U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION



### FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION, · 'complainant, · . · 

# RECEIVED MAl< 19 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

'<"c ;if 

### vs. roj 

### DocketNd:·FAA120I3'i0291 FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, Respondent. Judge Sullivan

MOTION TO COMPEL 

### The FAA, byand through undersigned counsel, hereby moves to compel Respondent to comply with its discovery obligations.Factual Background Pursuant to the Judge's scheduling order, the FAA promulgated discovery requests to Respondent on January 28, 2014 via facsimile and via the mail. See 

### Attachment A. 

### On March 6, 2014, the Respondent answered those discovery requests. See 

### Attachment B. On March 12, 2014, the undersigned made a good faith effort to resolve deficiencies in those responses, writing to opposing counsel identifying the deficiencies and requesting that they be corrected. See 

### Attachment C. Undersigned counsel responded to that e-mail, declining to pro·rid0 

### any additional response as to two ofthe tP,ree issues identified) 

### See icl.

1 The Respondent did complete its answer to Interrogatory #15. 

### 1Respondent Cannot Refuse To Answer Discovery Reguests Because ItDoes Not Like The FAA's Discovery Responses The FAA's second interrogatory requested that Respondent identify any disagreements it had with the inspector's statements contained in the EIR and what the basis was for that disagreement. Attachment A at 2. Respondent indicated that it did have disagreements, but refused to identify or describe those disagreements on the basis that the FAA had not provided Respondent with an umedacted copy ofprivileged documents. 

### See Attachment Bat 2. When the FAA pointed out to Respondent that dissatisfaction with another party's discovery response was not a basis for refusing to respond to a discovery request from thatparty, 

### see Attachment C at 2, Respondent simply reiterated that the FAA had not produced the privileged documents that Respondent had requested, 

### see id at 1. The FAA also pointed out in its e-mail that there were a variety of inspector statements that were contained in the EIR, but that Respondent had not responded about. Attachment C at 1. With regards to other statements by Inspector Frank Lipinski, Respondent again simply refused to answer the discovery request onthe basis that the FAA had not provided umedacted copies of privileged documents. 

### Id at 2. With regards to statements by other FAA inspectors, Respondent asserted that because the FAA's discovery request had said "inspector's statements" instead of "inspectors' statements" that it did not have to respond to the statements made by any other inspector. 

### Id at2. A party may not refuse to respond to a discovery request because it believes that another party is been deficient in its discovery responses, at>d Respondent's refusal to comply with the FAA's first interrogatory was clearly improper. 

### See Land Ocean Logistics v. Aqua Golf, 181 F.R.D. 229, 235 (1998) ("Plaintiffs withholding ofproduction ofthe requested information and documents contingent upon the production of discovery by the opposing party in this case was

2

### clearly improper."). The Judge should enter an order compelling Respondent to comply with this discovery request. This order should extent to the statements by any FAA Inspector, notjustFrank Lipinski. The Respondent's original discovery response was explicitly limited to a single document, not limited based on the identity of the inspector who authored it. Respondent's post hoc rationalization for its failure to address other statements based on a typographical error does not form a basis for a continued refusal to comply with the full discovery request even after the FAA has made a good faith effort to obtainRespondent's cooperation.

Respondent CannotRefuse to Fully Comply With A Discovery Request by Selecting a Single Date and Ignoring All Other Dates The FAA's twelfth interrogatory asked Respondent to describe the physical condition of

a variety of aircraft components related to the improper maintenance at issue in this case. Attachment A at 3. In its answer this interrogatory, Respondent noted that the interrogatory did not specify a date, and stated that it could not provide information as to the condition ofthe components on any date other than the time at which it had performed the maintenance. Attachment B at 7. In the e-mail to Respondent, the FAA pointed out that it was the condition of these components in May 2010 (when the improper maintenance was discovered) that Respondent had disputed, and requested that Respondent supplement its original response to address this time frame. Attachment C at 2. Respondent refused, stating that there was no dispute about the condition ofthe components in May 2010. Attachment C at 1. As an initial matter, the FAAnotes that Respondent's semantic argument about the scope ofthe FAA's discovery request is in error. It

### is true that the discovery request did not specify a time frame. However, that does not meanthatthe request only covered one specific point oftime ofRespondent's choosing. Rather, it means that the discovery request covered the condition of



### 3the components at all times material to this litigation (that being August 2009 through May 2010). Respondent's limitation of the request to one date per aircraft was improper, and Respondent shouldberequired to fully respond to the request. The FAA would be happy to accept a serious and unequivocal admission by Respondent that it has no knowledge ofthe condition ofthe aircraft in May 20I0 and thatthere is no dispute about the physical condition ofthese components in May 2010. However, Respondent's other discovery responses contradict this. In identifying what it believes are inaccuracies in a letter from CCIA ChiefInspector Benjamin Buck, it asserts that Buck was inaccurate when he stated that he observed damage to the right hand door hinge ofN898AA. Attachment Bat 5. Another alleged inaccuracy concerns loosing and missing hinge pins when the aircraft was inspected on May 25, 2010. Jd at 6. Additionally, the FAA propounded several requests for admission specifically about the status of components on May 24, 2010, including whether certain components were damaged, andthe Respondent denied those requests. Jd. at 11. In general, it is clear that the condition ofthe aircraft, including the condition ofthese components, is pertinent in this case, and is in dispute. Various individuals at the time these aircraft were inspected in May 2010

- employees of the FAA, employees of CCIA, and employees ofRespondent- observed (among other things) damage to these aircraft components and concluded that it was caused by Respondent's improper reinstallation of the main landing gear doors on the aircraft. Respondent now disputes the observations of these individuals, including its own admissions at the time, and argues thatthere was no "damage," only "wear and tear" to the aircraft components. See Attachment B at 8-10. In spoken conversations, opposing counsel has explicitly taken issue with the descriptions ofthe damage presented (for example, whether or not a particular line was "crushed" rather than "pinched").

