,. . .;:^^;^SrT]nTAi](3i;!^ ^ U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N \f=^

- ^ \I C r \ -'.,'!>:\L I UrrnMiiUh O FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION . ^S^r^f^l M ^ ^ m \AU G 1 8 P 2

- 3 b .. ^ < ^ m \ 

# ^ ;r:^RU4 G DOCKE

T I n th e matte r

of : FA A Docke t No . CPIOSWOOI

O FDM S NO . FAA-2010-097 4 . AI RZ FLYIN G SERVIC E INC . Cas e No . 200 9 SW9rO05 I JUDGE ; GOODWI N RESPONDENT' S REPL Y T O ADMINISTRATOR' S SUPPLEMEN T T O MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N No w come s Responden t

Air Z Flyin g Servic e Inc , an dsubmit s it s respons e to Administrator' s supplemen t

t o it s motio n fo

r decision . O n Jun e 2 , 201 1 th e counse l fo r th e Administrato r

conducte da brie f depositio n o f

on e Bradle y Rohl , wh o wa s th e Respondent' s Designate dEmploye r Representativ e (DER) . A s will b e show n below , i t wa s disastrou s to th e Administrator . Th e Administrato r no w strangel y file s asupplemen t t o it s origina l motio n to decisio n claimin g tha t i t ha s i n effect show n ther e ca n b e n o material fact

regardin g whethe r

Administrato r

ca n prov e Responden t

Air Z receive d confimiation , i

n an v mamier . o f

th e negativ e dru g tes t

resul t fo r th e subjec t

Ric h Kovaci c before h e (Kovacic ) worke do n a

n Ai r Z aircraf t o n Jun e 6 , 2008 . Nothin g coul db e furthe r fro mth e truth . A s set fort h below , th e depositio n transcrip t an dadditiona l material s Administrato r submitte donl y serv e t o strengthe n th e cas e o f

th e Respondent .L

. I t i s uncontroverte dtha

t subjec t employe e Kovaci c gav e aurin e specime n t o th e collectin g agenc y o n Ma y 28 , 2008 . Administrato r furthe r admit s i n discovery response s that i t appear s yo

u (Respondent ) hav e determine dth e correc t date s fo r th e specime n analysi s an dth e dat e o f writte n confirmatio n b y th e (Medical Revie w Officer) . Th e dat e fo r th e testin g o f

th e specime n b y th e la

b woul dhav e bee n o

n o r before Ma

y 30 . 2008 , an dth e dat e tha t th e MR O signe dof

f o n suc h woul db e Jun e 6 , 2008 . (Se e Exhibit s 3 , 8 o f

Administrator' s origina l motio n an dExhibi t "B " o f Respondent' s origina l respons e t o Administrator' s motion. )

Furthermore , Bradle y Roh l ha s testifie di n hi s depositio n tha

t h e receive dconfirmatio n o f th e negativ e resul t o f th e subjec t

Kovacic' s dru g tes t

before h e (Kovacic ) worke do n th e subjec t aircraf t o n Jun e 6 , 2008 . Thi s wa s don e telephonicall y o n o r abou t Ma y 28 , 2008 , bu t

clearl y before th e subjec t began wor

k o n th e aircraft . I

n tha t supplement , th e Administrator' s counse l attempt s to mak e somethin g out o f th e fac t tha t th e dat e o f

Ma y 28 , 200 8 coul dno t

b e correct , bu t

Mr . Rohl testifie dth e dat e coul db e of f b y a da y o r so . {Se e pg . 1 5 o f

Bradle y Roh l depositio n transcrip t attache dto Administrator' s supplemental. ) Th e record s submitte dpreviousl y sho w that th e specime n wa s probabl y teste dan dconfirme dnegativ e o n Ma y 29 , 200 8 o r

Ma y 30 , 2008 , an dthe n officiall y verifie di n writin g b y th e MR O o n Jun e 6 , 2008 . {Se e exhibit s 3 an d8 o f

