U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, · 'complainant, · . · 

RECEIVED 

MAl< 1 9 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, by and 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 of the tP,ree issues identified) See icl. 

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

1 
Respondent Cannot Refuse To Answer Discovery Reguests Because It Does 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 of privileged 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 that party, 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 on the 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 at 2. 

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 of production of the 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, not just Frank 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 obtain Respondent's cooperation. 

Respondent Cannot Refuse 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 of the 

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 of the components in May 201 0. Attachment C at 1. 

As an initial matter, the FAA notes that Respondent's semantic argument about the scope 

of the FAA's discovery request is in error. It is true that the discovery request did not specify a 

time frame. However, that does not mean that the request only covered one specific point of time 

of Respondent's choosing. Rather, it means that the discovery request covered the condition of 

3 
the 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 should be required 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 of the condition of the aircraft in May 20 I 0 and that there is no dispute 

about the physical condition of these components in May 2010. However, Respondent's other 

discovery responses contradict this. In identifying what it believes are inaccuracies in a letter 

from CCIA Chief Inspector 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, and the Respondent denied those requests. Jd. at 11. 

In general, it is clear that the condition of the aircraft, including the condition of these 

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 of Respondent- 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 that there 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 of the 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 of the condition of these components as of May 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 of these 

components in May 2010, Attachment Bat 7, while elsewhere opining as to the condition of the 

components in May 201 0. 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 of these components as of May 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 

FAA requests that the Judge compel Respondent to comply with the FAA's discovery requests. 

1:\ 

Respectfully submitted this ( l( day of March, 2014. 

£_/~~ CHRISTOPHER STEV~ON Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

5 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Motion to Compel was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

one copy via certified mail to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

one copy via certified mail to: 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Facsimile: (202) 944-3306 

Lega Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

MAR 14 201f 

Dated 

6 
U.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 of Documents, and Requests for Admission separately 

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

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

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

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

behalf or on their behalf. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

responses in the following circumstances: 

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

that is not identified in your original response; 

b) When . your ofiginal respo!lse W<ls initially correct, but subsequently rendered 

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

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

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

~GOVERNMENT 

i EXHIBIT 

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

you have any additional memory of the relevant events, describe it in detail. 

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 of such object or place. 

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

Complaint, including amendments and other additions to the Complaint. 

Interrogatories 

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

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

person performed, what knowledge of the situation that person has, and any communications that 

person had with others about the situation. 

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

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

inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such 

errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, and describe what 

you believe to be the actual situation. 

3. Describe in detail the proper procedures 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 if there is any discrepancy between the two, describe in detail the 

nature of and reasons for that discrepancy. 

4. If either of the procedures referenced in interrogatory #3 differs from the procedure 

- . described in AMES CotifseNo: MRD-=M2-=2-{)2..,-datedJunelD72010, please identify 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. If you assert that the penalty proposed in this case is inappropriate even if the FAA 

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

whether factual and/or legal. 

7. If you 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. If you 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. If you assert that the October 25, 20 l 0 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. If you assert any inaccuracy or incompleteness in any of the maintenance records related 

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

incompleteness, your basis for believing that the record is inaccurate or incomplete, and what the 

record should have stated. 

II. If you assert that any of the 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 of the landing gear and flying door assemblies at 

issue in this matter, including but not limited to the status of the 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 of their testimony, and summarize the substance of their expected testimony. You do not 

need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but you must expand on 

those answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory. 

-·-- ---;·"'--:_ -_ ~·-··-" 
14. Identify each person you may call as an expert witness in this matter, identify the subject 

of their testimony, summarize the substance of their expected testimony, and describe in detail 

your basis for believing that the witness is an expert. 

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. If you assert that the flying doors at issue in this matter were not out of rig at the time 

they were returned to service by AMES, describe in detail the basis for that assertion. 

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

Requests for Production 

With respect to each of the request for production below, you need to produce an additional copy 

of any 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. Admit that cin or around May25, 2010·, there was 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 of rig. 

