RE D 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC 

HEARING DOCKET 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No, 2012S0090053 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION TO AMEND 

THE COURT'S RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER 

Now Comes the Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, by its attorneys, Barnett 

& Borth, LLC. and in response to the Administrator's motion to amend this Court's Rule 

16 scheduling order states as follows: 

1) In March of 2015, the parties engaged in discussions to arrive at a mutually 

agreeable Rule 16 pre-trial order. At that time all issues that were pertinent to the 

discovery and motion practice that were anticipated were discussed. These discussions 

culminated in a joint Rule 16 discovery plan that was submitted to this Court in advance 

of the Court's scheduled Rule 16 scheduling conference. (See Exhibit A). 

2) At the Rule 16 conference, the Administrator's counsel did not indicate that any 

dispositive motions would be filed and, accordingly, no time for the briefmg of such 

motions was allotted for in the Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures ("Rule 16 

Order") ultimately entered by the Court in this case. (See Exhibit B). 

3) Consistent with the paragraph 1 of the Court's Rule 16 Order, the Respondent 

timely filed its initial Rule 26 disclosures on Aprill6, 2015. (See Exhibit C). 

liP age 
4) Consistent with the paragraph 2 of the Court's Rule 16 Order, the Respondent 

timely filed its initial general discovery on Apri120, 2015. (See Exhibit D, 

Interrogatories, Exhibit E, Requests for Production, and Exhibit F, Expert discovery). 

Each of these discovery items were properly sent to the e-mail address ofFAA's attorney 

of record. (See proof of service attached to Exhibits D, E and F). 

5) Prior to the August 21,2015 closing of discovery in this matter, Respondent's 

counsel make multiple requests of then Administrator's' counsel, Deitrick Johnson, to 

comply with outstanding discovery. 

6) As of August 21,2015, Respondent complied with all of the Administrator's 

discovery requests. 

7) Prior to the filing of this action, the FAA had engaged in rather extensive 

investigation that included gathering pertinent documents, interviewing all witnesses, 

securing e-mails, correspondence and statements from all pertinent witnesses, etc. All of 

this information was then placed in the FAA's Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR). 

As such, at the time of filing this Emergency action the FAA was fully apprised of the 

facts and documentary evidence involved in this matter. In fact, the Respondent's 

response to the Administrator's two Requests to Produce have only uncovered a few email transmissions that were not already contained in the Administrator's EIR. (See 

Exhibit G). Therefore, an extension of the discovery deadline will not serve to advance 

any theories of liability that the FAA has in this case. 

8) On August 19,2015, counsel for the parties engaged in a telephone conversation 

at which time counsel for the Respondent again request discovery compliance and 

assured FAA counsel that the Respondent would file responses to the FAA's outstanding 
discovery by the August 21 deadline. This was, in fact accomplished. In addition, 

Respondent's counsel requested that the FAA respond to the Respondent's outstanding 

discovery by the Rule 16 Order deadline and was informed that more time would be 

required. FAA counsel also indicated that it had not obtained any further documents 

outside of those contained in the EIR. Respondent's counsel then requested that FAA 

comply by September I, 2015 to allow Respondent's counsel to prepare and timely file 

witness lists and exhibits by the deadline imposed at paragraph I 0 of this Court's Rule 16 

Order, September 18, 2015. 

9) Further discussion was had regarding the filing of a motion for summary 

judgment and extension of time to allow for such. Respondent's counsel argued that the 

FAA had many months to file such a motion, that the documents disclosed by the 

Respondent and those contained in the EIR demonstrated questions of material fact that 

would preclude summary judgment and that virtually no new evidence that would change 

this had been disclosed by either party. In his motion, the Administrator admits that the 

"Agency doesn't feel as if it would need that motion [a summary judgment motion] 

period." (See Motion to Extend at p.3). The Administrator further admits that: 

"Respondent's discovery responses do indicate that there are factual disputes as to some 

of the details of the arrangements for the flight." 1 (See Motion to Extend at p.3). 

I 0) With the exception of allowing the Administrator some additional time to file its 

late discovery responses to allow the Respondent to adequately prepare for trial and 

1 These questions of fact come from pre-FAA investigation e-mails to and from Dr. Long, the individual 

for which the flight was arranged, that demonstrate that the flight was, in fact a demonstration flight 

conducted consistent with 14 CFR § 91.50l(b)(3). (See for example thee-mails of Dr. Long and the broker 

of the subject aircraft at Exhibit H). 
comply with the other aspects of the Court's Rule 16 Order, the Administrator's request 

for extension of time is not supported by a showing of good cause and should be denied. 

