federal Express, certified mail, facsimile, and via e-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 

email: cody.srnith@dot.gov 

Paul R. Borth, Esq. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

facsimile: (815) 356-7042 

email: prb@barnettlegal.com 

iAUG 12!7 2015J 

Dated 

6 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC 

MICHAEL P. EUERTA, Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-201 4-0867 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No, 2012S0090053 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWERS TO COMPLAINANT'S "INITIAL" SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, by its attorneys, Barnett & Borth, LLC. 

hereby answers the Administrator's "Initial" Set of Interrogatories and Requests for 

Production as follows: 

1. For each person listed in your initial disclosures, describe in detail that person's 

knowledge of and involvement with this matter, including not limited to what 

maintenance that person performed, what knowledge of the situation that person has and 

any communications that person had with others about the situation. 

Answer: 

See Respondent's Answers to Interrogatories 1 and 2 of the Administrator's first set of 

Interrogatories filed on August 1, 2015. 

2. If you assert that the inspector's statements in this matter (inclusive of records of 

conversation, e-mails, memoranda, or other documents); as contained in the EIR, contain 

any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically 

identifY such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in 

error, and describe what you believe to be the actual situation. 

Answer: 

This Interrogatory is overly broad and vague and would require a narrative response 

better suited to deposition and/or hearing testimony of the witnesses in this case. The 

requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete factual detail and 

a line by line review of all documents that are referenced. To the extent that this question 

seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overbroad and would more 

appropriately be addressed by way of deposition or hearing testimony. Respondent 

further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that they are asked to state a legal opinion 

liP age GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

1:-
on "falsehoods", errors, etc. In addition, the Rules of Civil Procedure do not require the 

Respondent to explain and disclose what the Respondent intends to show by way of cross 

examination of the FAA's inspectors and witnesses which places this interrogatory in the 

category of requesting the mental impressions and work product of the Respondent's trial 

counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. 

Respondent further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it 

(i) Requests that Respondent provide a lengthy narrative response to an impermissibly 

broad and compound question; 

(ii) Requests the Respondent to provide detailed legal analysis of such information. An 

undertaking of this nature is not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is 

designed to burden and harass Respondent and to cause it to incur enormous expenses. 

(iii) Marshall facts from all documents in this case to support any contentions of "error", 

misrepresentation, etc. 

3. ·For each allegation in the Complaint that you deny, please state with specificity 

the basis (whether factual and/or legal) for that denial. 

Answer: 

This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome because it attempts to require 

Respondent to provide a narrative account of each potential witness' anticipated 

testimony and to develop a narrative account of each and every potential defense that 

Respondent may assert in this action. "Each interrogatory should consist of a brief, 

simple, direct, and unambiguous question, dealing with one point only. The question 

should be objective and non-argumentative. They should not seek narrative answers or 

attempt to argue, cross-examine, or impeach." Hilt v. SFC. Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186-187 

(D.Kan. 1997). In addition, the denials of each of the Administrator's complaint 

allegations stand on their own and are self-explanatory. The Respondent has no burden 

of proof in this case. See also Answer to Interrogatory number 6 of the Administrator's 

first set oflnterrogatories filed on August I, 2015. 

4. If you assert that the penalty proposed in this case is inappropriate even if the 

FAA proves the allegations in the Complaint, please state with specificity the basis for 

that assertion, whether factual and/or legal. 

Answer: 

The proposed penalty asserted by the FAA in this case is inappropriate by virtue of the 

fact that the FAA cannot prove its allegations of violation of the cited regulations since 

the in light oftbe fact that the subject flight was a demonstration flight and was not 

operated for compensation or hire. The various e-mails contained in the FAA's EOR, the 

statements made by Mr. Picket and the e-mail transmissions disclosed by Respondent of 

the pertinent witnesses in this case bear out the fact that the subject flight was a 

demonstration flight thereby rendering the allegations of the Administrator's compliant 

moot. 