4

### Again, the FAA would be happy to accept a clear and unambiguous stipulation from Respondent that it has no knowledge ofthe condition ofthese components as ofMay 2010, and that it does not have any disputes with any of the statements by various witnesses about the damage to these components. However, that is not what Respondent has presented. Respondent has instead insisted in its discovery responses that it "cannot" respond as to the condition ofthese components in May 2010, Attachment Bat 7, while elsewhere opining as to the condition ofthe components in

### May 2010. Respondent has insisted that there is no dispute about the condition of the components in May 2010, 

### see Attachment Cat 1, while elsewhere disputing the condition of those components in May 2010. In sum, the reasons presented for Respondent's refusal to comply with interrogatory #12

are without merit, and are contradicted by its own discovery responses. Respondent should be required to fully respond to interrogatory #12 or, alternatively, amend its other discovery responses to admit that (as described in its responses to interrogatory #12) it has no knowledge of the condition ofthese components as ofMay 2010, and does not dispute any witness statement

as to the damage observed to those components. Conclusion Respondent's baseless refusal to comply with discovery should be corrected, and Respondent compelled to fully respond to the FAA's discovery requests. WHEREFORE, the FAArequests that the Judge compel Respondent to comply withthe FAA's discovery requests. 

### 1:\ Respectfully submitted this( 

## l( day ofMarch, 2014.

# £_/~~ CHRISTOPHER

## STEV~ON Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel



### 5CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythat the foregoing FAA'sMotion to Compel was sent: original and one copy via certified mail to: Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000

one copy viacertifiedmail to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536

one copy viacertifiedmail to: Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Facsimile: (202) 944-3306

Lega Assistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

## MAR 14 

# 201f Dated

6U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant,

VS. AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, Respondent. Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 FAA Case No. 2011S0290032

Judge Sullivan

FAA'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS Pursuant to the provisions of 14 CFR § 13.220, please respond to the following Interrogatories, Requests for Production ofDocuments, and Requests for Admission separately and fully under oath within 30 days from your receipt ofthis request. This request is intended to discover information and/or documents not only within your personal knowledge or obtainable by you, but also information in the possession ofor obtainable by your attorneys, investigators, representatives, employees, agents, or anyone acting on your behalfor on their behalf. Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu ofan answer. You may respond to the Requests for Production by producing true and accurate copies ofthe originals to the undersigned. Ifyou refuse to produce any documents or other evidence on · the basis ofprivilege or other objection, identify specifically the items withheld from production. Each response shall be continuing in nature so as to require you to file supplemental responses in the following circumstances: a) When you become aware of a fact or the identity and location of any document that is not identified in your original response; b) When

. your ofiginal respo!lse W<ls initially correct, but subsequently rendered incorrect or inaccurate based upon information discovered after the original response is prepared. Ifyour answer to any interrogatory is "N/A" or "Not Applicable," describe in detail your reasons for making such reply. In reply to any interrogatory, do not merely state, "see attached**~GOVERNMENT** 

## i EXHIBIT 

# i frrecords" unless you have no additional memory ofthe matters referred to in the interrogatory. If youhave any additional memory ofthe relevant events, describe it in detail. DEFINITIONS "Documents" include, without limitation, notes, memoranda, invoices, work orders, receipts, reports, letters, audio and video tapes, photographs, facsimiles, transcripts, written statements, records of conversations, computer disks or tapes, e-mails, and other tangible or intangible materials. "You" or "your" refers to Respondent, Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services, Inc. (AMES). "Identify," when referring to persons, requires you to provide the full name, address, telephone number (business and residence, where available) and any other information pertinent to locating such person. When pertaining to an object or place, "identify" means to provide the name, location or other description ofsuch object or place. "This matter" refers to the events and circumstances underlying the allegations set forth in the Complaint, including amendments and other additions to the Complaint. Interrogatories 1. For each person listed in your initial disclosures, describe in detail that person's knowledge ofand involvement with this matter, including not limited to what maintenance that person performed, what knowledge ofthe situation that person has, and any communications that person had with others about the situation. 2. Ifyou assert that the inspector's statements in this matter (inclusive ofrecords 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. 3. Describe in detail the properprocedures for correctly installing the bushings and shims in the landing gear replacement at issue in this matter (including references to applicable documentation from Boeing, AMES, or CCIA), the procedures actually used on the installations at issue in this matter, and ifthere is any discrepancy between the two, describe in detail the nature ofand reasons for that discrepancy. 4. Ifeither ofthe proceduresreferenced in interrogatory #3 differs from the procedure

- .described in AMES 

# CotifseNo: MRD-=M2-=2-{)2..,-datedJunelD72010, pleaseidentify with

.. specificity those differences, and describe in detail why the training course differed from those procedures.4. For each allegation in the Complaint that you deny, please state with specificity the basis (whether factual and/or legal) for that denial. 5. Please state with specificity the basis (whether factual and/or legal) for your affirmative defense. 6. Ifyou assert that the penalty proposed in this case is inappropriate even ifthe FAA proves the allegations in the Complaint, please state with specificity the basis for that assertion, whether factual and/or legal. 7. Ifyou assert that the March 21, 2011 letter from Jeffrey Becker, the Director for Quality Assurance and Training at AMES, contains 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. Becker made the erroneous statement. 8. Ifyou assert that the June 8, 2010 letter from Benjamin Buck contains 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. Buck made the erroneous statement. 9. Ifyou assert that the October 25, 20l0 from Benjamin Buck contains 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, describe why Mr. Buck made the erroneous statement, and describe why Mr. Becker referred the FAA to this letter despite these errors. 10. Ifyou assert any inaccuracy or incompleteness in any ofthe 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 is inaccurate or incomplete, and what the record should have stated. II. Ifyou assert that any ofthe Boeing, AMES, or CCIA manuals included in the EIR were not applicable to the installations at issue in this matter, identify those documents and describe in detail why they are not applicable. 12. Describe in detail the physical condition ofthe landing gear and flying door assemblies at issue in this matter, including but not limited to the status ofthe following components: bushings, shims, doors, door attach fittings, flap track fairing, flap fairing, door attach fitting covers, hinges, hinge pins, wheel well fairings, hinge washers, cotter pins, anti-skid wiring conduits, hydraulic lines, trunions, and any other mounting hardware. -"""ro-,

- -**~** -- _,_- -••' -,---- __,.,, '" ' 13. Identify each person you may call as a witness at hearing in t!J.is matter, identify the subject oftheirtestimony, and summarize the substance oftheir expected testimony. You do not need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, butyou must expand on those answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory.



