# o RECEIVE D JA N 

## t ^ 201 1 

# ' lEARIN G DOCKE T U.S. Departmen t Q^^ ^ ^ ^ (j, g d^j^ f counse l 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . o f Transportatio n Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n VI A CERTIFIE D MAI L- RETUR N RECEIP T REQUESTE D an dFACSIMIL E Januar y 14,201 1 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r • " Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e 'i ; U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio nrN..- . 1200Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . ~ r^'i^^i p Washington , D C 2059 0 n t:^,^— i Facsimile : 202-366-753 6 . AJblO'^o^ ^ " ^ S§ ^ Vr* ^ u n t o Re : DO T Docke t

No . CPlOSOOO l 1 , FA A Cas e No . 2009SO95043 4 c r Dea r Chie f Judg e Yoder , Complainant , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , request s atelephoni c conferenc e t o addres s th e outstandin g motion s an dpropose dprocedura l schedul e I n th e Matte r o f M & RHelicopters . Responden t

M & RHelicopter s i s owne dan doperate db y Dr . Michae l Selig , wh o i s proceedin g pr o s e i n thi s matter . Th e FA A filed acomplain t o n Novembe r

17 , 2010 , allegin g violation s o f

FA A regulation s b y M & RHelicopters . Th e agenc y i s seekin g a civi l penalty o f

$4,40 0 for

thes e violations . Responden t

ha s filedseventee n (17 ) motion s an dte n (10 ) othe r pleading s requestin g relie f fromth e Chie f

Administrativ e Law Judg e sinc e th e complain t was filed. I n almos t al l twenty-seve n (27 ) pleadings . Responden t request s tha t

th e cas e agains t

M & R Helicopter s b e dismissed . Th e motion s are principall y base do n perceive dprocedura l flaws, pvirporte daffirmativ e defenses , o r attack s o n FA A personnel . Responden t

ha s filednumerou s motion s t o dismis s thi s cas e basedo n claim s tha t Complainan t

"misse ddeadlines " t o respon dt o othe r motion s filedb y Respondent . Becaus e arespons e t o amotio n i s no t eve n require dunde r

th e rules , failure t o file a timel y respons e woul dnot warran t th e dismissa l o f

an entir e case. ^ I n an y event , ther e i s n o trutht o Respondent' s claim s that th e agenc y "misse ddeadlines " fo r an y filings i n thi s case . Respondent' s repetitiou s motion s appea r t o b e base dentirel y o n hi s mistake n belie f that th e dat e o f

servic e i s th e dat e upo n whic hh e receive s adocument. ^

' Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(d) , Answer s t o Motions , " apart

y ma y file a n answer.. . no

t late r tha n 1 0 day s afte r servic e of awritte n motion o n tha t party. " ^ Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 1 (d) , th e dat e o f servic e i s th

e dat e adocumen

t i s mailed .Responden t ha s als o filedmultipl e motion s t o dismis s th e cas e base do n "th e statut e o f limitations " thoug hh e doe s not cit e an y la w t o support

thi s claim . Consisten t

withFA A regulation s an dpublishe dpolic y fo r legal enforcemen t

actions , th e civi l penalty cas e agains t M & RHelicopter s wa s initiate dwithi n tw o year s o f th e violation . Responden t

ha s filedsevera l motion s t o compel , thoug hth e informatio n h e request s i s publicl y available , ha s alread y bee n provided , o r doe s not exist . Fo r

example ,

• Responden t

continuall y demand s transcript s o f an Octobe r

1 , 201 0 telephoni c informal conferenc e betwee n himsel f an dFA A attorney s that

was neve r

recorde d o r transcribed . A t

th e outse t

o f that telephon e call . Dr . Seli g specificall y aske di f i t wa s bein g recorded ; undersigne dcounse l unequivocall y state d"no" . N o transcrip t exists .

• Responden t

claim s tha t

"Complainant s faile dt o provid e proo f o r "formal evidenc e o f

th e date s o f

signe dservice " o f

pleadings . Certificate s o f servic e hav e bee n signe dan dattache dt o al l pleadings . N o further proo f i s required .

• Althoug hComplainan t provide dResponden t

withal l releasabl e portion s o f th e Enforcemen t

Investigatory Report

(EIR) , Responden t

claim s i t was "altered , redacted , andspoliated " an ddemands a"full , unaltere dcopy. " Th e portion s o f th e EI Rtha t were redacted , however , wer e appropriatel y withhel da s privileged . The y contai n th e investigator' s analysis , recommendations , an dopinions , an dare privilege dbecaus e the y ar e deliberative , pre-decisiona l materials , rendere db y agenc y staf

f member s i n th e cours e o f reachin g afinal determinatio n o r positio n o n aparticular

matte r unde r agenc y consideration . See , e.g. , Jorda n v. Departmen t

o f Justice , 59 1 F.2 d753 , 77 4 (D.C . Cir . 1978 ) (e n banc) .

• Responden t

claim s that

FA A regulation s wer e "hidden , concealed , an d encouragin g violation " an dcontinue s t o deman dtha t Complainan t

produc e th e "hidden " regulations . Al l regulation s are publicl y available . Responden t

i s als o makin g awid e rang e o f argument s throug h"briefs " an dmotion s that appear t o b e i n th e natur e o f

affirmativ e defenses . Althoug hResponden t may rais e suc h argument s i n answe r

t o th e complaint . Responden t wil l bear th e burde n o f

provin g the m at hearing . Responden t

continuall y argue s that

th e cas e shoul db e dismissed , withou t an y evidenc e o r

lega l support

for hi s contentions . Dr . Seli g ha s becom e increasingl y hostil e towardFA A employee s wh o participate di n th e routin e inspectio n o f

M & RHelicopter s an dth e ensuin g lega l enforcemen t case , filing dozen s o f motion s in thi s foru mthat accus e FA A inspector s an dlega l counse l o f misconduct . Dr . Seli g als o filed acomplain t agains t FA A inspecto r