Administrator' s origina l motion. ) I n th e depositio n transcript , Administrator' s Counse l als o trie dto mak e som e headwa y b y allegin g tha t Mr . Rohl' s statemen t

tha t he receive dth e infonnatio n from"Choic e Point " before the y coul dhav e officiall y ha dit , an dno t

th e designate dMR O (a t th e time) , t o wit

ASTS , an dals o question s i f Mr . Rohl remember s anythin g abou t th e perso n wit

h who mh e spoke . Howeve r thi s i s al l a're dherring" , a s i t i s clear fromth e documentatio n tha t th e informatio n betwee n th e tw o companie s wa s freely exchanged , an dsuc h writte n documentatio n Choic ePoint

wa s incomplet e a

t best . (Tr . Pg . 15 , line s 18-25) . I n fac t th e officia

l negativ e repor

t o f Jul y 17 , 200 8 come s fro

mChoic e Point , no t

th e designate dMRO , ASTS . (Se e exhibi t 2 o f Administrator' s original motion)' . I

t i s clear tha t thes e companie s ha

dn o proble mexchangin g tes t resul t infonnation . Moreover , i n thi s regar dth e Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s themselve s specificall y state s tha t communicatio n o f

th e result s b y direc t

telephon e contac t

t o DRE (i n thi s cas e Bradle y Rohl ) i s th e preferre dmetho do f

immediat e reporting . (See , 4 9 CF Rsubpar t G , sectio n 40.167 . (a)(1)) . Th e transmissio n o f

th e officia

l report i s don e thereafter . (Usuall y withi n tw o days ) (See , 4 9 CF Rsubpar t G sectio n 40.16 7 (c) . Th e botto mlin e i s tha

t Bradle y Rohl testifie di

n tha t deposition , an dwil l s o testif y a t trial , tha t t o th e bes t o f hi s recollectio n h e receive dconfirmatio n o f th e negativ e resul t

telephonicall y (th e preferre d method ) an drecorde dsuc h informatio n o n th e file, hi s busines s recordwhic h h e produce da t suc h deposition . (Depositio n exhibi t 13 ) Thi s sanctione dprocedur e unde r th e Cod e o f

Federal Regulation s aforementione dwa s hi s normal procedur e fo r al l suc h dru g tests . (Depositio n transcrip t - pp . 9-12 ) prio r to th e tim e an y subjec t

employe e eve r

worke do n a

n Air Z Airplan e i

n asafet y sensitiv e function . Whether thi s confirmatio n o f

th e negativ e resul t

fo r th e employe e Kovaci c wa s fro mChoic e Point , ASTS , Concentr a(th e collectin g agency ) or an y combinatio n o f

thos e i s irrelevan t

a s i t i s clea r tha t th e informatio n wa s freely exchange damongs t thos e agencie s an

dBradle y Rohl properl y relie dupo n them . Thos e uncontroverte dfact s are not speculatio n a s allege db y th e Administrator . The y are soli devidenc e fo r th e trier o f fac t to conside r

o n th e material issue s involved . Period .

' I t i s imerestin g t

o noi e ho w eve aAdministrator' s counse l wil l no t sa y tha t Choic e Point , aUhoug h no t bein g th e designate d MRO , di dnot

hav e acces s l o suc h infomiation . H e simpl y say s the y di dno t hav e i t "a t tha t time" . But

thi s i s base dupo n th e date s o f transmissio n o f

th e officia

l report s stil l file, no t

o n any recordo f

report s the y n o longe r

hav e o r more importantly , o n any record s o f

direc t telephoni c communication , th e preferre dmethod . Additionally , a s wil l b e show n trial , th e transcript s o f th e person s interviewe db y th e FA A i n conjunctio n wit