### -·-- ---;·"'--:_ -_**~·-··-"**14. Identify each person you may call as an expert witness in this matter, identify the subject oftheir testimony, summarize the substance oftheir expected testimony, and describe in detail your basis for believing that the witness is an expert. 15. For each interrogatory, request for production and request to admit, identifY the individuals aiding in responding to that request. 16. For each document identified in your initial disclosures, describe how that document supports your position in this matter. 17. Ifyou assert that the flying doors at issue in this matter were not out ofrig at the time they were returned to service by AMES, describe in detail the basis for that assertion. 18. Ifyou deny any request for admission, state with specificity the basis for that denial. Requests for Production With respect to each ofthe request for production below, you need to produce an additional copy ofany document that was contained in the EIR in this matter. I. Please produce each and every document referred to in your initial disclosures. 2. Please produce any document referenced in your interrogatory responses. 3. Please produce any document you may use as evidence in this matter. 4. Please produce any document used, relied upon, or referred to in answering the interrogatories or requests to admit. Request to Admit I. Admit that in performing the installations at issue in this matter, you were required to use the AMM sections for both the landing gear and flying doors (AMM Chapters 32-11-00 and 32- 12-11). 2. Admit that when AMES re-installed the main landing gear doors on N287SC in March 2010, the bearing for the right-hand main landing gear outboard door attach fitting was not installed. 3. Admitthat

### cin oraroundMay25, 2010·, therewas damage to the right hand inboard flap fairing midsection on N899AA. 4. Admit that AMES .did not properly install the hinge assemblies for the right-hand main landing gear on N899AA.

- -.-- T---5. Admit that on or around May 25, 2010, the flying doors on N899AA were out ofrig. 6. Admit that on or around May 25, 2010, there was damage to the right hand flying door hinge and fairing on N898AA. 7. Admit that on or around May 25,2010, the flying doors on N898AA were out ofrig. 8. Admit that on or around May 25,2010, there was damage to the right hand flying door hinge and fairing on N287SC. 9. Admit that on or around May 25,2010, the flying doors onN287SC were out ofrig. 10. Admit that inspections ofN899AA, N898AA and N287SC found improper rigging ofthe flying doors. loose or missing hinge pins, improper stacking ofhinge washer, and missing cotter pms. II. Admit that AMES did not use AMM Chapter 32-11-00 when re-installing the flying doors on N899AA, N898AA and N287SC. 12. Admit that AMES did not use AMM Chapter 32-12-11 when re-installing the flying doors on N899AA. N898AA and N287SC.

Submitted this 1-

## g" day ofJanuary, 2014.

# ~~ CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON Attorney Office ofthe Regional CounselCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's First Discovery Requests was sent:

one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 1101 301 h Street, NW, Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Facsimile: (202 44-3306

# A~ l.-{1:;1:;:--- GERALD " INGS Program alyst Office ofthe Regional Counsel

DatedInthe matter of BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 CaseNo. 2011S0290032 / 1

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan Respondent

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO FAA'S FIRST DISCOVERY REOUESTS Pursuantto Rule 220 ofthe Federal Aviation Administration's Rules ofPractice, 14 C.P.R. § 13.220, Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby answers and objects to Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") First Discovery Requests. INTERROGATORIES 1. For eachperson listed inyour initial disclosures, describe in detail thatperson's knowledge ofand involvement withthis matter, including [sic] not limitedto what maintenance that personperformed, what knowledge ofthe situationthat personhas, and any communications thatperson had with others about the situation. ANSWER: The knowledge and involvement ofeachperson listed inthe Respondent's Initial Disclosures, including the maintenance that eachperformed, is as shown in Attachment 1 enclosed herewith. Attachment 2 also enclosed herewith includes a list ofadditional individuals who were not included inAMES's Initial Disclosures, dated January 14,2014,butwho AMES has subsequently identified as relating to the reworkperformed onthe three aircraft. AMES is hereby supplementing its Initial Disclosures withthis information. AMES is not aware ofany informal communications between any ofthe listed maintenance technicians concerningthis matter. Those AMES employees listed as having general knowledge ofthis matter have discussed among themselves the FAA's allegations against AMES and AMES defenses thereto. In addition, either individually or as a group some ofthe AMES employees with general knowledge ofthis matter have discussed and consulted withAMES counsel regarding AMES' defense andresponse to the FAA's allegations. These discussions and consultations are privileged. 2. Ifyou assert thatthe inspector's statement inthis matter (inclusive ofrecords of conversation [sic], e-mails, memoranda, or other documents), as contained inthe EIR, contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify
1 