21Page 
5. Describe in detail the circumstances and course of the September 18,2012, and 

all arrangements prior to, during, and after the flight. This includes, but is not limited to, 

any discussions about the nature of the flight, any arrangements for any payment of any 

sort to you or the pilots, the time and route of the flight, and how the route of the flight 

was determined. 

Answer: 

This request is overly broad, compound and unduly burdensome because it attempts to 

require Respondent to provide a narrative account of each potential witness' anticipated 

testimony and to develop a narrative account of each and every potential defense that 

Respondent may assert in this action. "Each interrogatory should consist of a brief, 

simple, direct, and unambiguous question, dealing with one point only. The question 

should be objective and non-argumentative. They should not seek narrative answers or 

attempt to argue, cross-examine, or impeach." Hilt v. SFC. Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186-187 

(D.Kan. 1997). Notwithstanding the information that is sought in this interrogatory can 

be gleaned from the rather extensive investigative reports of the FAA's investigator's and 

witnesses and the docwnents contained in the FAA's EIR and the documents previously 

disclosed by the Respondent. 

6. Describe in detail your relationship and involvement with Justin Lollar and 

Shawn Flowers during the second half of2012. 

Answer: 

See the documents contained in the FAA EIR and Respondent's Answers to 

Interrogatories 1 and 2 of the Administrator's first set oflnterrogatories filed on August 

1, 2015. 

7. If you assert that the October 3, 2012 and/or October 12, 2012 statements by Alan 

Long contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please 

specifically identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the 

statement is in error, describe what you believe to be the actual situation, and describe 

why Mr. Long made the erroneous statement. 

Answer: 

This Interrogatory is overly broad, compound and vague and would require a narrative 

response better suited to deposition and/or hearing testimony of the witnesses in this case. 

The requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete factual 

detail, and to the extent that this question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is unduly 

burdensome and overbroad and would more appropriately be addressed by way of 

deposition. Respondent further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that they are 

asked to state a legal opinion on "falsehoods", errors, and the general credibility of Dr. 

Long without the benefit of his sworn testimony or cross examination. In addition, the 

Rules of Civil Procedure do not require the Respondent to explain and disclose what the 

Respondent intends to show by way of cross examination of Alan Long which places this 

interrogatory in the category of requesting the mental impressions, strategic impressions 

and tactics and attorney work product of the Respondent's trial counsel which is not 

31 Page 
allowed and is objectionable. See also the contemporaneous e-mail transmissions to and 

from Dr. Long contained in the FAA's E!R and those previously disclosed by 

Respondent. 

8. If you assert that the September 21, 2012 and/or October 21 2012 e-mails from 

Justin Lollar toY ancey Rushton contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, 

mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in 

detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, describe what you believe to 

be the actual situation, and describe why Mr. Lollar made the erroneous statement. 

Answer: 

This Interrogatory is overly broad, compound and vague and would require a narrative 

response better suited to deposition and/or hearing testimony of Mr. Lollar and Mr. 

Rushton. The requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete 

factual detail, and to the extent that this question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is 

unduly burdensome and overbroad and would more appropriately be addressed by way of 

deposition. Respondent further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that they are 

asked to state a legal opinion on "falsehoods", errors, etc. Without the benefit of the 

testimony of Mr. Rushton, an assessment concerning the credibility of his investigation 

cannot be surmised. In addition, no such e-m ails have been disclosed by the 

Administrator nor are they contained as items of proof in the FAA EIR. The Rules of 

Civil Procedure do not require the Respondent to explain and disclose what the 

Respondent intends to show by way of cross examination of Alan Long which places this 

interrogatory in the category of requesting the mental impressions and work product of 

the Respondent's trial counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. See also the email transmissions to and from Dr. Long contained in the FAA's E!R and those 

previously disclosed by Respondent. 

9. If you assert that the undated letters from Shawn Flowers to Yancey Rushton 

(stamped received by the AL/NW FLORIDA FSD0-09 on October 15,2012 and on 

October 24, 2012) contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other 

errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing 

that the statement is in error. describe what you believe to be the actual situation and 

describe why Mr. Flowers made the erroneous statement. 