h thi s cas e ar e internall y inconsistent , an di n som e cases , i

n direc t conflic t wit h th e document s the y submitte di n discovery . Bu

t i t i s no t necessary t

o discus s thos e specifi c issue s fo r th e purpose s o f

thi s motion . The y ar e matter s o f weight andcredibility fo

r th e trie r o f fac t t o resolv e a

t ahearing , no t

i n thi s motion . 3II . CONCLUSIO N

Administrato r

ha s th e burde n o f

proo f no t onl y i n thi s motion , but

throughou t

th e case . Moreove r

i n a motio n fo r decisio n suc h a s this , th e Administrato r woul dhav e to absolutel y negat e al l reasonabl e interpretation s o f

th e set o f fact s proffere db y th e Responden t to prevail . Thi s i s aver

y difficul t burde n a b initio , bu t

i t i s heightene deve n mor e b y th e fac t Administrato r

mus t prov e a"negative " Administrato r

i s clearl y askin g thi s Cour t t o say tha

t a t trial , ther e woul db e evidenc e to sho w (1 ) Respondent' s employe e clearl y di dno t hav e anegativ e confirmatio n o f th e dru g tes t

an d(2 ) ther e woul d b e n o informatio n whatsoeve r upo n whic h t o bas e afinding that Responden t

ha dreceive daverbal confirmatio n o f

th e negativ e tes t

prio r to subjec t

employe e Kovaci c workin g o n a n aircraf t i n asafet y sensitiv e function . Base dupo n what ha s bee n submitted , an da s mor e clearl y expounde dbelow , thi s i s a n impossibl e tas k

fo r Administrator .

Th e Administrato r

file dthi s cas e upo n th e mistake n assumptio n that th e specime n fo

r th e subjec t

wa s no t even teste dunti l Jul y 17 , 2008 , mor e than amont h afte r subjec t worke do n th e subjec t

aircraf t o n Jun e 6 , 2008 . (Se e Complaint ) Ha dthi s bee n th e case , ther e woul db e nothin g to argu e abou t here a s a violatio n woul dhav e unquestionabl y occurred . Howeve r th e discovery proces s ha s reveale dtha t th e fact s upo n whic h suc h Complain t wa s base dare grossl y i

n error . Th e dru g specime n o f th e subjec t employe e wa s tested , foundt o b e negative , an dverifie dnegativ e o n o r

before Jun e 6 , 200 8 th e dat e subjec t first worke do n a

n aircraf t i n asafet y sensitiv e flmction . Th e proffere dtestimon y an dstatement s o f Bradle y Rohl , an

dth e weigh t

an dcredibility o f

al l th e evidenc e ar e presen t materia l o f

fac t o n th esol e remainin g issu e o f whe n Responden t

receive daverbal confimiatio n o f tha t result . Administrato r havin g painte ditsel f

into acorne r

wit h th e origina l incorrec t

factua l allegations , no w ask s thi s cour t to bai l th e Administrato r

out , b y grantin g judgmen t to i t a s amatte r

o f la w to avoi daburde n o f

proo f tha t carmo t b e accomplishe deve n a

t trial . Ther e i s aclea

r material issu e o f

fac t to b e decide da

t trial . Th e motio n shoul db e denied .

Respectfull y Submitted , Laurenc e E . Rohl , Presiden t Ai r Z Flyin g Servic e Inc . 35 5 Richmon dRd . Hangar 5 Richmon dHeights , Ohi o 4414 3 216-261-299 2

Certificat e o f

Servic e A cop y o f thi s answe r

to th e Motio n fo

r Decisio n wa s serve dthi s 6t h day o f Augus t 201 1 b y regula r mai l on : 1 . Nicola s R . Millard , Attorney , Enforcemen t Divisio n AGC-30 0 Offic e o f Chie f Counsel , Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washingto n D . C . 2059 1 2 . Hearin g Docket , Federal Aviatio n Administration , Orvill e Wrigh t Building , 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S . W. , Washingto n D . C . 2059 1

Laurenc e E . Rohl