## i GOVERNMENT**~** EXHIBIT 

# I 

# v>such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing thatthe statementis in error, and describe whatyoubelieve to be the actual situation. ANSWER: AMES asserts that several aspects ofthe Inspector's "Statement ofthe Case and Factors Affecting Sanction" (Section B ofFAA-suppliedEIR) are inaccurate, false, mischaracterize the facts and otherwise are inerror. However, as the FAA knows, manyportions ofSectionB ofthe EIR were redacted prior to providing the document to AMES and its counsel. AMES has requested anunredacted version ofSection B in its requestfor production of documents. Wishingto first see all ofSection B priorto responding to interrogatory number 2, AMES will not respond to the FAA'srequest at this time. 3. Describe in detail the properprocedures for correctly installing the bushings and shims inthe landing gearreplacement at issue in this matter (includingreferences to applicable documentation from Boeing, AMES, or CCIA), the procedures actually used onthe installations at issue inthis matter, and ifthere is any discrepancy betweenthe two, describe in detail the nature ofand reasons for that discrepancy. ANSWER: The procedures and instructions for installing bushings and shims when AMES performedthe landing gear change for Capital Cargo are as set forth in document number 119 enclosed herewith in Attachment 3. The procedures usedby AMES to accomplishthe tasks are as set forth in document number 119 and there is no discrepancy betweenthe procedures called out in the relevant sections ofthe B-727 AMM and those usedbyAMES to perform the landing gear changes for Capital Cargo. 4. Ifeither ofthe procedures referenced ininterrogatory #3 differs from the procedure described in AMES Course No. MRO-M2-202, dated June 10, 2010, please identify with specificity those differences, and describe in detail why the training course differed from those procedures. ANSWER: As the FAA is well aware, the detailed instructions to complete the landing gear changes in issue are those set forth in the B-727 AircraftMaintenance Manual ("AMM"). Indeed, inparagraph 5 ofthe FAA complaintthe FAA states thatthe AMM is to be followed in performing maintenance on the Capital Cargo aircraft andAMES did not deny this FAA contention in its Answerto the Complaint. The subsequentlypreparedAMES training module is not and cannotbeusedto perform maintenance on CCIA aircraft. Indeed, eachpage ofthe training document is marked as "For Training Purposes Only." The training module document (AMES CourseNo. MRO-M2-202, dated June 10, 2010) was developed by AMES afterthe fact based, in part, on "recommendations" from the FAAInspector. Inthe main, the FAA Inspector insistedthat the training materials make specific and repeatedreference to AMM Chapter 32-12-11, Figure 401 eventhough the correct AMM section AMES was contractedto useto replace the CCIA landing gear, including reinstallation ofthe flying door, was AMM 32- 11-00. Step 5.AL(l9) ofAMM 32-11-00 ("Adjust (rig) wing door"), in turn, refers the mechanic to AMM 32-12-111501. The FAA Inspectorrepeatedly but incorrectly insistedthat the reference in the training materials be to AMM 32-12-11, Figure 401. The provisions ofthe AMM are controlling, not the non-authoritative views ofa particularFAAInspector. The training document was modified in June 2010 in other ways to emphasize a specific manual reference or 2to accentuate for trainingpurposes a specific point for the mechanics to be aware ofas they performedtheirtasks. 4 (secondnumber 4 interrogatory). For each allegation inthe Complaintthatyou deny, please state with specificity the basis (whether factual and/or legal) for that denial. ANSWER: AMES deniedthat CCIA currently uses aircraftN287SC, N898AA and N899AA in CCIA operations as CCIA is no longer an operating or certificated air carrier. AMES deniesthatthe main landing gear doors were improperly reinstalled andnot accomplished in accordance withthe applicable AMM. The FAA did not observethe condition ofthe MLG doors atthetime the workwas accomplishedby AMES. FAA observations ofthe condition ofthe doors was from 2 to 9 months after AMES completedthe tasks it was contracted to perform and after thethree aircraftin question accumulated from over 340to over 1,565 movements ofthe MLG. Moreover, onN287SC, interveningmaintenance was performed onthe MLG andthe FAA cannot distinguishbetween the workperformed by AMES and subsequently by others in support ofits allegationthat AMES is solely responsible for the condition ofthe MLG. The AMES denial is also baseduponthe known effects ofwear and tear onthe MLG in normal operations. Also, there is no evidencethat any ofthe subject aircraftthatwere returned to the AMES facility were missing any MLG relatedbushings and shims as documentedby the non-routine maintenance documents generatedby AMES. Some ofthe hardware was worn as noted above. To the extent the FAA is alleging AMES improperly installed and riggedthe CCIA MLG doors onthe three subject aircraft, the FAA's supportfor this allegationis not based ona correctreading ofthe applicable AMM. The AMM directed AMES and AMES accomplished reinstallation ofthe previously removedMLG doors per AMM 32-11-00, step 5.AL(l9) ("Adjust (rig) wing door"), whichrefers the mechanic to AMM 32-12-11/501. Based onthe denials ofthe allegations in paragraphs 4. d. and e., it logically follows thatAMES denied itviolated any ofthe FAR'sreferred to in Part III ofthe Complaint orthatthe imposition ofa civil penalty of$61,875 is appropriate. 5. Please state with specificitythebasis (whether factual and/or legal) for your affirmative defense. ANSWER: As the FAA has failed to set outfacts sufficient to support its allegations, AMES asserts the affirmative defense thatthe matter should be dismissed for the failure to state a claim for whichrelief(i.e., imposition ofa civilpenalty) may be granted. 6. Ifyou assert thatthepenaltyproposed inthis case is inappropriate even ifthe FAAproves the allegations inthe Complaint, please state with specificitythe basis for that assertion, whether factual and/or legal. ANSWER: AMES has denied any penalty is warranted in this case for the reason that AMES followed the applicableprovisions ofthe AMM inperformingthe maintenancethat it was contractedto accomplish. As to the level ofsanction sought bythe FAA, AMES notes that the FAA's analysis in SectionB oftheEIRis heavily redacted andtherefore unless the unredacted version ofthis portion ofSection B is provided (as has beenrequested by AMES) it is notin a positionto further respondto the FAA interrogatory asking for the position ofAMES
3onthe appropriateness ofthe level ofthe proposedpenalty. AMES wouldnote, however, that portions ofSectionB ofthe EIRunder the heading "Factors Affecting Sanction" are clearly wrong as a matter offact. For example, the FAA Inspector claims AMES failed to use the correct AMM section for reinstalling the landing gear doors

