# BECElV l U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O F HEARING S ifp

- - i 20 H 

## HEARIN G DOCKE T ^^^^^^^ ^ AVIATIO N 

## ^^^'^'^^^^^^^f.-j^pjrj G DOCKE T SE ? 

### T 1 201 1

FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMrNlSTRATION , Complainant , vs . DEA N INTERNATIONAL , INC. , Respondeni . FA A Docket No . FAA-20n-006 9 FA A Cas e Nos . 20I0SOI90256 ,

2010SOI9026 0 Judg e Sullivan RESPONS E T O AMENDE D NOTIC E O F DEPOSITIO N 

## So o c7 3 Th e FA A ha s receive dRespondent' s Anhende dNotic e to lake th e deposition s o f five FA A inspector s o

n Augus t 30-31 , 2011 . Fo r

th e reason s discusse dbelow , th e Agenc y object s to th e Amende dNotices , an dwil l not produc e th e identifie dindividual s a t th e date s an

dtime s requested . O n Ma y 13 , 2011 , th e FA

A issue davariety o f

discovery request s to Respondent . Responden t

timel y responde dt

o th e discovery requests . However . Respondent' s discovery -responses-were substantially'inadequate . Fo r example , i

n acas e witi i dispute dfactua l allegation s concernin g maintenanc e o n multipl e aircraf t an dth e natur e o f

multipl e flights , all conducte db y a fligh t schoo l tha

t i s require db y regulatio n to keep years ' wort h o f records . Responden t

decline d t o produc e asingl e maintenanc e document , busines s record , logbook , o r trainin g record . Nevertheless , som e o f

Respondent' s discovery response s indicate dtha t there ma

y not actuall y b e adisput e a s t o muc h o f th e underlyin g factua

l issue s i n thi s case . Accordingly , th e undersigne drequeste dtha t h e an dopposin g counse l wor k t o stipulat e to certai n seemingl y

# f

unconteste dfacts , s o a s to narro w th e scop e o f discovery , an dpossibl y obviat e th e nee dfo r Responden t

to compl y wit

h som e o f

th e FAA' s discovery requests . Opposing counse l indicate d tha t Responden i woul dnot

discus s suc h matter s unti l discovery wa s completed . Accordingly , o

n Jul y 29 , 2011 . th e Agenc y sen t to Responden i alis t

o f th e numerou s deficiencie s i

n Respondent' s discovery responses . I n tha t letter , th e undersigne dnote dth e agreemen t betwee n himsel f

an dopposin g counse l iha t i t woul db e appropriat e t

o schedul e th e depositio n o f

Responden t

an dan y deposition s o f

FA A personne l i

n th e sam e lim e frame . Th e undersigne dals o note dtha t asufficient

respons e to th e FAA' s discovery request s wa s necessar y before aproper

depositio n o f

Responden t

coul db e conducted , an dspecificall y requeste dtha t Responden t

full y repl y t o th e discovery request s before th e week o f Augus t 22 . 20 1 ! . s o a s t

o avoi dinterferin g wit

h th e deposition s tha

t wer e schedule dfo

r tha t week . Responden t

di dnot respon dto th e letter , o r make an y effor

t t o discus s wit

h th e undersigne dth e deficiencie s identified . Responden i an

dth e F.-X A exchange ddepositio n notice s fo r th e week o f Augus t 22 , 2011 . However , du e t

o aIhree-uee k

vacation . Rcs'ponden

l requeste dtha

t th e deposition s b e move d back aweek . Th e undersigne dagree dt o havin g th e deposition s b e moved , an dlelephonicall y retmnd_cd_opppsing . counscLlhat-Respondent-sti!l--had^not'complied-with the"FA"-\" s discovery requests . Th e Amende dNotice s of Depositio n a

t issu e see k to lake th e depositio n o f th e FA A personne l durin g th e week o f Augus t 29 , 2011 . As o f th e afternoo n o f