Answer: 

This Interrogatory is overly broad, compound and vague and would require a narrative 

response better suited to deposition and/or hearing testimony of Mr. Flowers. The 

requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete factual detail, 

and to the extent that this question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is unduly 

burdensome and overbroad and would more appropriately be addressed by way of 

deposition. Respondent further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that they are 

asked to state a legal opinion on "falsehoods", errors, etc. The Rules of Civil Procedure 

do not require the Respondent to explain and disclose what the Respondent intends to 

show by way of direct or cross examination of Mr. Flowers Long which places this 

interrogatory in the category of requesting the mental impressions and work product of 

4JPage 
the Respondent's trial counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. As to the 

October 15, 2012 dated letter it speaks for itself. The October 24 dated letter, the first 

three paragraphs appear to be accurate while the last paragraph appears to be a lay 

assessment of unknown FAR's that would require a legal analysis and mental 

impressions to decipher and comment upon rendering this question which invades 

attorney work product. See also the contemporaneous e-mail transmissions to and from 

Dr. Long contained in the FAA's EIR and those previously disclosed by Respondent. 

10. If you assert any inaccuracy or incompleteness in any of the maintenance records 

related to this case and/or included in the EIR, please identifY with specificity any such 

inaccuracy or incompleteness, your basis for believing that the record js inaccurate or 

incomplete, and what the record should have stated. 

Answer: 

None of the allegations of the Administrator's compliant concern the "maintenance 

records" of anything nor have any such records been produced by the Administrator or 

contained in the FAA's EIR. As such, Respondent has no way to answer the 

interrogatory and questions the relevance of the interrogatory to any aspect of this matter. 

II. IdentifY each person you may call as a witness at. hearing in this matter, identifY 

the subject of their testimony, and summarize the substance of their expected testimony. 

You do not need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but 

you must expand on those answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory. 

Answer: 

See Respondent's Answers to Interrogatories I and 2 of the Administrator's first set of 

Interrogatories filed on August 1, 2015. 

12. Identify each person you may can as an expert witness in this matter, identifY the 

subject of their testimony, summarize the substance of their expected testimony, and 

describe in detail your basis for believing that the witness is an expert. 

Answer: 

None. 

13. For each interrogatory, request for production and request to admit, identifY the 

individuals aiding in responding to that request. 

Answer: 

Steven Pickett 

51 Page 
14. For each document identified in your initial disclosures, describe how that 

document supports your position in this matter. 

Answer: 

This Interrogatory is overly broad, compound and vague and would require a narrative 

response The requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete 

factual detail, and to the extent that this question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is 

unduly burdensome and overbroad In addition, the Rules of Civil Procedure do not 

require the Respondent to explain and disclose what the Respondent intends to show by 

way of the voluminous documents that make up this case. This interrogatory is in the 

category of requesting the mental impressions and work product of the Respondent's trial 

counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. 

15. If you deny any request for admission, state with specificity the basis for that 

denial. 

Answer: 

REQUEST TO ADMIT: 

1. Admit that (regardless of your intent) the September 18, 2012 flight in N5254LP 

were not demonstration flights. 

ANSWER: 

Denied on the basis that the intention and purpose of Birmingham Flight Center, its 

principals, employees and agents that the flight was a flight taken as a demonstration 

flight on the authority of the owner and broker of the aircraft. 

REQUEST TO ADMIT: 

2. Admit that Dr. Long was charged amounts beyond those permitted by 14 C.F.R. 

§ 91.50l(d). 

ANSWER: 

Denied on the basis that§ 91.501 (b) provides that operations that may be conducted 

under the rules in this subpart instead of those in parts 121, 129, 135, and 137 of this 

chapter when common carriage is not involved, include (3) Flights for the demonstration 

of an airplane to prospective customers when no charge is made except for those 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section. 

§ 91.501 (d) then provides that the following may be charged, as expenses of a specific 

flight, for transportation as authorized by paragraphs (b) (3) and (7) and ( c)(l) of this 

section: 

(1) Fuel, oil, lubricants, and other additives. 

(2) Travel expenses of the crew, including food, lodging, and ground transportation. 