-- an allegation that the FAA carmot sustain. The FAA Inspector also states as a matter offact thatAMES has limited experience withmultiple types ofaircraft. While AMES was first certificated as a repair station in 2009, the maintenance organizationthat became AMES was the same basic organizationthatwas the ABX Air, Inc. Maintenance Department. At one point, ABX operated a fleet ofover 100 aircraft of several types all ofwhich were maintained in-house bythe ABX Maintenance Department, including the DC-8, DC-9, and B-767 ofvarious models. In addition, AMES has Part 145 Repair Station operations specifications authorizing itto conduct airframe and powerplant maintenance onB-727, B-737, B-757, B-767, MD-80, DC-8, and DC-9 aircraft (in each case all series) and on CF6-80, JT3D, JT8D, JT9D, RB211 and CFM 56 powerplants. The FAA would nothave granted these ratings to AMES were the organizationnot found to be capable of performing the maintenance on this wide range ofairframes andpowerplants, despite the uninformed opinion ofthe Inspector. 7. Ifyou assert that the March 21, 20llletterfrom Jeffrey Becker, the Director for Quality Assurance and Training at AMES, contains any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail yourbasis for believingthat the statement is in error, describe what youbelieve to be the actual situation, and describe whyMr. Beckermade the erroneous statement. ANSWER: Mr. Becker's letter does not contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterization orothererrors. The letter does correct errors in the FAA LOiregarding airworthinessrelease dates. The letteralsarefers to CCIA corrective actionreports and a corrective actionplan implemented by AMES. These corrective actions involvedtaking action that would go beyondthe AMM instructionsto ensure an even higher level ofquality workmanship. There is no basis to drawthe implication, as inferred inthe FAA's interrogatory, that AMES did not accomplishthe three MLG changes in accordance withAMM 32-11-00. 8. Ifyou assert that the June 8, 2010 letterfrom BenjaminBuckcontains any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail yourbasis for believingthat the statement is inerror, describe what you believe to be the actual situation, and describe why Mr. Buck made the erroneous statement. ANSWER: The letter from Benjamin Buck, CCIA ChiefInspectorto Mr. Evans ofthe FAAdatedJune 8, 2010 (the "6c8c20l0 Letter") is mistakenin a numberofregards;·First; note that the 6-8-20l0 Letteris dated priorto the time CCIA received the results ofthe investigation ofAMES inthis matter. AMES noted in its written response to CCIAthat the AMES technician saidthat he recalled installing the tubularbearing and that based onthe record ofmaintenance performed and statements from those assigned the gear change that AMES could not confirm the tubular bearing was missing. Paragraph 1 ofthe 6-8-2010 Letter states that the tubular bearing installation was signed offby AMES by reference to "step 13". The reference inPartial Work Sheet at entry 20 is to AMM 32-11-00, step 5 AL. Paragraph 2 ofthe 6-8-2010 Letter states that AMES was the last agency performing maintenance inthe wheel well priorto the airborne tum 4backon April16, 2010. This is not correct. After AMES completed the MLG change on aircraft N287SC on March 22, 2010, the RJH outboardMLG wheel assembly was replaced onMarch 25, 2010 during whichthose performing the tire change could have causedthetubularbearingto be removed and notreinstalled. This view is fully supportedby the fact thatAMES conducted operational checks upon completion ofthe gear change and CCIA conducted atestflight immediately thereafter and no vibration was observed which, underthe theory ofthe FAA, shouldhave been immediately evidenthad AMES completedthe MLG change without reinstalling the tubularbearing. 9. Ifyou assert that the October 25, 2010 [sic] from Benjamin Buckcontains any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believingthatthe statement is in error, describe whatyou believeto be the actual situation, describe why 

### Mr. Buckmade the erroneous statement, and describe why Mr. Beckerreferredthe FAAto this letter despite these errors. ANSWER: The letter from BenjaminBuck, CCIA ChiefInspector, dated October 25, 2010 (the "10-25-10 Letter") to FAA Inspector Lipinski contains numerous factual errors. Errors are noted by reference to the paragraphs inthe letter starting withthe paragraph after the salutation.

• Paragraph2 states the hinge assembly (onN899AA) was notproperly installedbut there is no evidence, such as a non-routine card, suggestingthe hinge assembly was improperly installed. There is evidence thatthe hinge assembly was the subject ofthe normal effects ofwear and tear consistent withthe 1,568 times the mainlanding gear moved since AMES replacedthe MLG.

• Paragraph 3 states that CCIA observed damage to the righthand door hinge (N898AA) and fairing andthatthe flying door was out ofrig. This description is not consistentwith any ofthe non-routine cards whichindicate thatthe flying door was determined, after removal and inspection, notto be damaged. Minor corrective action suchas "blend and treat" certain structure was noted butis not indicative ofany condition other than normal wear and tear. LikeN899AA, this aircrafthadbeen in service and the MLG moved 1,256 times since AMES replacedthe MLG. Inother words, the FAAhas no evidence ofthe condition ofthe MLG or flying door immediately after AMES provided its services to CCIA.

• Paragraph4 states withrespectto aircraftN287SC the righthand flying door was out ofrig andthat AMES performed a MLG change on August 26, 2009. In fact, AMES performedthe MLG change on aircraftN287SC on March 22, 2010. As noted above, after AMES completed the MLG change on aircraftN287SC onMarch 22, 2010, the RJH outboard MLG wheel assembly was replaced on March 25, 2010 during which those performing the tire change could have caused the tubularbearing to be removed and not reinstalled. Further, CCIA inspected and signed offthe removal and reinstallation ofthe MLG and flying doors on April20, 2010 in connection with a warranty claim matter not involving AMES butrather the supplier ofthe subject MLG assembly. This workwas done one month after AMES replaced the MLG on 

### 5the same aircraft. Whatever conditionthe MLGwas found in onthe day ofthe FAA's inspection (May 25, 2010) its condition cannotbe attributed to the services performedby AMES onbehalfofCCIA.

• Paragraph 5 statesthat all three aircraft had common issues, to wit improperrigging, loose/missinghinge pins, improper stacking ofhardware and missing safeties. On return ofall three aircraft to AMES there is no non-routine card supporting the contention ofimproperrigging. There is no evidence ofany missing pins,only migrating pins due to wear and tear. Upon reinspectionby AMES there was no evidence ofany missing hardware, only reference to replacement ofworn washers or bushings. No improper stack up was documented. Finding ofmissing safeties was an observationnot whenthe aircraft were first introducedto the repair station butrather three days into the workperiod. There is no evidence ofmissing safeties at thetime the aircraft was first returned to the AMES facility. Continuingwithparagraph 5, the 10-25-10 Letter states that right handMLG conduitwas pinched as a result of improperrouting. In fact, the supplier ofthe MLG changed outbyAMES shipped the component withthe conduitrouted and secured as was found by the FAAonMay 25, 2010. AMES was notresponsible for the routing ofthe conduit.

