U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION 

# R E

# cEI 

# vED

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant,

vs. WEBGISTIX CORPORATION, Respondent. 

## JUN 162015 

## HEARING DOCKET

FAADocketNo. FAA-2015-0208 Judge Goodwin

AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO WEBGISTIX CORPORATION REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY The Agency, by the undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 14 C.F.R 13.220(d), and Ru1es 33 and 34 ofthe Federal Ru1es ofCivil Procedure the hereby files its Responses to Respondent's First Continuing Interrgatories andFirst Requestfor Production ofDocuments as follows: OBJECTIONS 1. Complainant objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to call for production of documents and information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney workproduct doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. 2. Complainant objects to the Requests to the extentthatthey purport to call for the production ofdocuments and informationthat are inthepublic domain and are equally accessible to Respondent, including LEXIS/NEXIS, Westlaw, and other computer databases. 5. Complainant objects to the Requests to the extent they call for the production of documents and information no longer in the possession ofthe FAA or in the possession ofthird parties notwithinthe control ofthe FAA.REQUESTS FORADMISSION
1. 

### Deny. 2. Deny. 3. 

### Deny. 4. Withoutknowledge to admit or deny. 5. 

### Without knowledge to admit or deny. 6. 

### Deny. 7. Deny.
INTERROGATORIES 

### Interrogatory No. 1: Identify the individual or individuals who investigated, reviewed, evaluated, or otherwise interpreted or offered any opinions as to the events outlined in the Complaint. Response to InterrgatoryNo. 1 : Objection. 

### Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the objection, the Complainant responds as follows: 1. Beverly Farris Special Agent Office ofSecurity and Hazardous Materials, ASH-430 Ormsby Three Bldg. FAA Louisville FSD0-17 10200 Forest Green Blvd. Louisville, KY40223 Suite 312

22. Veronica Quinones-Laughlin Special Agent Office ofSecurity andHazardous Materials, ASH-420 11410 NW 20th St. Miami, FL 33172 3. Kathleen Anniuk FormerHazmat Safety Specialist Office ofSecurity and Hazardous Materials Safety, ASH-740 (address unknown) 4. Staci Baldwin Hazmat Safety Specialist Office ofSecurity and Hazardous Materials Safety, ASH-740 FAA SouthernRegional Office 1701 ColumbiaAve. College Park, GA 30337 Interrogatory No. 2: IdentifY the individual or individuals who drafted, revised, or otherwise prepared any report or internal documentation concerningthe events outlined inthe Complaint. Responseto Interrgatory No. 2: Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the objection, the Complainantresponds as follows: I. BeverlyFarris OrmsbyThreeBldg. FAALouisville FSD0-17 10200 Forest GreenBlvd. Louisville, KY40223 Suite 312 2. Veronica Quinones-Laughlin Special Agent Office ofSecurity and Hazardous Materials, ASH-420

11410 NW20th St. Miami, FL 33172 33. KathleenAnniuk Former Hazmat Safety Specialist Office ofSecurity andHazardous Materials Safety, ASH-740 (address uuknown) InterrogatoryNo. 3: Is it yourcontention that, under the Sanction Guidance Matrix, Webgistix's alleged conductwith regards to the events outlined in the Complaint should be treated as something more than a Minimum weightinfraction? Responseto Interrgatory No. 3: Yes. InterrogatoryNo.4: If you answered Interrogatory No. 3 in the affirmative, please identifY each factor under the Sanction Guidance Matrix thatjustifiesyourposition. Response to InterrgatoryNo.4: Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the objection, the Complainantresponds as follows: Under the Agency's Policy on Enforcement ofHazardous Materials Regulations: Penalty Guidelines, FAA Order 2150.B Appendix C, Respondent was determined to be a Category D violator

- a business entity that regularly offers, accepts, or transports hazardous materials in the course of its business. The offense category was determined to be Category IT-Undeclared Shipment Within Hazmat Quantity Limitations. After determining the appropriative categories and intersecting box ofthe Matrix, the subcategories ofoffenses alleged to have been violated
were determined. Respondent was alleged to have committed violations of the following

4

### subcategories

- shipping papers, labeling, marking, packaging, training, release, and emergency response. Pursuant to the Penalty Guidelines, Class 8, Packing Group II materials are designated in the "MODERATE" weight risk category for hazardous materials. In accordance with the Penalty Guidelines, the civil penalty range for a Category D violator in offense Category II is $5,000-$13,000 per subcategory ofoffense. Based on the weighting analysis performed, an appropriate penalty was assigned for each ofthe applicable violations groups. The penalty amount for each violation group was then added together to reach the recommended civil penalty. (The same penalty amount was assigned to eachviolation group.)
InterrogatoryNo. 5: Is it your contention that the MMS Original Water Purification Drops that Webgistix allegedly shipped as a Sodium Chlorite Solution, designated aHazard Class 8 

### Corrosive substance? Response to InterrgatoryNo.5: Yes. Interrogatory No. 6: Has the FAA commenced, undertaken, completed, or otherwise enforced any ofthe regulations cited inthe Complaint against Future HealthToday, Ltd. d/b/a Keavy's Komer? Response to Interrgatorv No.6: Objection. 

### Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney workproduct doctrine, or any other applicable privilege.



### 5Interrogatory No. 7: Ifyou answered Interrogatory No.6 inthe affirmative, please describe the specific nature ofthat enforcement action. Response to InterrgatoryNo. 7: Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney workproduct doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Interrogatory No. 8: Please identify the name, occupation, and business address ofeach person the FAA intends to call as awitness in this proceeding. Response to InterrgatoryNo.8: 

### 1. Beverly Farris Special Agent Office ofSecurity and Hazardous Materials, ASH-430 Ormsby Three Bldg. FAALouisville FSD0-17 10200 Forest Green Blvd. Louisville, KY40223 Suite 312 2. Veronica Quinones-Laughlin Special Agent Office ofSecurity and Hazardous Materials, ASH-420 11410NW 20th St. Miami, FL 33172 3. Staci Baldwin Hazmat Safety Specialist Office ofSecurity and Hazardous Materials Safety, ASH-740 FAA Southern Regional Office 1701 ColumbiaAve. College Park, GA 30337



### 6Interrogatory No. 9: Please identifY the subject matter upon which each intended witness is expected to testifY, the facts and opinions as to which each intended witness is expected to testifY, and a summary ofthe grounds for each opinion. Responseto Interrgatory No.9: The individuals indentifed in Interrogatory No. 8 are Special Agents and/or Hazmat Safety Specialist with the Federal Aviation Administration Office ofSecurity and Hazardous Materials Safety. They are expected to testifY, inc!uding but not limited to their knowledge regarding the investigation conducted into the undeclared shipment offered by. They are also expected to testifY regarding the sanctionproposed inthis matter for the undeclared shipment. InterrogatoryNo. I0: Please identifY each expert witness the FAA may call to testifY at a hearing on this matter. For each expert witness identified, state the subject matter upon which each is expected to testifY, summarize the substance of such expected testimony (including, without limitation, the substance ofexpected opinion testimony) and state the grounds for each such opinion (including, without limitation, identification of all facts, treatises, reports, records, documents or tangible that form the basis for such opinion). Response to InterrgatoryNo. 10: At this time the Agency does not intend to designate an expert witness. Should this change the Agency will amend its response to this Interrogatory.
REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION Requestfor ProductionNo. 1: Please produce copies ofall reports or other documents gernerated as a result ofany investigation inthe allegations outlined inthe Complaint.

7Response to ReguestNo. 1: Attached to the discovery at Attachment No. 1 are the releasable portions of Enforcement Investigative Report 2013S0700031. Request for ProductionNo.2: Ifyou identified any factors under Interrogatory No. 4, please produce all evidence supporting those contentions. Response to ReguestNo.2: Objection. Complainant objects to the Request to the extentthat it purports to call for the production ofdocuments that are inthe public domain and are equally accessible to Respondent, including LEXIS/NEXIS, Westlaw, and other computer databases. Notwithstanding the above objection, the Complainant answers as follows: 1. Attachedto the discovery at AttachmentNo.2 is Appendix C ofthe FAA Order 2150.3B. 2. See also Item ofProofNo.3 and 7 included in the releasable portions ofthe Enforcement Investigative Report 20 13S0700031. 3. See also 49 C.F.R. §172.101 entry for Chlorite Solution, Hazard Class 8, UN 1908. Request for ProductionNo.3: Please produce copies ofany and all medical reports, injury reports, or other documents produced or generated following the events that gave rise to the allegations inthe Complaint. Response to RequestNo. 3: Objection. Complainant objects to the Request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents not longer in the possession of the FAA or in the possession of third parties not withinthe control ofthe FAA. Notwithstanding the objection, the FAA answers as follows:

8Attached to the discovery at Attachment No. 1 are the releasable portions of Enforcement Investigative Report 2013S0700031. See Item ofProofNo. 2.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day ofJune 2015.

ORGE Senior Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel

9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Agency Responses to Webgistix Corporation's Request for Discoverywas mailedby Federal Express to: Hearing Docket FAA, AGC-10, Room 924A 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 aud viaFacimile aud Federal Express to: Patrick G. Byrne, Esq. Justin A. 

### Shiroff, Esq. 

### 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 (FAX) (702) 784-5252

# ~~A~EY~MOO~ Legal Assistant 

### ,!UN I 5 2015 Dated (Original+ I copy)

10