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 of rig. 

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 on N287SC were out of rig. 

10. Admit that inspections ofN899AA, N898AA and N287SC found improper rigging of the 

flying doors. loose or missing hinge pins, improper stacking of hinge 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 of January, 2014. 

CHRISTOPHER 

~~ R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE 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 of the Regional Counsel 

Dated 
In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. F AA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011S0290032 

/ 1 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

Respondent 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO 

FAA'S FIRST DISCOVERY REOUESTS 

Pursuant to Rule 220 of the Federal Aviation Administration's Rules of Practice, 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 each person listed in your initial disclosures, describe in detail that person's 

knowledge of and involvement with this matter, including [sic] not limited to what maintenance 

that person performed, what knowledge of the situation that person has, and any communications 

that person had with others about the situation. 

ANSWER: The knowledge and involvement of each person listed in the Respondent's 

Initial Disclosures, including the maintenance that each performed, is as shown in Attachment 1 

enclosed herewith. Attachment 2 also enclosed herewith includes a list of additional individuals 

who were not included in AMES's Initial Disclosures, dated January 14,2014, but who AMES 

has subsequently identified as relating to the rework performed on the three aircraft. AMES is 

hereby supplementing its Initial Disclosures with this information. 

AMES is not aware of any informal communications between any ofthe listed 

maintenance technicians concerning this matter. Those AMES employees listed as having 

general knowledge of this matter have discussed among themselves the FAA's allegations 

against AMES and AMES defenses thereto. In addition, either individually or as a group some 

of the AMES employees with general knowledge of this matter have discussed and consulted 

with AMES counsel regarding AMES' defense and response to the FAA's allegations. These 

discussions and consultations are privileged. 

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

conversation [sic], e-mails, memoranda, or other documents), as contained in the 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 that the statement is in error, and describe 

what you believe to be the actual situation. 

ANSWER: AMES asserts that several aspects of the Inspector's "Statement of the Case 

and Factors Affecting Sanction" (Section B of FAA-supplied EIR) are inaccurate, false, 

mischaracterize the facts and otherwise are in error. However, as the FAA knows, many portions 

of Section B of the EIR were redacted prior to providing the document to AMES and its counsel. 

AMES has requested an unredacted version of Section B in its request for production of 

documents. Wishing to first see all of Section B prior to responding to interrogatory number 2, 

AMES will not respond to the FAA's request at this time. 

3. Describe in detail the proper procedures 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 if there is any discrepancy between the two, describe in detail the 

nature of and reasons for that discrepancy. 

ANSWER: The procedures and instructions for installing bushings and shims when 

AMES performed the landing gear change for Capital Cargo are as set forth in document number 

119 enclosed herewith in Attachment 3. The procedures used by AMES to accomplish the tasks 

are as set forth in document number 119 and there is no discrepancy between the procedures 

called out in the relevant sections of the B-727 AMM and those used by AMES to perform the 

landing gear changes for Capital Cargo. 

4. If either of the procedures referenced in interrogatory #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 Aircraft Maintenance Manual ("AMM"). 

Indeed, in paragraph 5 of the FAA complaint the FAA states that the AMM is to be followed in 

performing maintenance on the Capital Cargo aircraft and AMES did not deny this FAA 

contention in its Answer to the Complaint. The subsequently prepared AMES training module is 

not and cannot be used to perform maintenance on CCIA aircraft. Indeed, each page of the 

training document is marked as "For Training Purposes Only." The training module document 

(AMES Course No. MRO-M2-202, dated June 10, 2010) was developed by AMES after the 

fact based, in part, on "recommendations" from the FAA Inspector. In the main, the FAA 

Inspector insisted that the training materials make specific and repeated reference to AMM 

Chapter 32-12-11, Figure 401 even though the correct AMM section AMES was contracted to 

use to replace the CCIA landing gear, including reinstallation of the flying door, was AMM 32-

