### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONr'l! OFFICE OF HEARINGS**It"~** 

# CEIV'ED

WASHINGTON, D.C.

..



## .. 12015 

## HI=AFUNG DOCKET

In The Matter Of: BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. Respondent. DocketNo. 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 FORDISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 

### OnAugust 20, 2015, the FAA filed a requestto amend the schedule inthis case, noting that discovery remained substantially incomplete and that atime for filing dispositive motions

was appropriate. Respondent opposedthatMotion. Respondent'sDiscoveryResponses 

### 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. OnAugust 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 ofbeing 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 ofthe

I

### deficiencies in those responses, 1 

### the FAA notes by way of example that (1) Respondent repeatedly refuses to answer discovery requests withoutthe interposition ofany valid objectionit refuses to answer questions about the basis for its denials ofthe allegations ofthe 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 ofthe 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 withthe 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 ultimatelytake even more time that ifRespondenthad simply worked diligently on producing proper responses inthe first place. Respondent presents this as a

reason why an adjustment ofthe schedule is urmecessary, but it is in fact further demonstration that it is necessary. FAA 's DiscoveryResponses Respondent asserts that during the August 19, 2015, telephonic conversation betweenthe 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, andthen file a Motion to Compel ifthose 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 timelybringing 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 ofthe 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 ofdiscovery. 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 cannotbe provided within the originally-scheduledtime 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 ofdiscovery response, beyond denying requests to admit, until August 1, 2015.

2 Respondent's counsel did, onthe afternoon ofAugust 21, 2015, send an e-mail insisting that the FAA provide discovery responses that day. 3 Although Respondent does nototherwise indicate that itis filing a Motion to Compel, it does ask the Courtto compel the FAAto 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 ordercompelling compliance wouldbe inappropriatebecause (1) Respondent failed to bring this matter to the attention ofthe undersigned, or the Court, in a reasonably timely fashion, as required bythe Court's scheduling andprocedures order; and (2) even if the FAA were compelled to comply with the discovery requests, such compliance shouldnot be due until 30 days after August 19, 2015, the date onwhich Respondent's counsel informed the undersignedthat there was a pending discovery issue andprovidedthe undersignedwith complete copies ofthe Respondent's discovery requests. 

### 3

### Second, Respondent asserts that, if a summaryjudgment 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**~** 

### I0. This argument appears to be based on a misunderstanding ofthe 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 summaryjudgment. 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 motionhas no effect onthat. 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 ofthe 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, ifany, conversationtook 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 notpossibly 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 ofmaterial fact because (1) there is no dispute as to the contents ofthe e-mail, and no dispute that after 

### the flight Respondent realized

4 Itis 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 ifit 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 summaryjudgment 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 withouthearing. 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 ofthese reasons, the current procedural schedule should be amended to permit discovery to be completed and for the filing ofdispositive motions.

### ~ Respectfully submitted this'27 day ofAugust, 2015.

# ~ CHRISTOPHER R. STE ENSON Attorney Office ofthe ChiefCounsel, EnforcementDivision, SouthernTeam



### 5

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that the foregoing Reply in Support ofMotion to Amend Schedule to Extend Discovery and SetDeadlines for Dispositive Motions was sent: original and one copy via certifiedmail to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding- Suite 2Wl000

one copyvia Federal Express, certified mail, facsimile, and viae-mailto: 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 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

6U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC MICHAEL P. EUERTA, Administrator Federal Aviation Administration Complainant v. ) ) ) ) ) ) BIRMINGHAMFLIGHT CENTER, INC. ) Respondent. ) ) DocketNo. FAA-201 4-0867 Judge J.E. Sullivan FAA Case No, 2012S0090053

RESPONDENT'S ANSWERS TO COMPLAINANT'S "INITIAL" SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION Respondent, BirminghamFlight Center, by its attorneys, Barnett & Borth, LLC. hereby answers the Administrator's "Initial" Set ofInterrogatories and Requests for Production as follows: 1. For each person listed inyour initial disclosures, describe in detail that person's knowledge ofand involvement with this matter, including not limited to what maintenance that personperformed, what knowledge ofthe situation thatpersonhas and any communications that person had with others aboutthe situation. Answer: See Respondent's Answers to Interrogatories 1 and 2 ofthe Administrator's first set of Interrogatories filed on August 1, 2015. 2. Ifyou assert thatthe inspector's statements in this matter (inclusive ofrecords of conversation, e-mails, memoranda, or other documents); as contained inthe EIR, contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identifY such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing thatthe statementis in error, and describe whatyou believe to bethe actual situation. Answer: This Interrogatory is overlybroad and vague and would require a narrative response better suited to deposition and/or hearingtestimony ofthe witnesses inthis case. The requested answer wouldrequire a narrative response requiring complete factual detail and a line by line review ofall documents that are referenced. To the extentthatthis question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overbroad and would more appropriately be addressed byway ofdeposition orhearing testimony. Respondent further objectto this Interrogatoryto the extentthat they are askedto state a legal opinion