Latony aWilliam s withth e FAA Huma n Resourc e Managemen t Office . Dr . Seli g claime dthat Ms . William s faile dt ocompl y with"custome r servic e expectations " an d"abuse dhe r discretio n an dmisuse dhe r authority " i n th e inspectio n tha t le dt o thi s case. ^ Dr . Seli g suggeste dthat Ms . William s "require s som e for

mo r retraining , rehabilitation , counselin g o r release. " FA A Aeronautica l Cente r

Counse l Josep hR . Standel l reviewe dth e matte r an ddetermine dthat n o actio n wa s warranted . Responden t has , however , persiste di n makin g allegation s o f misconduc t

agains t thi s inspector . H e no w claim s that legal counse l ha s engage di n misconduc t

a s well . Dr . Seli g requeste dundersigne dcounsel' s ba r numbe r an dstat e o f licens e t o practic e law . Respondent' s motion s i n thi s civi l penalty matte r reflec t thi s growin g hostility ; the y contai n a n increasin g numbe r o f persona l attack s o n FA A employees . Fo r example , in Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s Complainant' s Propose dProcedura l Schedule , Responden t

allege s that , Ms . William s an dMs . Pont o are malfeasant , hav e abuse dthei r discretion , ar e i n beac ho f

duty an dconduc t

t o caus e harm , are i n abus e o f process , havin g n o legall y cognizabl e caus e o f action , attemptin g t o migrat e an d cobblin g togethe r

colorabl e changin g argument s t o mak e thei r allege d violatio n appea

r warranted , whil e holdin g steadfas t at al l cost s withou t humility , dignity , mora l o r ethical appropriat e behavior s an di n an unconscionabl e maimer . Responden t

argue s tha t

th e civi l penalty cas e agains t M & RHelicopter s shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e o f

thes e allegations . Dr . Seli g seem s convince dtha t undersigne d counse l an dMs . William s - wh o ha s ha dn o rol e i n thi s matte r sinc e preparin g th e EI R an dma y not

eve n b e awitnes s i n thi s proceedin g - ar e personally bringin g th e legal actio n agains t

M & RHelicopters . H e ha s eve n begu n inappropriatel y captionin g motion s with"Laur aPonto , Latony aWilliams , Complainants. " Give n th e curren t

statu s o f th e cas e an dth e plethor ao f pendin g motions , th e partie s woul dbenefi t

fi-omatelephoni c conferenc e that wil l resolv e pendin g matter s an d establis haprocedural schedule . I n respons e t o th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judge' s Procedura l Order , Complainan t propose dareasonabl e schedul e for th e completio n o f discover y an dth e filing o f dispositiv e motions . Responden t di dnot file arespons e t o th e Judge' s order . Instead , Responden t fileda n objectio n t o Complainant' s response . Responden t

di dnot propos e a

n alternat e procedura l schedule . Rather , Responden t argue d tha t th e cas e shoul dsimpl y b e dismisse do n th e ground s that .

^ It appears tha

t Dr . Selig intend s t

o conduct a"pre-tria l examination " (deposition) of Ms . Williams i n a n effor t t o prove thes e allegations . It shouldals o b e notedthat , while Responden t has targetedMs . William s i n hi s allegations , sh

e wa s no t th e sole inspecto

r i n thi s case . A tea

mo f inspectors an

dothe r FA A Drug Abatemen

t personne l wer e involvedwit

hthi s inspection an

dthe resulting Enforcemen

t Investigative Repor

t (EIR) .| | [i] n th e steadfast , unyieldin g positio n o f complainant s t o thi s violation , i. | preciou s scarc e resource s are bein g squandere do n acas e tha t appears , I I fiivolous, v^thou t merit , whil e representin g aggressiv e prosecutoria l overreaching... . i' l I n th e interes t o f conservin g scarc e judicia l an dgovernmen t resources . Complainan t respectfiill y request s th e Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e schedul e aconferenc e cal l with th e partie s t o addres s an dresolv e thes e matter s a s th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e deem s appropriate . Sincerely , ir aPont o Attorney , Enforcemen t

Divisio n Telephone : (202 ) 267-986 3 Facsimile : (202 ) 267-510 6 cc : Dr . Michae l B . Seli g Presiden t M & RHelicopters , LL C 204 5 Westgat e Dr . Suit e 20 5 Bethlehem , P A 1801 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0

# RECEIVE D Befor e th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n . . . , «-- . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n -^" ^ ^ ^ ^*' " 

## 1 [EARIN GDOCKE T I n th e matte r

o f M & RHELICOPTER Docke t No . CPlOSOOO l 1 FA A Cas e No . 2009SO95043 4 Chie f Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r

COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS ET O M& RHELICOPTER' S MOTIO N FO RT O DISMIS S - TRUTH S O FADMISSIO N Complainan t

files thi s Respons e t o Responden t M& RHelicopters ' (Respondent ) Motio n for

Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Truth s o f

Admission . Th e vas t

majority o f

th e argument s raise db y Responden t i n thi s motio n ar e repetitiv e an dhav e alread y bee n responde dt o b y Complainant . I n arguin g that

Complainan t

"throughou t

thi s litigatio n filedlat e response s t o motions " Responden t

i s simpl y makin g th e sam e argument s previousl y mad e i n thre e othe r motions : M& RHelicopters ' Motio n for Judgmen t

t o Dismiss , Failur e t o Properl y Respon do r

Mee t Filin g Deadlines . Respondent' s Motion for Judgmen t

t o Dismiss . Failur e t o Respon do r

Mee t Filin g Deadlines , an dRespondent' s Motio n fo r Judgmen t

t o Dismis s 4 . Complainan t

filedresponse s t o thes e motion s o n Decembe r 20 , 201 0 an d Decembe r

30 , 201 0 an drespectfull y request s tha t th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e refer t o thos e responses . I n particular . Responden t repeatedl y argue s that

th e agenc y faile dt o file atimel y respons e t o tw o o f

Respondent' s other

motions : Respondent' s Motio n t o Quash , Strike , o r Dismis s Complain t

("Motio n t o Dismiss" ) an dRespondent' s Motio n t o Strike Allegatio n ("Motio n t o Strike") . See , e.g . Respondent' s Motio n fo r Judgmen t