11-00. Step 5.AL(l9) of AMM 32-11-00 ("Adjust (rig) wing door"), in turn, refers the mechanic 

to AMM 32-12-111501. The FAA Inspector repeatedly but incorrectly insisted that the reference 

in the training materials be to AMM 32-12-11, Figure 401. The provisions of the AMM are 

controlling, not the non-authoritative views of a particular FAA Inspector. The training 

document was modified in June 2010 in other ways to emphasize a specific manual reference or 

2 
to accentuate for training purposes a specific point for the mechanics to be aware of as they 

performed their tasks. 

4 (second number 4 interrogatory). For each allegation in the Complaint that you deny, 

please state with specificity the basis (whether factual and/or legal) for that denial. 

ANSWER: AMES denied that CCIA currently uses aircraft N287SC, N898AA and 

N899AA in CCIA operations as CCIA is no longer an operating or certificated air carrier. 

AMES denies that the main landing gear doors were improperly reinstalled and not 

accomplished in accordance with the applicable AMM. The FAA did not observe the condition 

of the MLG doors at the time the work was accomplished by AMES. FAA observations of the 

condition of the doors was from 2 to 9 months after AMES completed the tasks it was contracted 

to perform and after the three aircraft in question accumulated from over 340 to over 1,565 

movements of the MLG. Moreover, on N287SC, intervening maintenance was performed on the 

MLG and the FAA cannot distinguish between the work performed by AMES and subsequently 

by others in support of its allegation that AMES is solely responsible for the condition of the 

MLG. The AMES denial is also based upon the known effects of wear and tear on the MLG in 

normal operations. Also, there is no evidence that any ofthe subject aircraft that were returned 

to the AMES facility were missing any MLG related bushings and shims as documented by the 

non-routine maintenance documents generated by AMES. Some of the hardware was worn as 

noted above. To the extent the FAA is alleging AMES improperly installed and rigged the CCIA 

MLG doors on the three subject aircraft, the FAA's support for this allegation is not based on a 

correct reading of the applicable AMM. The AMM directed AMES and AMES accomplished 

reinstallation of the previously removed MLG doors per AMM 32-11-00, step 5.AL(l9) ("Adjust 

(rig) wing door"), which refers the mechanic to AMM 32-12-11/501. Based on the denials of the 

allegations in paragraphs 4. d. and e., it logically follows that AMES denied it violated any ofthe 

FAR's referred to in Part III of the Complaint or that the imposition of a civil penalty of$61,875 

is appropriate. 

5. Please state with specificity the basis (whether factual and/or legal) for your 

affirmative defense. 

ANSWER: As the FAA has failed to set out facts sufficient to support its allegations, 

AMES asserts the affirmative defense that the matter should be dismissed for the failure to state 

a claim for which relief (i.e., imposition of a civil penalty) may be granted. 

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

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

assertion, whether factual and/or legal. 

ANSWER: AMES has denied any penalty is warranted in this case for the reason that 

AMES followed the applicable provisions of the AMM in performing the maintenance that it 

was contracted to accomplish. As to the level of sanction sought by the FAA, AMES notes that 

the FAA's analysis in Section B ofthe EIR is heavily redacted and therefore unless the 

unredacted version of this portion of Section B is provided (as has been requested by AMES) it 

is not in a position to further respond to the FAA interrogatory asking for the position of AMES 

3 
on the appropriateness of the level of the proposed penalty. AMES would note, however, that 

portions of Section B of the EIR under the heading "Factors Affecting Sanction" are clearly 

wrong as a matter of fact. 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 of fact that AMES has limited experience 

with multiple types of aircraft. While AMES was first certificated as a repair station in 2009, the 

maintenance organization that became AMES was the same basic organization that was the ABX 

Air, Inc. Maintenance Department. At one point, ABX operated a fleet of over 100 aircraft of 

several types all of which were maintained in-house by the ABX Maintenance Department, 

including the DC-8, DC-9, and B-767 of various models. In addition, AMES has Part 145 

Repair Station operations specifications authorizing it to conduct airframe and powerplant 

maintenance on B-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 

not have granted these ratings to AMES were the organization not found to be capable of 

performing the maintenance on this wide range of airframes and powerplants, despite the 

uninformed opinion of the Inspector. 