• Paragraph 7 statesthat CCIAprovidedtraining to AMES for GMM policy and procedures, RII, RSVM and CCIA approved manual. However, none to the referenced training was accomplished in connectionwiththe MLGtasks AMES was contractedto complete for CCIA.

• Paragraphs 8-10 state AMES did not follow supplied and approved B-727 AMM procedures when installing the MLG. AMES categorically denies it used incorrect procedures. AMES reinstalled the flying doors in each case byreference to Step 5.AL(19) as required.

• Paragraph 11 statesthatAMES modified its training program as a permanent fix to prevent similar occurrences. AMES rejects the inference that it did notperformthe maintenance correctly in the first instance. Many ofthe changes to the training document were "recommended" bythe FAA Inspector even thoughthe AMM references he insistedupon were incorrect. In any event, AMES was sensitive to wear and tear type findings, such as pinmigration, and wishedto heightenthe awareness ofthe maintenance technicians to the potential issue.

• Paragraph 12 states that CCIA assigned additional maintenance representatives to the AMES facility, including a data entry clerk. AMES does notbelieve any additional CCIA quality controlrepresentative was assigned to AMES. The dataentry clerk positionwas added for reasons unrelated to the MLG changes performedby AMES. Finally, AMES cannotrespondto the FAAinterrogatoryto the extent itrequests AMES to state why Mr. Buckmade erroneous statements inhis response to the FAA LOI. Mr. Becker's reference in his letter to the FAA dated March21, 2011 to Mr. Buck's October 25, 2010 letter is

6simply a statement offact and cannotbe read to infer AMES was making any substantive comment onAMES's original workmanship. 10. Ifyou assert any inaccuracies or incompleteness inany ofthe maintenance records related to this case and/or included inthe EIR, please identify with specificity any such inaccuracy orincompleteness, your basis for believingthat the record is inaccurate or incomplete, and what the record shouldhave stated. ANSWER: A thoroughreview ofthe maintenance records ofthe workperformed by AMES has found no inaccuracies or incompleteness. 11. Ifyou assert that any ofthe Boeing, AMES, or CCIA manuals included inthe EIR were not applicable 

### to the installations at issue inthis matter, identify those documents and describe in detail why they are not applicable. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory no. 4 above regarding why AMES training documents did notfollow thelogic ofAMM 32-11-00. 12. Describe in detail the physical condition ofthe landing gear and flying door assemblies at issue in this matter, including butnot limitedto the status ofthe following components: bushings, shims, doors, door attach fittings, flap track fairing, flap fairing, door attach fitting covers, hinges, hinge pins, wheel well fairings, hinge washers, cotterpins, anti-skid wiring conduits, hydraulic lines, trunions, and any other mounting hardware. ANSWER: This FAA interrogatory does not specify the date or dates it seeks AMES to describe the physical condition ofvarious components ofthe MLG and flying doors and therefore AMES cannotrespond to this interrogatory otherthan to state that onthe dates the MLG changes were accomplished by AMES in connection with the three subject aircraft, that the MLG and flying doors were in serviceable and airworthy condition. 13. Identify eachperson you may call as a witness at hearing inthis matter, identify the subject oftheir testimony, and summarize the substance oftheir expected testimony. You do not need to repeat information already contained inyour initial disclosures, butyoumust expand onthose answers to the extentnecessary to answer this interrogatory. ANSWER: AMES has not yet determined eachpersonitmay call as a witness atthe hearing in this matter. Whenthe decision is made as to those who AMES expects to testify, AMES will supplement its response to this interrogatory. 14. Identify eachperson you may call as an expert witness in this matter, identify the subject oftheirtestimony, summarize the substance oftheir expected testimony, and describe in detail your basis for believing thatthe witness is an expert. ANSWER: AMES has not yet determined whether it will rely on an expertwitness in this matter. Ifa decision is made to retain an expert, AMES will supplement its response to this interrogatory.

715. For each interrogatory, request for production andrequest to admit, identify the individuals aiding inresponding to that request. ANSWER: The following individuals aided inresponding to the interrogatories, requests for production andrequests to admit: Brady Templeton, AMES President James Savastano, AMES Vice President ofTechnical Operations JeffBecker, AMES Director, Quality Assurance Chris Brown, AMES Director, Continuous Improvement & Training Randy Myers, AMES Quality Assurance Auditor 16. For each document identified inyour initial disclosures, describehowthat document supports your positioninthis matter. ANSWER: The documents referenced in the AMES initial disclosures are being produced inAttachment 3 hereto and they speak for themselves. In addition, the AMES answers to the FAA's interrogatories contain a description ofhowthe documents support AMES' positioninthis matter. 17. Ifyou assert thatthe flying doors at issue inthis matter were not out ofrig at the time they were returned to service by AMES, describe indetail the basis for that assertion. ANSWER: The flying doors were not out ofrig atthe time AMES completedthe MLG changes as it contractedto do. Each aircraft was subjectedto an operational check and test flight and thereafter was assigned to the line and performed daily flight operations. If, as alleged by the FAA, each flying door was out ofrig as aresult ofthe actions ofAMES whenreplacing the MLG, such condition would have been immediately evident. Inaddition, the AMES maintenance was properly accomplished in accordance withthe applicable AMM and was inspectedby AMES as required by RII procedures. The landing gear were subjected to "gear swings" to ensure thatthe flying doors properly faired.

denial. 18. Ifyou deny any request for admission, state with specificity the basis for that

ANSWER:

• Withrespect to request for admission number 2, AMES denies thatthe tubular bearing for the RIHMLGFlying Door on N287SC was not installed at the times AMES performedthe MLG change because there is no documentation or physical evidence supporting any such conclusion.
8• Withrespect to requestfor admission number 3, AMES denies the implicationthat any damage to the inboard flap fairing midsection onN899AA allegedly observed on May 25, 2010 was the result ofthe accomplishment ofMLG change by AMES on August 26, 2009 based onthe passage oftime and expected wear and tear and based on the fact that there is no evidence that AMES did notproperly accomplish the tasks assigned to it.