t o Dismis s 1- Truth s o f Admissio n a

t 3 . Responden t

state s tha t

th e Motion t o Dismis s was serve do n Novembe r

29 , 2010 , th e Motion t o Strike was serve do n Novembe r 30 , 2010 . Th e certificate s o f

servic e for

thes e documents , however , reflec t tha t Responden t

serve dth e motion s o n Novembe r

30 , 2010 . Complainan t

filed atimel y respons e t o bothmotion s o n Decembe r

10 , 2010 . Respondent , however , argue s tha t th e "respons e wa s not

receive do r serve dunti l Decembe r

13 , 2010 , pas t

th e du e dat e unde r

§ Rul e 13.218(d). " It appear s that

Responden t

i s o f th e mistake n belie f

that th e dat e o f

servic e i s th e dat e adocumen t

i s receive db y th e othe r

party . Pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 1 (d) , however , th e dat e o f

servic e i s th e dat e adocumen t i s mailed , whic hi s reflecte do n th e certificat e o f

service. It

seem s tha t

Respondent' s misunderstandin g a s t o what constitute s th e dat e o f

servic e form s th e basi s for it s repeate dmotion s tha t thi s cas e shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e th e agenc y ha s faile dt o mee t deadline s t o respon dt o hi s motions . Responden t

claim s that

"Complainant s faile dt o provid e proo f o f th e date s o f service . Respondent' s Motio n for Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Truth s o f

Admissio n at

3 . Certificate s o f

servic e wer e attache dt o eac ho f thos e document s an destablis hth e date s o f service. Respondent' s argument s tha t th e cas e shoul db e dismisse dbase do n "th e statut e o f limitations " ar e equall y misplaced . Responden t argue s tha t

"th e complainant s entere dth e complain t on e day before th e 2 year Statut e o f

Limitations , howeve r

th e responden t claim s that

complain t

was not serve dunti l afte

r th e Statut e o f

Limitation s an dthereb y th e complain t i s tim e barred. " Motion t o Compe l Discovery an dNe w Matte r - Failur e t o Provid e Requeste dReference dEvidenc e at 4 . I n Respondent' s Motio n for Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Truth s o f

Admissions , i t

state s tha t

"th e complain t

wa s serve dan dreceive do nJul y 27 , 2010 , 3 day s pas t th e statut e o f

limitations. " Th e Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty i n thi s matte r

was issue do n Jul y 23 , 2010 , prio r t o th e two-year

limitatio n for

th e initiatio n o f

civi l penalt y actions . Thi s actio n i s not tim e barre dan di t

was properl y initiate di n accordanc e wit hth e procedura l rule s for FA A civi l penalt y actions . Respondent' s allegation s that Complainan t

i s "no t usin g actua l date s o f

servic e i n attempt s t o impai r

th e dignity o f

thi s court " hav e n o meri t an dappear

t o b e basedentirel y o n hi s misunderstandin g o f th e rules . Responden t

als o argue s that

"complainant s hav e no t

pleate d[sic ] fact s with sufficient specificity. " Respondent' s Motio n for Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Truth s o f Admission s at

3 . Complainan t

ha s complie dwithth e Rule s o f Practic e i n FA A Civi l Penalty Actions , whic hrequir e that " acomplain t

shal l se t fort hth e fact s alleged , an y regulatio n allegedl y violate db y th e respondent , an dth e propose dcivi l penalty i n sufficient detai l t o provid e notic e o f an y factual o r

lega l allegatio n an dpropose dcivi l penalty. " 1 4 C.F. R§ 13.208(c) . Th e complain t an damende dcomplain t

i n thi s cas e complie s wit hth e rule s o f procedur e b y settin g fort hth e specifi c fact s alleged , th e FA A regulation s violated , an dth e propose dcivi l penalty . Complainan t ha s provide dsufficient notic e o f th e case . Responden t

no w argue s that

th e cas e shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e "fo r complainant s [sic ] failin g t o plea dt o specifi c numbe r allegation s an dthereb y makin g admission s o f

truth. " Respondent' s Motio n for Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Truth s o f Admission s at

1 . Thi s argumen t

i s baseless . Th e Complain t an dth e Amende dComplain t se t fort hth e fact s alleged , th e regulation s allegedl y violate db y th e respondent , an dth e propose dcivi l penalty i n numbere dparagraphs .Responden t seem s t o hol dth e mistake n belief , however , tha t

Complainan t

mus t repl y t o al l o f

Respondent' s motion s usin g numbere dparagraphs . Responden t argue s tha t i t i s entitle dt o ajudgmen t

i n it s favo r

i n thi s cas e - an dadismissa l o f thi s entir e cas e - base do n "complainant s failin g t o plea dt o specifi c numbe r allegation s an dthereb y makin g admission s o f

truth. " Respondent' s Motio n for Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Truth s o f Admissio n a

t 1 . I n support

o f thi s argument . Responden t cite s t o " § 13.208(f) . N o suc h provisio n exist s unde r

th e FAA' s Procedura l Rules . Complainan t

i s not require dt o respon dt o eac hnumbere dparagrap ho f every motio n filedb y Responden t an ddoe s not , b y default , admi t th e trutho f

paragraph s no t directl y responde dto . Whil e 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.209(d ) provide s that [a ] perso n filing an answe r shal l admit , deny , o r

stat e that th e perso n i s withou t sufficient knowledg e o r

informatio n t o admi t

o r deny , eac hnumbere dparagrap h o f th e complaint . An y statemen t o r allegatio n containe di n th e complain t that i s not specificall y denie di n th e answe r ma y b e deeme dafailur e t o file an answe r thi s provisio n applie s onl y t o th e answer . It doe s no t appl y t o motion s o r

an y othe r pleadings . Complainan t

ha s not , therefore , admitte dt o th e trutho f an y allegation s o r argument s set