7. If you assert that the March 21, 20llletter 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. 

ANSWER: Mr. Becker's letter does not contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, 

mischaracterization orothererrors. The letter does correct errors in the FAA LOiregarding 

airworthiness release dates. The letter alsa refers to CCIA corrective action reports and a 

corrective action plan implemented by AMES. These corrective actions involved taking action 

that would go beyond the AMM instructions to ensure an even higher level of quality 

workmanship. There is no basis to draw the implication, as inferred in the FAA's interrogatory, 

that AMES did not accomplish the three MLG changes in accordance with AMM 32-11-00. 

8. If you 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. 

ANSWER: The letter from Benjamin Buck, CCIA Chief Inspector to Mr. Evans of the 

F AAdatedJune 8, 2010 (the "6c8c20l 0 Letter") is mistaken in a number of regards;· First; note 

that the 6-8-20 l 0 Letter is dated prior to the time CCIA received the results of the investigation 

of AMES in this matter. AMES noted in its written response to CCIA that the AMES technician 

said that he recalled installing the tubular bearing and that based on the record of maintenance 

performed and statements from those assigned the gear change that AMES could not confirm the 

tubular bearing was missing. Paragraph 1 of the 6-8-2010 Letter states that the tubular bearing 

installation was signed off by AMES by reference to "step 13 ". The reference in Partial Work 

Sheet at entry 20 is to AMM 32-11-00, step 5 AL. Paragraph 2 of the 6-8-2010 Letter states that 

AMES was the last agency performing maintenance in the wheel well prior to the airborne tum 

4 
back on April16, 2010. This is not correct. After AMES completed the MLG change on aircraft 

N287SC on March 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 tubular bearing to be 

removed and not reinstalled. This view is fully supported by the fact that AMES conducted 

operational checks upon completion of the gear change and CCIA conducted a test flight 

immediately thereafter and no vibration was observed which, under the theory of the FAA, 

should have been immediately evident had AMES completed the MLG change without 

reinstalling the tubular bearing. 

9. If you assert that the October 25, 2010 [sic] 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. 

ANSWER: The letter from Benjamin Buck, CCIA Chief Inspector, 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 in the letter starting with the paragraph after the 

salutation. 

• Paragraph 2 states the hinge assembly (on N899AA) was not properly installed but 

there is no evidence, such as a non-routine card, suggesting the hinge assembly was 

improperly installed. There is evidence that the hinge assembly was the subject of the 

normal effects of wear and tear consistent with the 1,568 times the main landing gear 

moved since AMES replaced the MLG. 

• Paragraph 3 states that CCIA observed damage to the right hand door hinge 

(N898AA) and fairing and that the flying door was out of rig. This description is not 

consistent with any of the non-routine cards which indicate that the flying door was 

determined, after removal and inspection, not to be damaged. Minor corrective action 

such as "blend and treat" certain structure was noted but is not indicative of any 

condition other than normal wear and tear. Like N899AA, this aircraft had been in 

service and the MLG moved 1,256 times since AMES replaced the MLG. In other 

words, the FAA has no evidence of the condition of the MLG or flying door 

immediately after AMES provided its services to CCIA. 