liP age 

### GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 

# 1:-on "falsehoods", errors, etc. In addition, the Rules ofCivil Procedure do notrequire the Respondent to explain and disclose whatthe Respondent intends to show byway ofcross examination ofthe FAA's inspectors and witnesses which places this interrogatory in the category ofrequesting the mental impressions and work product ofthe Respondent's trial counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. Respondent further objects to this Interrogatoryto the extent it (i) Requests thatRespondent provide a lengthy narrativeresponseto an impermissibly broad and compound question; (ii) Requests the Respondent to provide detailed legal analysis ofsuchinformation. An undertaking ofthis nature is notrequired bythe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure and is designed to burden and harass Respondent and to cause itto incur enormous expenses. (iii) Marshall facts from all documents inthis case to support any contentions of"error", misrepresentation, etc. 3. ·For each allegation in the Complaintthatyou deny, please state with specificity the basis (whether factual and/or legal) for that denial. Answer: This request is overly broad and undulyburdensome because it attempts to require Respondentto provide a narrative account ofeach potential witness' anticipated testimony andto develop a narrative account ofeach and every potential defense that Respondent may assert in this action. "Each interrogatory should consist ofa brief, simple, direct, andunambiguous question, dealing with onepoint only. The question should be objective and non-argumentative. They should not seek narrative answers or attempt to argue, cross-examine, or impeach." Hiltv. SFC. Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186-187 (D.Kan. 1997). In addition, the denials ofeach ofthe Administrator's complaint allegations stand on their own and are self-explanatory. The Respondent has no burden ofproofin this case. See also Answerto Interrogatorynumber 6 ofthe Administrator's first set oflnterrogatories filed on August I, 2015. 4. Ifyou assert thatthe penalty proposed in this case is inappropriate even ifthe FAAproves the allegations inthe Complaint, please state with specificitythe basis for that assertion, whether factual and/or legal. Answer: The proposed penalty asserted by the FAA in this case is inappropriate byvirtue ofthe fact that the FAA cannotprove its allegations ofviolation ofthe cited regulations since the in light oftbe fact that the subject flight was a demonstration flight and wasnot operated for compensation or hire. The various e-mails contained inthe FAA's EOR, the statements made byMr. Picket and the e-mail transmissions disclosed byRespondent of the pertinent witnesses in this case bear outthe fact that the subject flight was a demonstration flight thereby rendering the allegations ofthe Administrator's compliant moot.

21Page5. Describe in detail the circumstances and course ofthe September 18,2012, and all arrangements priorto, during, and after the flight. This includes, but is not limited to, any discussions about the nature ofthe flight, any arrangements for any payment ofany sort to you or the pilots, the time and route ofthe flight, and howthe route ofthe flight was determined. Answer: This request is overlybroad, compound and unduly burdensomebecause it attempts to require Respondentto provide a narrative account ofeach potential witness' anticipated testimony and to develop a narrative account ofeach and every potential defense that Respondent may assert in this action. "Each interrogatory should consist ofa 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 inthis interrogatory can be gleaned from the rather extensive investigative reports ofthe FAA's investigator's and witnesses and the docwnents contained inthe FAA's EIR and the documents previously disclosed bythe Respondent. 6. Describe in detail your relationship and involvementwith Justin Lollar and Shawn Flowers during the second halfof2012. Answer: See the documents contained in the FAA EIR and Respondent's Answers to Interrogatories 1and 2 ofthe Administrator's first set oflnterrogatories filed onAugust 1, 2015. 7. Ifyou assertthat the October 3, 2012 and/or October 12, 2012 statements byAlan Long contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail yourbasis for believing that the statement is in error, describe what you believe to be the actual situation, and describe whyMr. Long made the erroneous statement. Answer: This Interrogatory is overly broad, compound and vague and would require a narrative response better suitedto deposition and/or hearing testimony ofthe witnesses inthis case. The requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete factual detail, andto the extent that this question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overbroad and would more appropriately be addressedbyway of deposition. Respondent further objectto this Interrogatoryto the extent that they are asked to state a legal opinion on "falsehoods", errors, and the general credibility ofDr. Long withoutthe benefit ofhis sworntestimony or cross examination. In addition, the Rules ofCivil Procedure do not requirethe Respondent to explain and disclose what the Respondent intends to show by way ofcross examination ofAlan Long which places this interrogatory inthe category ofrequestingthe mental impressions, strategic impressions and tactics and attorney work product ofthe Respondent's trial counsel which is not 