fort hi n th e motion s filedb y Respondent . T o th e contrary . Complainan t ha s dispute dRespondent' s claim s an dfiledresponse s t o it s arguments . I t bear s pointin g ou t

that tha t unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(d ) (answer s t o motions ) "an y part y ma

y file a n answer " t o amotion , bu t ther e i s n o requiremen t

a s t o th e for

mo f tha t respons e and , i n fact , ther e i s n o requiremen t tha t arespons e eve n b e filed. Therefore , eve n i f

apart y opte dt o not

file arespons e t o amotion , o r filed alat e respons e t o amotion , tha t

woul dnot

warran t th e dismissa l o f

th e entir e case . I n claimin g "Judicia l Estoppel s an dlega l inconsistency " i n th e presen t motion . Responden t

merel y raise s th e sam e argumen t mad e i n it s Motion for

Judgmen t

t o Quash .Th e agenc y ha s alread y responde dt o thi s argument , i n it s respons e t o that motion . There ha s bee n n o inconsistenc y o r inappropriat e actio n i n initiatin g th e lega l enforcemen t cas e basedo n Respondent' s failure t o conduc t DOT-require ddru g testin g o f Mr . Baker . Responden t

repeatedl y raise s Complainant' s investigatio n o f anothe r mechani c performin g safety-sensitiv e fimctions o n Respondent' s aircraft . See , e.g. . Motio n for Judgmen t t o Quas ha

t pag e 4 , Respondent' s Motio n fo r Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Truth s o f Admissio n at

2 . Ther e i s absolutel y n o basi s i n fac t for Respondent' s claim s that "complainant s hav e admitte dt o formall y releasin g th e prio r l A mechani c foun dt o b e o n hi s full tim e employer s Drug/Alcohol Program " an dtha t "complainant s shoul dfollo w sui t wit hlega l consistenc y b y releasin g E dBake r wh o wa s als o o n hi s full tim e employer s drug/alcoho l program. " Id . Thi s assume s - withou t an y basi s i n fac t

- that Complainan t

determine dther e wa s n o violatio n wit hregar dt o thi s othe r employe e becaus e h e "wa s foun dt o b e o n hi s fiill tim e employer s Drug/Alcohol Program. " I n reality . Complainan t

determine dthat

a n apparen t

violatio n existe dwit hrespec t t o thi s othe r mechanic . Bu t

Complainan t

decide da s amatte r

o f prosecutoria l discretio n no t t o pursu e tha t

apparen t violatio n for

evidentiary reasons . Complainan t

addresse dthi s issu e a

t lengthi n it s Decembe r

10 , 201 0 respons e t o Responden t

M& RHelicopters ' Motio n t o Quash , Strike , o r Dismis s Complain t

an d Respondent' s Motio n t o Strike Allegatio n - Mr . Bake r Wa s No t o n aDrug/Alcoho l Program . There , Complainan t explaine dtha t Respondent , a s a

n employe r

unde r th e regulations , contracte dwithMr . Bake r t o perfor masafety-sensitiv e fianction . Evidenc e adduce da t hearin g wil l sho w that Responden t

pai dMr . Bake r

directl y for

hi s services . Responden t coul donl y us e Mr . Bake r

t o performasafety-sensitiv e fianction i f h e was include di n M & R' s antidru g an dalcoho l misus e preventio n progra mo r i f Mr . Baker , a s an independen t

contractor , ha dhi s ov mprogram . Th e complain t allege s that

Mr .Bake r was no t include di n M & R' s progra man dthat , eve n i f h e wer e treate da s an independen t

contractor , h e di dno t

hav e an dwas no t

include di n an FA A antidru g an dalcoho l testin g progra mo f hi s ow n a

t th e tim e h e performe dsafety

sensitiv e fimctions for

Respondent . ^ Eve n i f Mr . Bake r

was covere db y an othe r employer' s dru g testin g program , i n particular Ai r Methods , that

doe s no t satisf y th e regulator y requirement s place d o n Respondent , becaus e th e wor k performe db y Mr . Bake r wa s not withi n th e scop e o f hi s employmen t

withthos e employers . Th e statemen t provide db y Ai r Method s specificall y state s that Mr . Bake r

wa s "«o/ ^ authorize do r

contracte db y Ai r Method s t o do an y outside maintenanc e for M & RHelicopter s or

an y othe r operator. " Respondent' s Motion t o Strike Allegation , Exhibi t 2 , Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismiss , Exhibi t 4 , Respondent' s Brie f

i n Support

o f Motion t o Dismiss , Exhibi t

3 . (emphasi s added) . Therefore , i t i s immateria l whethe r

Mr . Bake r was include di n Ai r

Methods ' dru g an dalcoho l testin g program . Becaus e Mr . Bake r

performe dsafety-sensitiv e fimctions directl y b y contrac t for Respondent , Responden t

wa s require dunde r

FA A regulation s t o ensur e that Mr . Bake r was covere dunde r

it s dru g an dalcoho l testin g progra mo r t o ensur e Mr . Bake r was covere dunde r

hi s ow n program , not

that o f Ai r Method s o r

an y othe r employer . Tha t

Mr . Bake r

was covere dunde r

Ai r Method s dru g an dalcoho l testin g progra mwoul dnot brin g Responden t

i n complianc e wit hth e regulations , becaus e th e wor

k performe db y Mr . Bake r for Responden t

was no t withi n th e scop e o f hi s employmen t

wit hAi r Methods . A s wil l b e demonstrate dat hearing , FA A inspector s conducte dathoroug h investigatio n an dobtaine devidenc e wil l prov e th e violation s se t fort hi n th e complaint . Evidenc e tha t

Mr . Bake r

was include do n anothe r company' s dru g testin g progra mwa s obtained , bu t

i t doe s not excis e Respondent' s violation s o f FA A regulations . Complainan t

addresse dRespondent' s claim s that h e ha s bee n unabl e t o operat e i n it s Decembe r

10 , 201 0 respons e an drespectfull y request s tha t th e Chie f

Administrativ e La w Judg e refe r

to tha t respons e i n considerin g thi s argument .