• Paragraph 4 states with respect to aircraft N287SC the right hand flying door was out 

of rig and that AMES performed a MLG change on August 26, 2009. In fact, AMES 

performed the MLG change on aircraft N287SC on March 22, 2010. As noted above, 

after AMES completed the MLG change on aircraft N287SC on March 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 tubular bearing to be removed 

and not reinstalled. Further, CCIA inspected and signed off the removal and 

reinstallation of the MLG and flying doors on April20, 2010 in connection with a 

warranty claim matter not involving AMES but rather the supplier of the subject 

MLG assembly. This work was done one month after AMES replaced the MLG on 

5 
the same aircraft. Whatever condition the MLG was found in on the day of the 

FAA's inspection (May 25, 201 0) its condition cannot be attributed to the services 

performed by AMES on behalf of CCIA. 

• Paragraph 5 states that all three aircraft had common issues, to wit improper rigging, 

loose/missing hinge pins, improper stacking of hardware and missing safeties. On 

return of all three aircraft to AMES there is no non-routine card supporting the 

contention of improper rigging. There is no evidence of any missing pins, only 

migrating pins due to wear and tear. Upon reinspection by AMES there was no 

evidence of any missing hardware, only reference to replacement of worn washers or 

bushings. No improper stack up was documented. Finding of missing safeties was an 

observation not when the aircraft were first introduced to the repair station but rather 

three days into the work period. There is no evidence of missing safeties at the time 

the aircraft was first returned to the AMES facility. Continuing with paragraph 5, the 

10-25-1 0 Letter states that right hand MLG conduit was pinched as a result of 

improper routing. In fact, the supplier of the MLG changed out by AMES shipped 

the component with the conduit routed and secured as was found by the FAA on May 

25, 2010. AMES was not responsible for the routing of the conduit. 

• Paragraph 7 states that CCIA provided training to AMES for GMM policy and 

procedures, RII, RSVM and CCIA approved manual. However, none to the 

referenced training was accomplished in connection with the MLG tasks AMES was 

contracted to 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 by reference to Step 

5.AL(19) as required. 

• Paragraph 11 states that AMES modified its training program as a permanent fix to 

prevent similar occurrences. AMES rejects the inference that it did not perform the 

maintenance correctly in the first instance. Many of the changes to the training 

document were "recommended" by the FAA Inspector even though the AMM 

references he insisted upon were incorrect. In any event, AMES was sensitive to 

wear and tear type findings, such as pin migration, and wished to heighten the 

awareness of the 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 not believe any additional 

CCIA quality control representative was assigned to AMES. The data entry clerk 

position was added for reasons unrelated to the MLG changes performed by AMES. 

Finally, AMES cannot respond to the FAA interrogatory to the extent it requests AMES 

to state why Mr. Buck made erroneous statements in his response to the FAA LOI. Mr. Becker's 

reference in his letter to the FAA dated March 21, 2011 to Mr. Buck's October 25, 2010 letter is 

6 
simply a statement of fact and cannot be read to infer AMES was making any substantive 

comment on AMES's original workmanship. 

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

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

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

incomplete, and what the record should have stated. 

ANSWER: A thorough review of the maintenance records of the work performed by 

AMES has found no inaccuracies or incompleteness. 

11. If you assert that any of the 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. 

ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory no. 4 above regarding why AMES training 

documents did not follow the logic of AMM 32-11-00. 

12. Describe in detail the physical condition of the landing gear and flying door 

assemblies at issue in this matter, including but not limited to the status of the 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. 

ANSWER: This FAA interrogatory does not specify the date or dates it seeks AMES to 

describe the physical condition of various components of the MLG and flying doors and 

therefore AMES cannot respond to this interrogatory other than to state that on the 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 each person you may call as a witness at hearing in this matter, identify 

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

not need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but you must expand 

on those answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory. 

ANSWER: AMES has not yet determined each person it may call as a witness at the 

hearing in this matter. When the decision is made as to those who AMES expects to testify, 

AMES will supplement its response to this interrogatory. 

14. Identify each person you may call as an expert witness in this matter, identify the 

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

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

ANSWER: AMES has not yet determined whether it will rely on an expert witness in 

this matter. If a decision is made to retain an expert, AMES will supplement its response to this 

interrogatory. 