Augus t 25 , 2011 , Responden t

ha dprovide dn o supplemen t t o hi s original , deficient

discovery response . However , a s th e undersigne dwa s draftin g thi s Response . Responden t

sen t vi afacsimil e atwo-pag e letter respons e t

o th e Jul y 29 , 20 1 1 . letter , alon g wit h a singl e pag e o f

adocumen t

tha i wa s create db

y Responden t

o n th e afternoo n o f

Augus t 25 , 2011 .Th e Jul y 2 9 lette r identifie deigh t

deficiencie s i

n Respondent' s discover y response . A quic k revie w (th e onl y revie w possible , give n th e tim e constraint s impose db y Respondent' s lat e provisio n o f

th e response ) o f

th e Augus t

2 5 lette r reveal s that

the y ar e no t

sufficientl y addressed . I n th e Augus t

2 5 letter . Responden t

provide s ahalf-pag e o f adocumen t

providin g infonnatio n relatin g t o record s o f

High t instructio n b y tw o individual s o n tw o days , whic h inadequatel y addresse s abroade r

reques t fo r trainin g records . With respec t t o asecond . Responden t assert s tha t ther e ar e n o responsiv e documents . Responden t decline s t o provid e an y additiona l informatio n i n respons e t o th e othe r si x {infonnatio n o n th e natur e o f th e flights , informatio n concernin g th e factua l base s o f tw o affirmativ e defenses , informatio n svipportin g th e c! e minimu s penalt y requested , infoniiafio n regardin g communication s with FA A personnel , an dmaintenanc e record s o n th e aircrafl) . I n short , Responden t

continue s t

o hav e faile dt o substantivel y compl y wit h th e FAA' s discover y requests . A s aresul t

o f Respondent' s failur e t o comply , th e FA A wil l b e unabl e t o properl y conduc t th e schedule ddepositio n o f Responden t

o n Augus t

29 , 2011 . Accordingly , that depositio n mus t

no w b e rescheduled . A s ha s bee n previousl y discusse dbetwee n th e parlies , i t woul db e wastefu l an dinappropriat e for th e undersigne dt o hav e t o trave l twic e t o Florida

- onc e t o depose.Respondcnt,.andonce-to-defend-th e depositions'^o f lIiFFA A inspector s - a s aresul t o l Respondent' s refusa l t o compl y wit h discover y request s o r t o discus s stipulation s that migh t rende r thos e discover y request s moot . Accordingly , th e FA A hereb y object s t o th e Amende d Notice s o f

Deposition , an dwil l no t b e producin g th e identifie dFA A inspector s a t th e tim e requested. '

' Th e FA A doe s no t waiv e il s righ t U ) lll e aMotio n t o Compel , t

o objec t t o an y fiinhc r reschedulin

g o f thes e depositions , o

r an y othe r fVitiir e actio n relating t o thes e discover

y matters Give

n th e tim e conslTaini s involved , i

t woul db e inappropriat

e t o dela y ihi s respons e t

o permi t th e FA A t o conside r wha t turlhe r actio n ma y b e warranted .Additionally , pursuan t t o 4 9 C.F.R . § 9.7(b) , Agenc y counse l doe s no t consen t t o th e thes e requeste ddeposition s and , t o th e exten t an y prio r

consen t t o othe r

deposition s o f

th e identifie dinspector s ma y stil l b e relevant , tha t consen t i s withdrawn .

r i h Respectfull y submitte dthi s 2 5 da y o f August , 20 1 I , C Attorne y Offic e o f th e Regiona l Couns e

ENSO NCERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Respons e to Amende dNotic e o f Takin g Deposition s wa s sent : original an

don e cop y vi acertifie dmai l an dFederal Expres s to : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 [ndependenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 on e cop y vi acertifie dmail , Federal Express , an dfacsimil e to : Th e Honorabl e Jesly n E . Sulliva n Ofiic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n 1200 New Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 ficsimile : (202 ) 366-753 6 on e cop y vi acertifie dmai l an dfacsimil e to : Stuar t Goldstein , Esq . Stuar t A . Goldstein , P.A . 935 0 Sout h Dixi e Highway , lOt

h Floo r Miami . PL 3315 6 facsimil e (305 ) 670-706 5

•GeRALD-JEN>riNGS- ' ' Progra mAnalys t Offic e of th e Regiona

l Counse l AU G 2 5 ZOl l