## 31 Pageallowed 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. Ifyou assert thatthe September 21, 2012 and/or October 21 2012 e-mails from Justin Lollar toYancey Rushton contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail yourbasis for believingthatthe statement is in error, describe whatyou believe to be the actual situation, and describe whyMr. Lollar made the erroneous statement. Answer: This Interrogatory is overly broad, compound and vague andwould require a narrative response better suited to deposition and/orhearing testimony ofMr. Lollar and Mr. Rushton. Therequested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete factual detail, and to the extentthatthis question seeks to narrowthis Interrogatory is undulyburdensome and overbroad and would more appropriately be addressed byway of deposition. Respondent further object to this Interrogatoryto the extentthat they are asked to state a legal opinion on "falsehoods", errors, etc. Without the benefit ofthe testimony ofMr. Rushton, an assessment concerning the credibility ofhis investigation cannotbe surmised. In addition, no such e-mails have been disclosed bythe Administrator nor are they contained as items ofproofin the FAAEIR. The Rules of Civil Procedure do notrequire the Respondentto explain and disclose what the Respondent intends to show by way ofcross examination ofAlan Long which places this interrogatory inthe category ofrequesting the mental impressions and workproduct of the Respondent's trial counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. See also the emailtransmissions to and from Dr. Long contained in the FAA's E!Rand those previously disclosed by Respondent. 9. Ifyou assertthatthe undated letters from Shawn Flowers to Yancey Rushton (stamped received bythe AL/NW FLORIDAFSD0-09 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 bethe actual situation and describe whyMr. Flowers made the erroneous statement. Answer: This Interrogatory is overlybroad, compound and vague and would require a narrative response better suited to deposition and/orhearing testimony ofMr. Flowers. The requested answer wouldrequire a narrative response requiring complete factual detail, andto the extent thatthis question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overbroad andwould more appropriatelybe addressed byway of deposition. Respondent further objectto this Interrogatory to the extent that they are asked to state a legal opinion on "falsehoods", errors, etc. The Rules ofCivil Procedure do notrequire the Respondent to explain and disclose whattheRespondent intends to show by wayofdirect or cross examination of Mr. Flowers Long which places this interrogatory in the category ofrequesting the mental impressions and workproduct of 4JPagethe 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 ofunknown FAR'sthatwould require a legal analysis and mental impressions to decipher and commentupon rendering this question which invades attorneyworkproduct. See also the contemporaneous e-mail transmissions to and from Dr. Long contained inthe FAA's EIR and those previously disclosed byRespondent. 10. Ifyou assert any inaccuracy or incompleteness in any ofthe maintenance records related to this case and/or included inthe EIR, please identifY with specificity any such inaccuracy or incompleteness, your basis for believing that the recordjs inaccurate or incomplete, and whatthe record should have stated. Answer: None ofthe allegations ofthe Administrator's compliant concern the "maintenance records" ofanything nor have any such records been produced bythe Administrator or contained intheFAA's EIR. As such, Respondent has no way to answer the interrogatory and questions therelevance ofthe interrogatoryto any aspect ofthis matter. II. IdentifY each person you may call as a witness at.hearing in this matter, identifY the subject oftheir testimony, and summarize the substance oftheir expected testimony. You do notneed to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but you must expand on those answers to the extent necessary to answerthis interrogatory. Answer: See Respondent's Answers to Interrogatories I and 2 ofthe Administrator's first set of Interrogatories filed on August 1, 2015. 12. Identify eachperson you may can as an expertwitness inthis matter, identifY the subject oftheir testimony, summarize the substance oftheir expected testimony, and describe in detail your basis for believing thatthe witness is an expert. Answer: None. 13. Foreach interrogatory, request for production and requestto admit, identifY the individuals aiding in responding to that request. Answer: Steven Pickett