7 
15. For each interrogatory, request for production and request to admit, identify the 

individuals aiding in responding to that request. 

ANSWER: The following individuals aided in responding to the interrogatories, requests 

for production and requests to admit: 

Brady Templeton, AMES President 

James Savastano, AMES Vice President of Technical Operations 

Jeff Becker, AMES Director, Quality Assurance 

Chris Brown, AMES Director, Continuous Improvement & Training 

Randy Myers, AMES Quality Assurance Auditor 

16. For each document identified in your initial disclosures, describe how that 

document supports your position in this matter. 

ANSWER: The documents referenced in the AMES initial disclosures are being 

produced in Attachment 3 hereto and they speak for themselves. In addition, the AMES answers 

to the FAA's interrogatories contain a description of how the documents support AMES' 

position in this matter. 

17. If you assert that the flying doors at issue in this matter were not out of rig at the 

time they were returned to service by AMES, describe in detail the basis for that assertion. 

ANSWER: The flying doors were not out of rig at the time AMES completed the MLG 

changes as it contracted to do. Each aircraft was subjected to 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 of rig as a result of the actions of AMES when replacing the 

MLG, such condition would have been immediately evident. In addition, the AMES 

maintenance was properly accomplished in accordance with the applicable AMM and was 

inspected by AMES as required by RII procedures. The landing gear were subjected to "gear 

swings" to ensure that the flying doors properly faired. 

denial. 

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

ANSWER: 

• With respect to request for admission number 2, AMES denies that the tubular 

bearing for the RIH MLG Flying Door on N287SC was not installed at the times 

AMES performed the MLG change because there is no documentation or physical 

evidence supporting any such conclusion. 

8 
• With respect to request for admission number 3, AMES denies the implication that 

any damage to the inboard flap fairing midsection on N899AA allegedly observed on 

May 25, 2010 was the result ofthe accomplishment ofMLG change by AMES on 

August 26, 2009 based on the passage of time and expected wear and tear and based 

on the fact that there is no evidence that AMES did not properly accomplish the tasks 

assigned to it. 

• With respect to request for admission number 4, AMES denies it did not properly 

install the hinge assemblies 9 months prior to the time the FAA inspected aircraft 

N899AA. This AMES denial is based on the passage of time and expected wear and 

tear and based on the fact that there is no evidence that AMES did not properly 

accomplish the MLG related tasks contracted for by CCIA. 

• With respect to request for admission number 5, AMES denies that on May 25,2010 

the flying doors on N899AA were out of rig as a result of any action taken by AMES. 

As part of the process of accomplishing 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. 

• With respect to request for admission number 6, AMES denies there was damage to 

the R/H flying door hinge and fairing on N898AA but rather that the condition of the 

hinge and fairing as observed by the FAA on May 25, 2010 was the product of wear 

and tear, not mis-rigging. 

• With respect to request for admission number 7, AMES denies that on May 25, 2010 

the flying doors on N898AA were out of rig as a result of any action taken by AMES. 

As part of the process of accomplishing and completing the gear change for CCIA on 

October 24, 2009 the doors were rigged and passed all operational and other checks 

in accordance with AMM 32-11-00. 

• With respect to request for admission number 8, AMES denies there was damage to 

the R1H flying door hinge and fairing on N287SC but rather that the condition of the 

hinge and fairing as observed by the FAA on May 25, 2010 was the product of wear 

and tear, not mis-rigging. 

• With respect to request for admission number 9, AMES denies that on May 25, 2010 

the flying doors on N287SC were out of rig as a result of any action taken by AMES. 

As part of the process of accomplishing and completing the gear change for CClA on 

March 22, 2010 the doors were rigged and passed all operational and other checks in 

accordance with AMM 32-11-00. 