(3) Hangar and tie-down costs away from the aircraft's base of operation. 

(4) Insurance obtained for the specific flight. 

(5) Landing fees, airport taxes, and similar assessments. 

( 6) Customs, foreign permit, and similar fees directly related to the flight. 

(7) In flight food and beverages. 

61Page 
(8) Passenger ground transportation. 

(9) Flight planning and weather contract services. 

( 1 0) An additional charge equal to 100 percent of the expenses listed in paragraph ( d)(l) 

of this section. 

No inappropriate charges were requested nor incurred of or by Dr. Long and no 

documentation to the contrary is contained in the FAA's EIR nor has any such 

documentation that any inappropriate charges were requested of or by Dr. Long been 

produced by the Administrator. 

REQUEST TO ADMIT: 

3. Admit that it was the intent of Birmingham Flight Center and the pilots involved 

in the September 18, 2012 flight to charge amounts that are not listed as permissible 

charges in 14 C.P.R.§ 91.50l(d). 

ANSWER: 

Denied on the basis set forth in answer to Request to admit 1 and 2. 

REQUEST TO ADMIT: 

4. Admit that you operated N525LP on September 18, 2012. 

ANSWER: 

Denied on the basis that the term "operated" is not defined and Respondent does not wish 

to have an inappropriate definition of"operated" to be applied to the factual situations 

involved to admit or imply that the subject flight was a charter, 135 or commercial flight 

or any other flight other that a demonstration flight which it was. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

In response to the Administrator's "Initial" request for production, Respondent 

Provides the following responses: 

1. Please produce each and every document referenced in your initial diclosures. 

Response: 

See Respondent's Responses to the Administrator's first set of Requests for Production of 

Documents filed on August 1, 2015 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on 

August 17,2015. 

2. Please produce any document referenced in your interrogatory responses. 

Response: 

See Respondent's Responses to the Administrator's first set of Requests for Production of 

Documents filed on August 1, 2015 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on 

August 17,2015. Other documents are contained in the FAA's EIR. 

7[Page 
3. Please produce any document you may use as evidence in this matter. 

Response: 

See Respondent's Responses to the Administrator's first set of Requests for Production of 

Documents filed on August 1, 2015 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on 

August 17,2015. Other documents are contained in the FAA's EIR. The specific 

documents to be used at the hearing of this matter will be produced with appropriate 

exhibit reference on or before the September 18, 2015 date for disclosures as set forth in 

the Court's Pre-Trial Order at~ 10. 

4. Please produce any document used relied upon, or referred to in answering the 

interrogatories or requests to admit. 

Response: 

Respondent utilized all documents set forth in Respondent's Responses to the 

Administrator's first set of Requests for Production of Documents filed on August 1, 

2015 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on August 17, 2015. Other 

documents are contained in the FAA's EIR. 

5. Please produce all documents related to N 525LP during September 2012 

including but not limited to any insurance agreements in effect at the time, any leases in 

effect at the time, aircraft, engine and maintenance logbooks, maintenance, flight records 

and financial records relating to the maintenance, operation or lease of the aircraft. 

Response: 

Respondent was not the owner of the subject aircraft and is not in possession of any 

records or documents responsive to this request. 

6. Copies of all correspondence (letters, e-mails or otherwise) to or from 

Birmingham Flight Center, Steven Pickett, and/or Sandi Pickett concerning this case or 

the operation ofN525LP in September 2012. 

Response: 

See Respondent's Responses to the Administrator's first set of Requests for Production of 

Documents filed on August 1, 2015 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on 

August 17, 2015. Other documents are contained in the FAA's EIR. 

Respondent reserves the right to utilize and introduce tbe exhibits disclosed by the 

Administrator with the appropriate witnesses at the hearing of this matter. 

8[Page 
Respectfully submitted, 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

Dated: August 21, 2015 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlega1.com 

91Page 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date faxed and emailed the foregoing 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWERS TO COMPLAINANT'S "INITIAL" 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION addressed to: 

Christopher Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Service via e-mail: chris.stevenson@faa.gov 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

10 I Page