' While Responden

t allege s tha

t the FA A faile dto conduc

t its inspection appropriately an dfaile dto confir mand/o r verif y facts i n its investigation , FA

A inspectors appropriatel

y consideredan

dprovidedall evidenc e obtainedmth

e cours e of

thei r inspection .WHEREFORE , Complainan t respectfull y request s that th e Chie f

Administrativ e La w Judg e den y Respondent' s Motion for Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Truth s o f

Admission . Respectfull y submitted , Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l By : ^>%a^ci.<a- ^ ^adraPont o Attome y Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Phone : (202)267-986 3 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6 Date : January 14,201 1Certificat e o f Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e place di n th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dreturn-receipt , acop y o f Complainant' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motion for Judgmen t t o Dismis s - Truth s o f

Admissio n I n th e Matte r ofM & RHelicopters , Docke t No . CPlOSOOO l 10 , FAA Cas e no . 2009SO950434 , addresse dto :

Dr . Michae l B . Seli g Presiden t M & RHelicopters , LL C 204 5 Westgat e Dr. , Suit e 20 5 Bethlehem , P A 1801 7 In addition , I hereb y certif y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receip t an dfacsimil e on e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yoder Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Facsimile : 202-366-753 6 I n addition , I hereb y certif y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , th e origina l an don e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wright Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0

Dated : January 14,201 1Befor e th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 

### II I n th e matte r

o f M & RHELICOPTE R 

# P^ECEIVE D J^t i 

### I l i 201 1 

# ^EARIN G DOCKE T Docke t No . CPlOSOOO l 1 FA A Cas e No . 2009SO95043 4 Chie f Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS ET O M«& RHELICOPTER' S MOTIO N FO RJUDGMEN T T O DISMIS S - JUDICIA LESTOPPELS , LEGA LINCONSISTENC Y Complainan t

files thi s respons e t o Responden t M& RHelicopters ' (Respondent ) Motio n for

Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Judicia l Estoppels . Lega l Inconsistency . Th e argument s raise db y Responden t are repetitiv e an dhav e bee n addresse di n Complainant' s Respons e t o Responden t

M& RHelicopters ' Motio n for Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Truth s o f Admission , filedo n January 14 , 2011 , an dComplainant' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Quash . Strike , o r Dismis s Complain t

an dRespondent' s Motion t o Strike Allegatio n - Mr . Bake r

Wa s No t o n aDrug/Alcohol Program , filedo n Decembe r

10 , 2010 . Complainan t

respectfially request s that th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e refe r

t o thos e response s whe n considerin g thi s motion . Complainan t

doe s stress , however , tha t i t ha s no t "shifte dth e basi s for

th e violation " i n thi s matte r

a s Responden t

alleges . Th e complain t

i n thi s matte r

wa s amende do n Decembe r

10 , 2010 , bu t

onl y t o reduc e th e civi l penalt y an dremov e tw o date s o f aggravatin g performance . Th e regulation s allege dt o hav e bee n violate dan dth e factual element s o f

tha t violatio n hav e neve r

bee n modifie do r

amended .Moreover , Responden t claim s that

Inspecto r Latony aWilliam s "confirme dthat th e informatio n give n wa s correc t a s state dan dwithdre w al l violations " pertainin g t o anothe r mechanic . H e claim s that withregar dt o Mr . Baker , sh e "wa s give n thi s evidence , bu t

selecte dnot

t o pursu e primar y sourc e verificatio n and/o r confirmatio n o f thes e facts. " Ther e i s n o basi s for thi s statement . Ms . William s an dth e tea mo f inspector s performe dathoroug han dcomprehensiv e inspection . Al l fact s an devidenc e wer e examine dan di t

wa s determine dthat

ther e wer e tw o apparen t

rando mdru g testin g violations , but

th e agenc y onl y proceede dwithone . Th e othe r violatio n wa s no t

pursue d i n alega l enforcemen t

actio n du e t o evidentiary reasons . Th e documen t Responden t relie s upo n i s aSeptembe r 23 , 2010 , lette r

fromMs . Williams , whic hi s attache dt o hi s motion . It

state s onl y tha t

"w e hav e decide dno t

t o tak e lega l enforcemen t actio n for thes e apparen t

violations. " Thi s clearl y doe s not support Respondent' s claims . WHEREFORE , Complainan t respectfull y request s tha t th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e den y Respondent' s Motio n for Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Judicia l Estoppels , Lega l Inconsistency . Respectfiill y submitted , Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l (HUAJC U 

## y^l<pti > ur aPont o Attome y Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Phone : (202)267-986 3 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6f Certificat e of Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e place di n th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , acop y o f Complainant' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motio n for Judgmen t t o Dismis s - Judicia l Estoppels . Legal Inconsistenc y I n th e Matte r o f M & R Helicopters , FA A Cas e no . 2009SQ950434 , addresse dto :

Dr . Michae l B . Seli g Presiden t M & RHelicopters , LL C 204 5 Westgat e Dr. , Suite 20 5 Bethlehem , P A 1801 7 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receip t an dfacsimil e on e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Th e Honorabl e Ronnie A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Facsimile : 202-366-753 6 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , th e original an don e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 

## \Si£mjiAo ^

(j(fVi ^ Dated : Januar y 14,201 1

# RECEIVE D Befor e th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n *

- 

### JA N 

### 1 h 201 1 

## BEARIN G DOCKE T ) I n th e matte r

o f )

) Docke t

No . CPlOSOOO l 1 M & RHELICOPTE R) FA A Cas e No . 2009SO95043 4 ) Chie f

Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r ) ) COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS ET O M& RHELICOPTER' S MOTIO N T O COMPE LDISCOVER Y AN D NE WMATTE R- FAILUR ET O PROVID EREOUESTE D REFERENCE D EVIDENC E Complainan t

files thi s respons e t o Responden t M& RHelicopters ' (Respondent ) Motio n t o Compe l Discovery an dNe w Matte r - Failur e t o Provid e Requeste dReference d Evidence . Th e vas t

majority o f

th e argument s raise db y Responden t ar e repetitiv e an d hav e bee n raise di n othe r motions . Indeed , Responden t seem s t o recogniz e th e redundanc y o f

hi s filings b y designatin g th e fe w argument s tha t ar e "ne w matters. " Complainan t

addresse dth e repetitiv e argument s i n Complainant' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motion t o Quash . Strike , o r Dismis s Complain t

an dRespondent' s Motion t o Strike Allegatio n - Mr . Bake r Wa s No t o n aDmg/Alcohol Program , filedo n Decembe r