• With respect to request for admission number 10, AMES denies the FAA Inspector's 

comments regarding the condition of all three aircraft were accurate or that upon 

rework by AMES it was required to take any action not consistent with rectification 

9 
matter. 

of wear and tear items or the result of maintenance by others after AMES completed 

its MLG changes for CCIA. 

• With respect to request for admission number 11, AMES denies it did not use AMM 

Chapter 32-11-00 when re-installing the flying doors on the subject three aircraft, 

because the work was signed off with reference to this Chapter. 

• With respect to request for admission number 12, AMES denies it did not use Chapter 

32-12-11 when re-installing the flying doors on the subject three aircraft because Step 

5.AL(19) of AMM 32-11-00 ("Adjust (rig) wing door") refers the mechanic to AMM 

32-12-11/501 and the AMES mechanics followed the steps in the flying door reinstallation process per the AMM. 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

1. Please produce each and every document referred 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 in this matter. 

ANSWER: AMES has not yet identified which documents it will use as evidence in this 

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

interrogatories or requests to admit. 

ANSWER: See response to request for production number 2 above. 

REQUESTS TO ADMIT 

1. 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 

32-11-10 and 32-12-11). 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

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. 

ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 

10 
3. Admit that on or around May 25, 2010, there was damage to the right hand 

inboard flap fairing midsection on N899AA. 

ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 

4. Admit that AMES did not properly install the hinge assemblies for the right-hand 

main landing gear on N899AA. 

ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 

5. Admit that on or around May 25, 2010, the flying doors on N899AA 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 on N898AA. 

ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 

7. Admit that on or around May 25, 2010, the flying doors on N898AA 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 on N287SC were out of 

ng. 

ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 

10. Admit that inspections ofN899AA, N898AA and N287SC found improper 

rigging of the flying doors, loose or missing hinge pins, improper stacking of hinge washer [sic], 

and missing cotter pins. 

ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 

11. Admit that AMES did not use AMM Chapter 32-11-00 when re-installing the 

flying doors on N899AA, N898AA and N287SC. 

ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above. 

11 
12. Admit that AMES did not use AMM Chapter 32-12-11 when re-installing the 

flying doors on N899AA, N898AA and N287SC. 

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~-'-.'· Robert P. Silverberg, ~~~6-o-­ Esq. 

12 

1101 30th Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 61

h day of March 2014, I caused the foregoing Respondent's 

Responses to FAA's First Discovery Requests to be sent by e-mail and FedEx addressed to: 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

170 l Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov 
Page 1 of2 

Chris, 

RE: Respondent's Discovery Responses in FAA v. AMES, Docket No. F AA-2013-0291 

Robert Silverberg 

to: 

Chris Stevenson 

03113/2014 02:45PM 

Cc: 

Jeff Johnson, Claire Shapiro 

Hide Details 

From: Robert Silverberg <rsilverberg@sgbdc.com> 

To: Chris Stevenson/ASO/FAA@FAA, 

Cc: Jeff Jchnson <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 of AMES to three of the FAA's interrogatories. On behalf of AMES I respond as follows: 

First, I note in general that the FAA failed to respond to any of the discovery requests of AMES 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 of the FAA to comply to date with any of the 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 of the 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 of whether 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 of the "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 of such 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 of the 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 of these 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 of the components in May 2010 is not part of the 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 of the listed individuals except for Randy Myers provided input into AMES responses 

to the FAA. Mr. Myers scope of work was more limited and related to interrogatories 3 and 4 only. 

I am available to speak with you if you have any questions regarding this response. 

Regards. 

file:/ /C: \ U sers\Chris Stevenson \AppData \Local\ Temp\ 1 \notesFFF 692\-web93 79 .htm 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

c 

3/13/2014 
Bob 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 if these 

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 of the EIR, but refused to explain 

what those alleged inaccuracies were or the 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, it was asserted that the FAA had not produced all of Section B of the 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 if that 

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 of various 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 moment when AMES had completed its 

reinstallation of the 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 of these 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 \notesFFF 692\-web9 3 79 .htm 3/13/2014