BECElVl 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ifp- - i 20H 

HEARING DOCKET ^^^^^^^^ AVIATION ^^^'^'^^^^^^^f.-j^pjrjG DOCKET 

SE? T1 2011 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMrNlSTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

DEAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondeni. 

FAA Docket No. FAA-20n-0069 

FAA Case Nos. 20I0SOI90256, 

2010SOI90260 

Judge Sullivan 

RESPONSE TO AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Soo 

c73 

The FAA has received Respondent's Anhended Notice to lake the depositions of five 

FAA inspectors on August 30-31, 2011. For the reasons discussed below, the Agency objects to 

the Amended Notices, and will not produce the identified individuals at the dates and times 

requested. 

On May 13, 2011, the FAA issued a variety of discovery requests to Respondent. 

Respondent timely responded to the discovery requests. However. Respondent's discovery 

-responses-were substantially'inadequate. For example, in a case witii disputed factual allegations 

concerning maintenance on multiple aircraft and the nature of multiple flights, all conducted by a 

flight school that is required by regulation to keep years' worth of records. Respondent declined 

to produce a single maintenance document, business record, logbook, or training record. 

Nevertheless, some of Respondent's discovery responses indicated that there may not 

actually be a dispute as to much of the underlying factual issues in this case. Accordingly, the 

undersigned requested that he and opposing counsel work to stipulate to certain seemingly 
f 

uncontested facts, so as to narrow the scope of discovery, and possibly obviate the need for 

Respondent to comply with some of the FAA's discovery requests. Opposing counsel indicated 

that Respondeni would not discuss such matters until discovery was completed. 

Accordingly, on July 29, 2011. the Agency sent to Respondeni a list of the numerous 

deficiencies in Respondent's discovery responses. In that letter, the undersigned noted the 

agreement between himself and opposing counsel ihat it would be appropriate to schedule the 

deposition of Respondent and any depositions of FAA personnel in the same lime frame. The 

undersigned also noted that a sufficient response to the FAA's discovery requests was necessary 

before a proper deposition of Respondent could be conducted, and specifically requested that 

Respondent fully reply to the discovery requests before the week of August 22. 201 !. so as to 

avoid interfering with the depositions that were scheduled for that week. Respondent did not 

respond to the letter, or make any effort to discuss with the undersigned the deficiencies 

identified. 

Respondeni and the F.-XA exchanged deposition notices for the week of August 22, 2011. 

However, due to a Ihree-ueek vacation. Rcs'pondenl requested that the depositions be moved 

back a week. The undersigned agreed to having the depositions be moved, and lelephonically 

retmnd_cd_opppsing. counscLlhat-Respondent-sti!l--had^not'complied-with the"FA"-\"s discovery 

requests. The Amended Notices of Deposition at issue seek to lake the deposition of the FAA 

personnel during the week of August 29, 2011. 

As of the afternoon of August 25, 2011, Respondent had provided no supplement to his 

original, deficient discovery response. However, as the undersigned was drafting this Response. 

Respondent sent via facsimile a two-page letter response to the July 29, 201 1. letter, along with a 

single page of a document thai was created by Respondent on the afternoon of August 25, 2011. 
The July 29 letter identified eight deficiencies in Respondent's discovery response. A quick 

review (the only review possible, given the time constraints imposed by Respondent's late 

provision of the response) of the August 25 letter reveals that they are not sufficiently addressed. 

In the August 25 letter. Respondent provides a half-page of a document providing infonnation 

relating to records of Hight instruction by two individuals on two days, which inadequately 

addresses a broader request for training records. With respect to a second. Respondent asserts 

that there are no responsive documents. Respondent declines to provide any additional 

information in response to the other six {infonnation on the nature of the flights, information 

concerning the factual bases of two affirmative defenses, information svipporting the c!e minimus 

penalty requested, infoniiafion regarding communications with FAA personnel, and maintenance 

records on the aircrafl). In short, Respondent continues to have failed to substantively comply 

with the FAA's discovery requests. 

As a result of Respondent's failure to comply, the FAA will be unable to properly 

conduct the scheduled deposition of Respondent on August 29, 2011. Accordingly, that 

deposition must now be rescheduled. As has been previously discussed between the parlies, it 

would be wasteful and inappropriate for the undersigned to have to travel twice to Florida- once 

to depose.Respondcnt,.andonce-to-defend-the depositions'^of lIiFFAA inspectors - as a result ol 

Respondent's refusal to comply with discovery requests or to discuss stipulations that might 

render those discovery requests moot. Accordingly, the FAA hereby objects to the Amended 

Notices of Deposition, and will not be producing the identified FAA inspectors at the time 

requested.' 

' The FAA does not waive ils right U) llle a Motion to Compel, to object to any fiinhcr rescheduling of these 

depositions, or any other fVitiire action relating to these discovery matters Given the time conslTainis involved, it 

would be inappropriate to delay ihis response to permit the FAA to consider what turlher action may be warranted. 
Additionally, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 9.7(b), Agency counsel does not consent to the 

these requested depositions and, to the extent any prior consent to other depositions of the 

identified inspectors may still be relevant, that consent is withdrawn. 

r i h Respectfully submitted this 25 day of August, 201 I, 

C 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counse 

ENSON 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Response to Amended Notice of Taking Depositions was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail and Federal Express to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 [ndependence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

one copy via certified mail, Federal Express, and facsimile to: 

The Honorable Jeslyn E. Sullivan 

Ofiice of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

ficsimile: (202) 366-7536 

one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: 

Stuart Goldstein, Esq. 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P.A. 

9350 South Dixie Highway, lOth Floor 

Miami. PL 33156 

facsimile (305) 670-7065 

•GeRALD-JEN>riNGS-' ' 

Program Analyst 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

AUG 2 5 ZOll