U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION R E c E I v ED 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

WEBGISTIX CORPORATION, 

Respondent. 

JUN 1 6 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. 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 of the Federal Ru1es of Civil Procedure the hereby files its Responses to Respondent's 

First Continuing Interrgatories and First Request for Production of Documents 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 work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. 

2. Complainant objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to call for the 

production of documents and information that are in the public 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 of the FAA or in the possession of third 

parties not within the control of the FAA. 
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

1. Deny. 

2. Deny. 

3. Deny. 

4. Without knowledge 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 Interrgatory No. 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 of Security and Hazardous Materials, ASH-430 

Ormsby Three Bldg. 

FAA Louisville FSD0-17 

10200 Forest Green Blvd. 

Louisville, KY 40223 

Suite 312 

2 
2. Veronica Quinones-Laughlin 

Special Agent 

Office of Security and Hazardous Materials, ASH-420 

11410 NW 20th St. 

Miami, FL 3 3172 

3. Kathleen Anniuk 

Former Hazmat Safety Specialist 

Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Safety, ASH-740 

(address unknown) 

4. Staci Baldwin 

Hazmat Safety Specialist 

Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Safety, ASH-7 40 

FAA Southern Regional Office 

1701 Columbia Ave. 

College Park, GA 30337 

Interrogatory No. 2: 

IdentifY the individual or individuals who drafted, revised, or otherwise prepared any report or 

internal documentation concerning the events outlined in the Complaint. 

Response to 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 

Complainant responds as follows: 

I. Beverly Farris 

Ormsby Three Bldg. 

FAA Louisville FSD0-17 

10200 Forest Green Blvd. 

Louisville, KY 40223 

Suite 312 

2. Veronica Quinones-Laughlin 

Special Agent 

Office of Security and Hazardous Materials, ASH-420 

11410 NW 20th St. 

Miami, FL 3 3172 

3 
3. Kathleen Anniuk 

Former Hazmat Safety Specialist 

Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Safety, ASH-740 

(address uuknown) 

Interrogatory No. 3: 

Is it your contention that, under the Sanction Guidance Matrix, Webgistix's alleged conduct with 

regards to the events outlined in the Complaint should be treated as something more than a 

Minimum weight infraction? 

Response to Interrgatory No. 3: 

Yes. 

Interrogatory No.4: 

If you answered Interrogatory No. 3 in the affirmative, please identifY each factor under the 

Sanction Guidance Matrix that justifies your position. 

Response to Interrgatory No.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 

Complainant responds as follows: 

Under the Agency's Policy on Enforcement of Hazardous 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 of the Matrix, the subcategories of offenses 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 of offense. 

Based on the weighting analysis performed, an appropriate penalty was assigned for each 

of the 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 

each violation group.) 

Interrogatory No. 5: 

Is it your contention that the MMS Original Water Purification Drops that Webgistix allegedly 

shipped as a Sodium Chlorite Solution, designated a Hazard Class 8 Corrosive substance? 

Response to Interrgatory No.5: 

Yes. 

Interrogatory No. 6: 

Has the FAA commenced, undertaken, completed, or otherwise enforced any of the regulations 

cited in the Complaint against Future Health Today, 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 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. 

5 
Interrogatory No. 7: 

If you answered Interrogatory No.6 in the affirmative, please describe the specific nature of that 

enforcement action. 

Response to Interrgatory No. 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 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. 

Interrogatory No. 8: 

Please identify the name, occupation, and business address of each person the FAA intends to 

call as a witness in this proceeding. 

Response to Interrgatory No.8: 

1. Beverly Farris 

Special Agent 

Office of Security and Hazardous Materials, ASH-430 

Ormsby Three Bldg. 

FAA Louisville FSD0-17 

10200 Forest Green Blvd. 

Louisville, KY 40223 

Suite 312 

2. Veronica Quinones-Laughlin 

Special Agent 

Office of Security and Hazardous Materials, ASH-420 

11410 NW 20th St. 

Miami, FL 3 3172 

3. Staci Baldwin 

Hazmat Safety Specialist 

Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Safety, ASH-740 

FAA Southern Regional Office 

1701 ColumbiaAve. 

College Park, GA 30337 

6 
Interrogatory 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 of the 

grounds for each opinion. 

Response to Interrgatory No.9: 

The individuals indentifed in Interrogatory No. 8 are Special Agents and/or Hazmat Safety 

Specialist with the Federal Aviation Administration Office of Security 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 sanction proposed in this matter for the undeclared shipment. 

Interrogatory No. I 0: 

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 of expected 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 Interrgatory No. 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 FOR PRODUCTION 

Request for Production No. 1: 

Please produce copies of all reports or other documents gernerated as a result of any investigation 

in the allegations outlined in the Complaint. 

7 
Response to Reguest No. 1: 

Attached to the discovery at Attachment No. 1 are the releasable portions of Enforcement 

Investigative Report 2013S0700031. 

Request for Production No.2: 

If you identified any factors under Interrogatory No. 4, please produce all evidence supporting 

those contentions. 

Response to Reguest No.2: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Request to the extent that it purports to call for the 

production of documents that are in the 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. Attached to the discovery at Attachment No.2 is Appendix C of the FAA Order 2150.3B. 

2. See also Item of Proof No.3 and 7 included in the releasable portions of the Enforcement 

Investigative Report 20 13 S0700031. 

3. See also 49 C.F.R. § 172.101 entry for Chlorite Solution, Hazard Class 8, UN 1908. 

Request for Production No.3: 

Please produce copies of any and all medical reports, injury reports, or other documents produced 

or generated following the events that gave rise to the allegations in the Complaint. 

Response to Request No. 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 

within the control of the FAA. Not withstanding the objection, the FAA answers as follows: 

8 
Attached to the discovery at Attachment No. 1 are the releasable portions of Enforcement 

Investigative Report 20 13S0700031. See Item of Proof No. 2. 

Respectfully submitted this 15th day ofJune 2015. 

ORGE 

Senior Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

9 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Agency Responses to Webgistix Corporation's 

Request for Discovery was mailed by Federal Express to: 

Hearing Docket 

FAA, AGC-10, Room 924A 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

aud via Facimile 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