SERVED: June 16, 2014 ·-"; ~~ . --.. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

In The Matter Of: 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE 

AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON,DC ",:;\! 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011S0290032 

.' --1 

' ~ ; . l 

ORDER RESERVING THE RESPONDENT'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL 

AND DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO ENGAGE IN A RULE 37 DISCUSSION 

On May 2; 2014, an Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part the Respondent's 

Motion to Compel Discovery was filed. Pursuant to this May 2, 2014 Order, the FAA was 

ordered, among other things, to fully respond to the Respondent's Interrogatory No.' 9, on or 

before May 14,2014. 

On May 14, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Suspend Litigation Dates ("Joint 

Motion"). This Joint Motion requested a "suspension" of the deposition and discovery schedule, 

without a specified ending date. (Joint Motion, 1-2). 

On May 15, 2014, an Order Granting Joint Motion to Suspend Litigation Dates was filed. 

Among other things, this Order required the parties to file a revised litigation schedule on or 

before June 16, 2014, which would also include an agreed telephone conference date and time. 

';J: t~ s 

On May 22, 2014, the Respondent filed a second Motion to Compel ("Motion"), in which 

' 

it asserted that the FAA had failed to comply with the May 2, 2014 Order directing the FAA to 

fully respond to the Respondent's Interrogatory No.9 on or before May 14, 2014. 

On June 4, 2014, the FAA filed a Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel. 

("Response".) 
A. BRIEF DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 

The underlying discovery dispute was first addressed in the May 2, 2014 Order, where 

the FAA was ordered to fully respond to 'Interrogatory No. 9, on or before May 14, 2014. 

Interrogatory No. 9 states as follows: 

"Identify all persons consulted by or with Inspectors Bobby Evans, Frank Lipinski and 

Jack Gasche, including but not limited to other FAA Inspectors (e.g., Inspectors assigned 

to or who surveilled AMES) concerning the allegations against AMES as set forth in the 

Complaint. For each such person: 

a. Identify the individuai, including his or her title and affiliation, telephone 

number and business address; and 

b. Describe in detail the substance of each such person's knowledge and how that 

knowledge was acquired." · 

(R.'s Motion to Compel, Ex. 3 (Mar. 10, 2014)(emphasis added) 

As noted earlier herein, on May 14, 2014, the parties informally agreed to 

"suspend" the deposition and discovery litigation deadlines to an unspecified date. The purpose 

of such "suspension" was to allow the parties additional time to conduct discovery. (Joint Motion 

1-2.) It was unclear from the Joint Motion whether or not the parties intended to delay the courtordered date of May 14, 2014. 

On May 20,2014, the FAA served its Third Response to Respondent's First Discovery 

Requests ("Third Response"), in which ·the FAA responded to Interrogatory No. 9 by providing 

the names of individuals consulted by the named Aviation Safety Inspectors (Motion, Ex. 2). 

However, the FAA did not provide the telephone number or business address of certain. 

individuals, nor describe the substance of each individual's knowledge or how that knowledge· 

was acquired (Motion. 2; Ex. 2.) 

In its May 22, 2014 Motion, the Respondent asserts that the FAA failed to fully answer 

Interrogatory No.9, and failed. to comply with the court's May 14, 2014 deadline. However, the 

Respondent agreed that it had not immediately objected to the FAA's May 14,2014 request for 

more time beyond May 14, 2014 (Motion, 1.) Given a lack of objection or response by the 

Respondent, the FAA's beliefthat its May 14, 2014 request for more time had been accepted is 

understandable. 

Page 2 of4 
On May 28, 2014, six (6) days after the Respondent filed rts May 22, 2014 Motion, the 

FAA served its Fourth Response to Respondent's First Discovery Requests ("Fourth Response"), 

in which it described the general substance of each individual's knowledge. Shortly thereafter, 

on June 4, 2014, the FAA filed its Response to the Motion, in which the FAA asserts multiple 

defenses. It also asserts that the Respondent has acted in bad faith in bringing the Motion 

(Response, 1-2). 

The Respondent is correct that the May 2, 2014 Order required the FAA to fully respond 

to Interrogatory No.9. (Motion, 3; 5/2/14 Order, 10.) This Order specifically addressed each 

subpart oflnterrogatory No.9. (!d. at 8.) Therefore, a full response to Interrogatory No.9 

would have included each individual's title and affiliation, telephone number and business 

address, and how the individual acquired the knowledge proffered. 

In its Motion, however, the Respondent specifically waived "any further information" 

with respect to the "list of individuals" (number of and names unidentified) employed with either 

the Respondent or by its sister company, CCIA. (Motion, 2, fn. 2.) The Respondent also waived 

the need for any further address information for five (5) specified FAA Safety Inspectors. 

(Motion, 2, fn. 3.) 

The FAA is correct that the Respondent should have tried to amicably resolve the dispute 

with the FAA, before filing its second Motion to Compel. (Response, 2 and 11/7/13 Order 

Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, 3 ~D.) In addition, this court is not able to readily 

discern which individuals in the FAA's Fourth Response the Respondent is now excluding from 

its request for further information. The Respondent should also be specifically advising this 

court of the names of any FAA Safety Inspectors for whom the FAA still needs to provide 

telephone and address disclosure, instead of obliquely referring to missing information. It is not 

this court's job to pore through the proffered discovery, to try and discern- by the process of 

elimination- which individuals the Respondent is referencing. 

Clearly, the Respondent seeks to have greater specificity provided, as outlined in its 

request for relief. (Motion, 4.) However, the Respondent should specifically identify to the FAA 

which portions oflnterrogatory No.9 it still seeks to enforce. Prior to any further court order, 

the parties also need to comply with the Rule 37 directive contained in the 11/7/13 Order. 

Page 3 of4 
B. CONCLUSION 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205(a)(6) and (8), and 13.220(m) and (n), and after 

reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Respondent's second Motion to Compel is reserved. 

2. Pursuant to the November 7, 2013 Order, page 3 ~ D, the parties are directed to engage in 

a Rule 37 Discussion regarding any outstanding discovery requested by Respondent's 

Interrogatory No. 9 and ordered by the court in its May 2, 2014 Order. 

3. After the Rule 3 7 Discussion, if any discovery dispute remains unresolved, the 

Respondent may renew its second Motion to Compel. 

4. In any Motion for Renewal, the Respondent is directed to comply with the November 7, 

2013 Order (page 3 ~D) and confirm by a Rule 37 declaration it's good faith efforts to 

resolve the dispute. The Respondent should also perfect its Motion to Renew by 

providing a clear, specified list of what discovery is still needed and from which 

individuals. 

Attachment: Service List 

IVan 

~~·mstrative Law Judge 

Page 4 of4 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ONE COPY 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southern Region 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FPCX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Robert P. Silverberg 

Respondent's Counsel 

· . Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 

Georgetown Place, Suite 120 ·· 

1101 30th St., N.W. . 

Washington, DC 20007 

TEL: 202-944-3300 

FPC(: 202-944-3306 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FPC(: 202-366-7536 · 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0291 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Atte.ntion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.