## 51 Page14. Foreach document identified in your initial disclosures, describe howthat document supports your position in this matter. Answer: This Interrogatoryis overlybroad, compound and vague and wouldrequire a narrative response The requested answer wouldrequire a narrative response requiring complete factual detail, and tothe extentthat this question seeks to narrowthis Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overbroad In addition, the Rules ofCivilProcedure do not require the Respondent to explain and disclose whatthe Respondent intends to show by way ofthe voluminous documents that make up this case. This interrogatory is inthe category ofrequesting the mental impressions and work productoftheRespondent's trial counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. 15. Ifyou deny any request for admission, state with specificitythebasis for that denial. Answer: REQUEST TO ADMIT: 1. Admitthat (regardless ofyour intent) the September 18, 2012 flight in N5254LP were not demonstration flights. ANSWER: Denied onthe basis that the intention and purpose ofBirmingham FlightCenter, its principals, employees and agents thatthe flight was a flight taken as a demonstration flight onthe authority ofthe owner and broker ofthe aircraft. REQUEST TO ADMIT: 2. AdmitthatDr. Long was charged amounts beyondthosepermittedby 14 C.F.R. § 91.50l(d). ANSWER: Denied onthe basis that§ 91.501 (b) provides that operations that maybe conducted underthe rules in this subpart instead ofthose in parts 121, 129, 135, and 137 ofthis chapter when common carriage is notinvolved, include (3) Flights for the demonstration ofan airplane to prospective customers when no charge is made except for those specified in paragraph (d) ofthis section. § 91.501 (d) then provides that the following may be charged, as expenses ofa specific flight, for transportation as authorized byparagraphs (b) (3) and (7) and (c)(l) ofthis section: (1) Fuel, oil, lubricants, and other additives. (2) Travel expenses ofthe crew, including food, lodging, and ground transportation. (3) Hangar and tie-down costs awayfrom the aircraft's base ofoperation. (4) Insurance obtained for the specific flight. (5) Landing fees, airporttaxes, and similar assessments. (6) Customs, foreign permit, and similar fees directlyrelated tothe flight. (7) In flight food and beverages. 61Page(8) Passenger groundtransportation. (9) Flight planning and weather contract services. ( 1

0) An additional charge equal to 100 percent ofthe expenses listed in paragraph (d)(l) ofthis section. No inappropriate charges were requested nor incurred ofor byDr. Long and no documentationto the contrary is containedin the FAA'sEIRnorhas any such documentation that any inappropriate charges were requested ofor by Dr. Longbeen produced bythe Administrator. REQUEST TO ADMIT: 3. Admitthat itwas the intent ofBirmingham Flight Center and thepilots 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 Requestto admit 1 and 2. REQUEST TO ADMIT: 4. Admitthat you operatedN525LP 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 thatthe subject flight was a charter, 135 or commercial flight or any other flight otherthat a demonstration flight which it was. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORPRODUCTION 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 ofRequests 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 ofRequests for Production of Documents filed on August 1, 2015 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on August 17,2015. Other documents are contained inthe FAA's EIR. 7[Page3. Please produce any document you may use as evidence in this matter. Response: See Respondent's Responses to the Administrator's first set ofRequests for Production of Documents filed onAugust 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 atthe hearing ofthis matter will be produced with appropriate exhibitreference onor before the September 18, 2015 date for disclosures as set forth in the Court's Pre-Trial Order**at~** 10. 4. Pleaseproduce 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 ofRequests for Production ofDocuments 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 N525LP during September 2012 includingbutnot limited to any insurance agreements in effect at the time, any leases in effect atthe time, aircraft, engine and maintenance logbooks, maintenance, flight records and financial records relating to the maintenance, operation or lease ofthe aircraft. Response: Respondent was not the owner ofthe subject aircraft and is not inpossession ofany records or documents responsive to this request. 6. Copies ofall correspondence (letters, e-mails or otherwise) to or from BirminghamFlight 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 ofRequests 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 rightto utilize and introduce tbe exhibits disclosed by the Administrator with the appropriate witnesses atthe hearing ofthis matter.

8[PageRespectfully 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

91PageCERTIFICATE 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 FORPRODUCTION addressed to: Christopher Stevenson Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe 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 800WaukeganRoad Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025 Tel. (847) 724-5520 Fax (815) 356-7042 prb@barnettlegal.com

10 

## IPage