• Withrespect to request for admission number 4, AMES denies it did not properly install the hinge assemblies 9 months prior to thetime the FAAinspected aircraft N899AA. This AMES denial is based on the passage oftime and expected wear and tear and based onthe fact thatthere is no evidence that AMES did not properly accomplishthe MLGrelatedtasks contracted for by CCIA.

• Withrespect to request for admissionnumber 5, AMES denies that onMay 25,2010 the flying doors onN899AA were out ofrig as a result ofany actiontakenby AMES. As part ofthe process ofaccomplishing and completing the gear change for CClA on August 26, 2009 the doors were rigged and passed all operational and other checks in accordance with AMM 32-11-00.

• Withrespect to request for admission number 6, AMES denies there was damage to the R/H flying door hinge and fairing on N898AAbutrather that the condition ofthe hinge and fairing as observedbythe FAA onMay 25, 2010 was the product ofwear and tear, not mis-rigging.

• Withrespect to requestfor admissionnumber 7, AMES denies that on May 25, 2010 the flying doors onN898AA were out ofrig as a result ofany action taken by AMES. As part ofthe process ofaccomplishing and completing the gear change for CCIA on October 24, 2009 the doors were rigged andpassed all operational and other checks in accordance with AMM 32-11-00.

• Withrespect to request for admissionnumber 8, AMES denies there was damage to the R1H flying door hinge and fairing on N287SC butrather that the condition ofthe hinge and fairing as observedbythe FAA onMay 25, 2010 was the product ofwear and tear, not mis-rigging.

• Withrespect to request for admission number 9, AMES denies that onMay 25, 2010 the flying doors on N287SC were out ofrig as a result ofany action taken by AMES. As part ofthe process ofaccomplishing and completing the gear change for CClA on March 22, 2010 the doors were rigged and passed all operational and other checks in accordance withAMM 32-11-00.

• Withrespect to requestfor admission number 10, AMES denies the FAAInspector's comments regarding the condition ofall three aircraft were accurate orthatupon rework by AMES it was required to take any action not consistent withrectification



### 9matter. ofwear and tear items orthe result ofmaintenance by others after AMES completed its MLG changes for CCIA.

• Withrespect to request for admission number 11, AMES denies it did not use AMM Chapter 32-11-00 whenre-installing the flying doors onthe subject three aircraft, because the work was signed offwithreference to this Chapter.

• Withrespect to request for admission number 12, AMES denies it did notuse Chapter 32-12-11 when re-installing the flying doors on the subject three aircraft because Step 5.AL(19) ofAMM 32-11-00 ("Adjust (rig) wing door") refers the mechanic to AMM 32-12-11/501 and the AMES mechanics followed the steps inthe flying door reinstallationprocess per the AMM. REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION 1. Please produce each and every documentreferred to in your initial disclosures. ANSWER: These documents are enclosed herewith in Attachment 3. 2. Please produce any document referenced in your interrogatory responses. ANSWER: These documents are included in Attachment 3 or in the FAA-supplied EIR. 3. Please produce any document you may use as evidence inthis matter. ANSWER: AMES has not yet identified which documents it will use as evidence inthis

4. Please produce any document used, relied upon, orreferred to in answering the interrogatories orrequests to admit. ANSWER: See response to request for productionnumber 2 above. REQUESTS TO ADMIT 1. Admit that in performing the installations atissue in this matter, youwere required to use the AMM sections for boththe landing gear and flying doors (AMM Chapters 32-11-10 and 32-12-11). ANSWER: Admitted. 2. Admit that when AMES re-installed the main landing gear doors onN287SC in March 2010, the bearing for the right-hand mainlanding gear outboard door attach fitting was not installed. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 103. Admitthat on or around May 25, 2010, there was damage to the right hand inboard flap fairing midsection onN899AA. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 4. Admit that AMES didnotproperly install the hinge assemblies for the right-hand main landing gear onN899AA. ANSWER: Denied. See answerto interrogatory 18 above. 5. Admit that on or around May 25, 2010, the flying doors onN899AA were out of ng. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 6. Admit that on or around May 25,2010, there was damage to the right hand flying door hinge and fairing onN898AA. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 7. Admitthat on or around May 25, 2010, the flying doors onN898AA were out of ng. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 8. Admit that on or around May 25,2010, there was damage to the right hand flying door hinge and fairing on N287SC. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 9. Admit that on or around May 25,2010, the flying doors onN287SC were out of ng. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 10. Admit that inspections ofN899AA, N898AA and N287SC found improper rigging ofthe flying doors, loose or missing hinge pins, improper stacking ofhinge washer [sic], and missing cotterpins. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 11. Admit that AMES did notuse AMM Chapter 32-11-00 whenre-installing the flying doors onN899AA, N898AA and N287SC. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above.

1112. Admitthat AMES did not use AMM Chapter 32-12-11 whenre-installing the flying doors onN899AA,N898AA andN287SC. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above.