10 , 2010 , an dComplainant' s Respons e t o Motio n fo r Depositio n o f

Latony a William s an dMotio n to Compel , als o filedo n Decembe r 10 , 2010 . Amon g th e onl y "ne w matters " raise db y Respondent , i s tha t i t "request s th e formal evidenc e o f

th e date s o f

signe dservic e i n regar dt o th e 2 [sic ] lat e responses" . Th e certificate s o f

servic e are attache dt o eac ho f thos e document s an destablis hth e date s o f service . Responden t

als o demands "forma l evidenc e o f th e date s o f

signe dservic e i n regar dt o th e statut e o f

limitations. " Whil e i t

i s somewhat

unclear wha t Responden t

i s 1referrin g to , i t appear s that

Responden t

ma y b e requestin g evidenc e o f th e dat e th e Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty (Notice ) wa s issue di n thi s case . Th e dat e o f th e Notic e i s th e dat e upo n whic hlega l actio n wa s initiated . Th e dat e o f issuanc e appear s o n th e Notic e itself; i t wa s issue do n Jul y 23 , 2010 . Responden t

als o argue s tha t

"complainant s faile dt o follo w th e standar dpractic e pertainin g t o mle s o f

evidenc e o f

attachin g reference ddocuments. " Motion t o Compe l Discovery an dNe w Matte r - Failur e t o Provid e Requeste dReference dEvidenc e a t 3 . Ther e is , however , n o suc hstandar dpractic e o r mle . It is , i n fact , standar dpractic e t o includ e citation s t o al l cases , regulations , an dstatute s relie dupo n i n lega l pleadings . It i s not , however , standar dpractic e for aparty t o attac hth e full tex t o f al l cases , regulations , an dstatute s t o every pleadin g filed. Indeed , Responden t ha s not attache dcopies o f

th e mle s an dcase s upo n whic hi t relies , an di s no t

require dt o d o so . It

i s entirel y appropriat e

- an dstandar dpractic e - fo r eac hparty t o bear

responsibility for

it s ov mlega l researc h an dobtainin g publicl y availabl e documents . Th e remainin g argument s raise db y Responden t ar e repetitiv e an dhav e bee n addresse di n Complainant' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Quash . Strike , o r Dismis s Complain t

an dRespondent' s Motio n t o Strik e Allegatio n - Mr . Bake r Wa s No t o n aDmg/Alcoho l Program , filedo n Decembe r 10 , 2010 , an dComplainant' s Respons e t o Motio n for

Depositio n o f

Latony aWilliam s an dMotion t o Compel , als o filedo n Decembe r

10 , 2010 . Complainan t

respectfiill y request s that th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e refer

t o thos e response s whe n considerin g thi s motion .WHEREFORE , Complainan t respectfull y request s tha t th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e den y Respondent' s Motio n t o Compe l Discovery an dNe w Matte r - Failur e t o Provid e Requeste dReference dEvidence . Respectfiill y submitted , Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l

^LCCAiO ^ 

### ^^/^n>6 ^ ur aPont o Attome y Enforcemen t

Division, AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Phone : (202)267-986 3 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6 Date : January 14 , 201 1Certificat e o f Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e place di n th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , acop y o f Complainant' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Compe l Discovery an dNe w Matte r - Failur e t o Provid e Requeste dReference dEvidenc e I n th e Matte r

ofM & RHelicopters , FA A Cas e no . 2009SQ950434 , addresse dto : Dr . Michae l B . Seli g Presiden t M & RHelicopters , LL C 204 5 Westgat e Dr. , Suit e 20 5 Bethlehem , P A 1801 7 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receip t an dfacsimil e on e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Facsimile : 202-366-753 6 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , th e origina l an don e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 

## IsilOHU^d^^vD^V \A ^ Dated : January 14,201 1

\:.i mWHEREFORE , Complainan t respectfull y request s tha t th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e den y Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s Complainant' s Procedura l Schedule . Respectfiill y submitted , Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l By : 

### Ociyt^^iS^/^ytpIS i

jr aPont o Attome y Enforcemen t

Division, AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Phone ; (202)267-986 3 Facsimile : (202 ) 267-510 6 Date : January 14 , 201 1Certificat e o f Servic e I hereb y certif

y that o n thi s dat e I hav e place di n th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , acop y o f Complainant' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s Complainant' s Procedura l Schedule . I n th e Matte r o f M& RHelicopters , FA A Cas e no . 2009SO950434 , addresse dto :

Dr . Michae l B . Seli g Presiden t M & RHelicopters , LL C 204 5 Westgat e Dr. , Suit e 20 5 Bethlehem , P A 1801 7 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receip t an dfacsimil e on e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Facsimile : 202-366-753 6 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , th e origina l an don e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 

## yiU^JM^o ^ jDaViA ^ Dated : January 14 , 201 1

# .DECEIVE D i Befor e th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n . . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n JA M » ^ t ^ 

# HEARIN GDOCKE T I n th e matte r

o f M & RHELICOPTE R Docke t No . CPlOSOOO l 1 FA A Cas e No . 2009SO95043 4 Chie f Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r

COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS ET O M& RHELICOPTER' S MOTIO N FO RMOR EDEFINIT ESTATEMEN T - ORDE RAN D SETTLEMEN T Complainan t

files thi s respons e t o Responden t M& RHelicopters ' (Respondent ) Motio n for