Dated: March 6, 2014 Respectfully submitted, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. Attorneys for AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES By:

# ~~i.=...i!.rJ'__L~-'-.'·**~~~6-o-­** RobertP. Silverberg, Esq.

12 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306 Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 61h day ofMarch 2014, I caused the foregoing Respondent's Responses to FAA'sFirstDiscovery Requests to be sentby e-mail and FedEx addressed to: Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 SouthernRegion Federal Aviation Administration 170l ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 Chris.Stevenson@faa.govPage 1 of2

Chris, RE: Respondent's Discovery Responses inFAA v. AMES, DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 Robert Silverberg to: Chris Stevenson 03113/2014 02:45PM Cc: JeffJohnson, Claire Shapiro Hide Details From: Robert Silverberg <rsilverberg@sgbdc.com> To: Chris Stevenson/ASO/FAA@FAA, Cc: JeffJchnson <jjohnson@sgbdc.com>, Claire Shapiro <cshapiro@sgbdc.com>

This is in response to your e-mail dated Wednesday, March 12, 2014 regarding alleged deficiencies in the responses ofAMES to three ofthe FAA's interrogatories. On behalf ofAMES I respond as follows: First, I note in general that the FAA failed to respond to any of the discovery requests ofAMES arguing that AMES was late in serving the requests. I rejected your position and you agreed to produce FAA responses although without specifying when you would do so. Therefore any motion to compel you may file will obviously been considered in the context of the failure ofthe FAA to comply to date with any ofthe AMES discovery requests. As to the specifics, with respect to Interrogatory number 2, AMES is asserting in its motion to compel that it is entitled to the redacted portions of Section B ofthe EIR so I must reject your claim that "the FAA has fully complied with the applicable discovery requests because the additional documents you seek are privileged". First, the FAA has not responded to any AMES requests, and second, the issue ofwhether the redacted material is privileged is a question now before the Law Judge. With respect to your statement that AMES did not respond to other inspector statements contained in the EIR, I note that FAA Interrogatory number 2 sought a response regarding the accuracy ofthe "inspector's statements" and not statements by other FAA inspectors and so AMES correctly interpreted the request as pertaining only to the statements of Inspector Lipinski. Other documents in the EIR that are indicated as having been authored by Inspector Lipinski are lOPs 8, 15 and 18. lOP 8 is a memo dated December 12,2010 from Lipinski to Manager ASO 7. lOPs 15 and 18 are letters of investigation to CCIA and AMES, respectively. To the extent the inaccurate statements in lOP 8, 15 and 18 are not also included in Section B of the EIR, AMES will comment upon the inaccuracy ofsuch additional statements when it responds to the inaccurate statements contained in Section B of the EIR. There is another inspector statement called out in the EIR, namely lOP 3 between Mr. Evans and Inspector Lipinski. The entire statement is redacted and until produced AMES is not in a position to comment upon it assuming but not conceding it was included within the scope of Interrogatory number 2. Interrogatory number 12. This interrogatory did not, as noted in the AMES response, specify the date to be used to describe the physical condition ofthe subject MLG and flying doors. However, you now go on to state that the point in time when there are observations and disputes about the physical condition ofthese components is May 2010. I disagree with your assertion. The Complaint at paragraph 4 alleges that on March 2010 AMES replaced the MLG on N287SC; on August 2009, AMES replaced the MLG on N899AA; and on October 2009 AMES replaced the MLG on N898AA in each case improperly reinstalling and rigging the landing gear doors. Therefore, contrary to your claim, the condition ofthe components in May 2010 is not part ofthe FAA's claim that AMES violated the FAR's and the AMES response to interrogatory 12 was therefore appropriate and complete based upon the FAA's allegations in the Complaint. Interrogatory number 15. All ofthe listed individuals except for Randy Myers provided input into AMES responses to the FAA. Mr. Myers scope ofwork was more limited and related to interrogatories 3 and 4 only. I am available to speak with you ifyou have any questions regarding this response. Regards.

file://C:\Users\Chris Stevenson \AppData \Local\Temp\1 \notesFFF692\-web9379.htm GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 

# c

3/13/2014Bob Silverberg

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:30AM To: Robert Silverberg Subject: Respondent's Discovery Responses in FAA v. AMES, Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 Bob, 

### Page 2 of2

I am writing \Hiih regards to the Respondent's discovery responses in the above-referenced case. In particular, there were several responses that appeared to be deficient in various respects, as addressed below. Please inform me how Respondent will be rectifying these deficiencies. Please respond to address these matters by close of business Thursday, as I will be filing a motion with the Judge to compel responses on Friday ifthese matters are not resolved. -In Interrogatory #2, the FAA sought an accounting of any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions contained in any of the several Inspector's statements found in the EIR, which have been previously produced. The response to that interrogatory indicated that there were "several" such problems in Section B ofthe EIR, but refused to explain what those alleged inaccuracies were orthe basis for believing that they were inaccuracies. The response did not even mention the other statements by FAA Inspectors that were contained in the EIR. As the basis for refusing to comply with this discovery request, itwas asserted that the FAA had not produced all of Section B ofthe EIR. As you are surely aware, a perceived failure by one party to fully comply with discovery is not a basis for the other party refusing to comply with a discovery request. As we have discussed, the FAA has fully complied with the applicable discovery requests because the additional documents you seek are privileged. However, even ifthat was not the case, Respondent is still required to provided complete discovery responses. Please supplement this discovery response to comply with Respondent's discovery obligations.

- In Interrogatory #12, the FAA sought Respondent's position on the physical condition ofvarious components of the aircraft at issue in this case. In responding to this interrogatory, Respondent chose to limit its response to a single point in time per aircraft, and as that point in time chose the momentwhen AMES had completed its reinstallation ofthe MLG. However, the point in time when there are observations and disputes about the physical condition of H1ese components is in May 2010, when damage to the components was observed by FAA inspectors and other individuals, as noted in various statements in the EIR, as discussed by you and I, and as addressed elsewhere in the discovery requests. Please supplement this discovery response to fully respond to this interrogatory by addressing the condition ofthese components at the point in time when their condition is at issue. -In Interrogatory #15, the FAA asked Respondent to identify which individuals assisted in responding to which requests for production. In its response, Respondent listed five individuals without identifying which requests those individuals had assisted with. Please supplement this discovery response to fully respond to this interrogatory by identifying which particular discovery requests each particular individual assisted in responding to. Christopher Stevenson Attorney Office of Regional Counsel F.'\A Southern Region (404) 305-5200



### fEe://C:\Users\Chris Stevenson \AppData \Local\Temp\1 \notesFFF692\-web9379.htm 3/13/2014