Mor e Definite Statemen t - Orde r an dSettlement . Responden t ha s filed a motio n for

mor e definite statement , apparentl y claimin g that Complainant' s Respons e t o Orde r o f Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Establishin g Procedure s require s amor e definit e o r

certai n response . Responden t fail s t o "se t

forth , i n detail , th e indefinit e o r uncertai n allegations " a s require dunde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 218(f)(3) . Th e argument s raise db y Responden t are repetitiv e an dhav e bee n addresse di n Complainant' s Respons e t o Responden t M& RHelicopters ' Motio n for Judgmen t

t o Dismis s - Tmth s o f

Admission , filedo n January 14 , 2011 , an dComplainzint' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Quash . Strike , o r Dismis s Complain t

an dRespondent' s Motio n t o Strik e Allegatio n - Mr . Bake r Wa s No t o n aDmg/Alcoho l Program , filedo n Decembe r

10 , 2010 . Complainan t

respectfull y request s that th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e refe r

t o thos e response s whe n considerin g thi s motion .WHEREFORE , Complainan t respectfiill y request s tha t th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e den y Respondent' s Motio n fo r Mor e Definit e Statemen t - Orde r an d Settlement . Respectfiill y submitted , Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l ^^iCi/i^L - ^<^/jyn>(:z ^ ur aPont o Attome y Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Phone : (202)267-986 3 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6 Date : January 14 , 201 1Certificat e of Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e place di n th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , acop y o f Complainant' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motion fo r Mor e Definit e Statemen t

- Orde r an dSettlement . I n th e Matte r of M & RHelicopters , FA A Cas e no . 2009SO950434 , addresse dto :

Dr . Michae l B . SeH

g Presiden t M & RHelicopters , LL C 204 5 Westgat e Dr. , Suit e 20 5 Bethlehem , P A 1801 7 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receip t an dfacsimil e on e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mEl2-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Facsimile : 202-366-753 6 I n addition , I hereb y certif y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , th e origina l an don e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0

Dated : January 14 , 201 1

# RECEIVE D Befor e th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportation * ^" ^ Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n JA N 1 ^ 23' • ^

I n th e matte r

o f M & RHELICOPTER 

# HEARIN GDOCKE T Docke t No . CPlOSOOO l 1 FA A Cas e No . 2009SO95043 4 Chie f Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r

COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS ET O M& RHELICOPTER' S MOTIO N T O HAV ETH EPRE-TRIA LDEPOSITIO N O F LATONY A WILLIAM S A T GALLAHE RREPORTING , ALLENTOWN , PA . RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N FO RPRE-TRIA LCONFERENC EA T GALLAGHE RREPORTING , ALLENTOWN , PA , MOTIO N FO RHEARIN GI N ALLENTOWN , PA , an d RESPONDENT' S REPL Y T O HEARIN GLOCATIO N I N ALLENTOWN . PA . Complainan t

files thi s respons e t o Responden t M& RHelicopters ' (Respondent ) Motio n t o Hav e th e Pre-Tria l Depositio n o f Latony aWilliam s at

Gallahe r Reporting . Allentovm . PA : Respondent' s Motio n for Pre-tria l Conferenc e a t

Gallaghe r

Reporting . Allentown . PA ; Motio n for Hearin g i n Allentown . PA : an dRespondent' s Repl y t o Hearin g Locatio n i n Allentovyn . PA . Thes e motion s ar e repetitive . Cpmplainan t ha s alread y responde dt o tw o prio r motion s regardin g Respondent' s reques t t o depos e Ms . Williams . Complainant' s positio n remain s unchanged . Complainan t wil l mak e Ms . William s availabl e for deposition , howeve r i t doe s not agre e t o th e Allentow n location . A s wa s alread y state db y Complainan t

i n it s Decembe r

29 , 201 0 response : I n Respondent' s motions , i t claim s tha t

Ms . William s "come s t o Allentow n regularly ; therefor e i t

woul dno t

b e an inconvenienc e for

he r t o com e onc e agai n t o th e Allentow n area. " That i s inaccurate . Ms . William s i s a n FA A inspecto r wh o live s an dwork s i n Miami , FL . Sh e doe s not regularl y trave l t o th e Allentow n area . Sh e ha s n o future trave l schedule dt o Allentow n an di t woul db eatremendou s inconvenienc e an dexpens e for Ms . William s t o trave l t o ther e fi"om Miami , F Lfor th e sol e purpos e o f

Respondent' s reques t

t o depos e her . Responden t

rejecte dComplainant' s reasonabl e offer t o mak e Ms . William s availabl e o n severa l possibl e date s for th e depositio n i n Washington , DC . Therefore , whil e Complainan t wil l continu e t o mak e Ms . William s availabl e for deposition , i t

wil l d o s o i n Miami , FL , wher e Ms . William s i s located . I f Responden t

choose s t o procee dwithadepositio n o f Ms . Williams , h e shoul d either : (1 ) notic e th e depositio n i n Miami , Florida , wher e Ms . William s i s located ; (2 ) bea r th e cost s fo r

Ms . William s t o trave l t o Allentown , Pennsylvania ; o r (3 ) conduc t th e depositio n b y telephon e o r othe r remot e means. ' Responden t

continue s t o clai mthi s i s unacceptable . It is , however , th e Complainant' s positio n o n thi s matte r

an di t i s reasonabl e imder

th e circumstances . It

i s Responden t wh o intend s t o depos e Ms . Williams . Withregar dt o th e hearin g location . Complainan t requeste dahearing i n Philadelphia , PA , o r

Washington , DC , i n it s Novembe r 17 , 201 0 lette r

transmittin g th e complain t an di n asubsequen t

lette r o n Decembe r

30 , 2010 . Complainan t

explaine dth e basi s o f it s reques t

at lengthi n thos e letters . Thi s positio n was reiterate di n Complainant' s respons e t o Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Yoder' s Orde r Establishin g Procedures . Responden t

di dnot file arespons e t o that

orde r b y th e deadline . Responden t did , however , objec t

t o Complainant' s filing an dfiledtw o additional pleading s with regar dt o th e hearin g location . I n it s January 7 , 2010 , Motion for Hearin g Locatio n in Allentown . PA . Responden t claim s that [o] n Octobe r

1 , 2010 , an [sic ] th e informal hearin g was hel dwit hM s [sic ] Pont o a t whic htim e i t

was discusse dacourt

locatio n for

afuture hearin g i n Allentown , PA , at th e U S Distric t

Court . It wa s confirme da s an optio n an djointl y agree dto . I n aNovembe r

24 , 2010 , lette r

Dr . Seli g refer s t o thi s sam e telephoni c informal conferenc e an dclaim s that undersigne dcounse l "state dan dconfirme dtha t Allentow n

' As agenera

l proposition , th

e part y requesting adeposition bear s th e transcription cost s an

dtravel costs if th e witnes s i s bein g aske

dt o travel mor

e tha n 10 0 mile s to attendth

e deposition . Se

e Tilton v . Capita

l Cities/ABC , 11 5 F.3 d147 1 (10 * Cir . 1997) .DO T court wa s available. " Respondent' s statement s are entirel y untme . Undersigne d counse l mad e n o representation s abou t th e availabl e courtroo mfacilitie s i n Allentown , P A an ddi dnot

confirmo r

agre e t o that

locatio n for

th e hearin g i n thi s case . Undersigne d counse l ha s neve r

ha dan y involvemen t

i n th e acquisitio n o f

courtroo mfacilitie s for

DO T cases , ha s n o knowledg e o f what facilitie s woul db e availabl e i n an y give n location , an d mad e n o representation s abou t any specifi c hearin g location . Undersigne dcounse l simpl y explaine dthat , i f

Responden t

electe dt o reques t

ahearin g (on e ha dno t

ye t bee n requeste dat

that poin t sinc e th e cas e wa s stil l i n th e informal stages) , amutuall y convenien t

locatio n woul db e establishe dfor th e hearing . Tm e t o that statement . Complainan t

ha s propose dPhiladelphia , PA , for th e hearing locatio n or , i n th e altemative , Washington , DC . Bothlocation s ar e convenien t t o Respondent . Philadelphi ai s onl y abou t on e hou r an dfifteen minute s b y ca r fromAllentovm , PA , wher e Responden t

i s located . That

i s areasonabl e distanc e for Responden t

t o trave l for th e hearing . If

th e hearin g i s schedule di n Washington , DC , tha t i s approximatel y four

hour s b y car

fro mRespondent' s plac e o f business . Complainant' s counse l i s locate di n Washington , DC , an dth e majority o f Complainant' s witnesse s are i n Miami , FL . Whil e Responden t ha s filed amotio n urgin g th e Chie f

Administrativ e Law Judg e t o conduc t thi s hearing i n Allentovm , PA , tha t woul db e ales s convenien t an dmor e costl y locatio n tha n Philadelphi a for th e Complainant . I n th e interes t

o f conservin g governmen t

fimds an dth e mutua l convenienc e o f th e parties , Complainan t

respectfiill y request s thi s hearin g b e hel di n Philadelphia , PA , o r Washington , DC , i f

that locatio n i s not

feasible . Se e Complainant' s Respons e t o Procedura l Order . Interestingly , Responden t als o seem s t o sugges t

tha t th e partie s discusse dth e depositio n o f

Ms . Williams . I n it s Motion for Hearin g i n Allentown . PA . Responden t state s that [wjhil e ther e wer e man y discussion s concemin g th e Depositio n o f Latony a Williams , fe w detail s wer e discusse dconcemin g th e actua l hearin g location .I n reality , th e partie s hav e ha dabsolutel y n o "discussions " o r conversation s abou t

th e depositio n o f

Ms . William s o r

an y othe r person . Suc hadiscussio n certainl y woul dno t hav e occurre ddurin g th e Octobe r 1 , 201 0 informal conferenc e becaus e that was before Responden t

eve n requeste dahearing , muc hles s expresse dan y intent t o depos e Ms . Williams . Th e first

notic e Complainan t

receive do f

Respondent' s inten t

t o conduc t thi s depositio n wa s i n Respondent' s Decembe r 1 , 201 0 motion . Undersigne dcounse l ha s no t ha dan y conversation s b y telephon e o r an y othe r

for mwithDr . Seli g sinc e Octobe r 1 , 2010 . Th e onl y "discussions " abou t Respondent' s inten t

t o depos e Ms . William s o r

th e locatio n o f

that depositio n hav e occurre di n pleadings , mos t o f whic h cente r o n th e Respondent' s persisten t deman dt o depos e Ms . William s i n Allentovm , PA . WHEREFORE , Complainan t respectfiill y request s tha t th e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e den y Respondent' s Motions , orde r that an y depositio n o f

Ms . William s b e hel di n Miami , FL , an dschedul e thi s cas e t o b e hear di n Philadelphia , PA , o r Washington , DC . Respectfull y submitted , Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l <Z.t<.A£i

j-yoy^C ^ ur aPont o Attome y Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Phone : (202)267-986 3 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6 Date : January 14 , 201 1

### Certificat e of Servic e I hereb y certif

y that o n thi s date I hav e place di n th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , acop y o f Complainant' s Respons e t o Motiont o Hav e th e Pre

Trial Depositio n o f

Latony aWilliam s at

Gallahe r Reporting . Allentown . PA , Respondent' s Motio n for

Pre-tria l Conferenc e a

t Gallaghe r

Reporting . Allentovm . PA . Motio n fo r

Hearin g i n Allentown . PA . an dRespondent' s Repl y t o Hearin g Locatio ni n Allentown . PA . I n th e Matte r ofM < & RHelicopters , Docke t

No . CPlOSOOOl 10 , FA A Cas e no . 2009SO950434 , addresse dto :

Dr . Michae l B . Seli g Presiden t M & RHelicopters , LL C 204 5 Westgat e Dr. , Suite 20 5 Bethlehem , P A 1801 7 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receip t an dfacsimil e on e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Facsimile : 202-366-753 6 I n addition , I hereb y certif y that o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dretum-receipt , th e original an don e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Atto : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 

### VV-WAMAO ^

iD( W fA ^ 

### Dated : January 14,201 1