See Marmo v. IBP, Inc., No. 8:00CV527, 2005 WL 675809, at *2 (D. Neb. Feb. 3, 2005) 

(In holding there was no showing of good cause for modification of case management 

order to allow designation of new expert witness, court noted that the "primary measure" 

of the Rule 16 good cause standard "is the moving party's diligence in attempting to meet 

the case management order's requirements."). The Second Circuit has stated that while 

the "primary consideration," in determining whether the moving party has demonstrated 

good cause for an amendment under Rule 16(b) "is whether the moving party can 

demonstrate diligence [,]. .. [t]he district court, in the exercise of its discretion under Rule 

16(b ), also may consider other relevant factors, including, in particular, whether allowing 

the amendment of the pleading at this stage of the litigation will prejudice [the nonmoving party]." Kassner v. 2nd Avenue Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 244 (2d Cir. 

2007). 

11) In the event that a motion for surmnary judgment is allowed at this late date the 

Respondent would likely have to engage in depositions in order to test the opinions and 

factual scenarios set forth in the motion that, to date, were not necessary. Provided the 

Respondent receives complete discovery responses from the Administrator in the near 

future, Respondent will be able to comply with all further dictates of this Court's Rule 16 

Order. 

Wherefore, Respondent respectfully requests that this Court: 

1) Deny the Administrator's motion to extend the Rule 16 Order to allow for 

the filing of a dispositive motion. 

41Page 
2) Compel the Administrator to provide complete and forthright responses 

and answers to the Respondent's discovery requests by September 1, 2015. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

Dated: August 24, 2015 

/~L~/ -----------· C.- -~~-

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

5I Page 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date faxed, emailed and/or served by Fed-Ex the 

foregoing RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION TO 

AMEND THE COURT'S RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER addressed to: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Service by FAX: 202-366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

Service by Fed-Ex 

Christopher Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Service via e-mail: chris.stevenson@faa.gov 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

61Page 
In The Matter Of: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARTNGS 

WASHINGTON D.C. 

Docket No.: FAA-2014-0867 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 2012S0090053 

Complainant, Judge J .E. Sullivan 

v. 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, TNC. ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY PLAN 

Pursuant to Rule 26(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., and this Court's Order ofJanuary 6, 2015, 

Respondent's counsel, Paul R. Borth, and FAA counsel, Deitrick H. Johnson, conferred on 

the contents of this proposed discovery plan. 

Pre-Discovery Disclosures. 1 

April15, 2015 The parties will exchange the information required by Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(a)(l). 

Discovery Plan. 

The parties jointly propose to the Court the following discovery plan: 

Discovery will be needed on the following subjects: 

1) Complainant's complaint allegations, defenses that may become applicable during 

discovery; 

2) All other issues raised by the pleadings; 

3) Any expert disclosures; 

4) All other matters that will reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

April15, 2015 The parties shall both propound written discovery. 

May 15,2015 The parties shall exchange answers/responses to written discovery. 

EXHIBIT 

1 The parties agree to service of all documents exclusively by e-mail. A 
June 1, 2015 

July 31, 2015 

August 15, 2015 

The parties shall issue subpoenas and/or mutually arrange for 

depositions or witnesses and experts as may be necessary. 

All written discovery and depositions shall be completed. 

All motions in limine shall be filed. 

Unless by subsequent agreement of the parties or leave of Court, the parties agree as 

follows: 

Each party shall be limited to 30 interrogatories (including subparts), 30 requests for 

admission, and 30 requests for production of documents. 

Supplementations of reports or information shall be made by all parties reasonably as they 

become aware that information previously disclosed is incomplete or incorrect, and in any 

event, not later than the end of the discovery period and again thirty (30) days before the 

beginning of the session of Court at which the case is set for hearing, in conjunction with 

the other disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(3). 

Undersigned counsel have discussed discovery procedures that minimize the risk of waiver 

of privilege or work-product protection, including procedures for asserting privilege claims 

after production. 

This case should be ready for hearing on or by August 31, 2015. 

The hearing is expected to take approximately two (2) days. 

The parties request a pre-trial conference be scheduled approximately one week prior to the 

Court's hearing date to discuss any outstanding issues and rulings on motions in limine. 

Respectfully submitted, this the 20th day of March, 2015. 

Is/ Deitrick H. Johnson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Is/ Paul R. Borth 

Respondent's Counsel 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, TL 60025 

TEL: 84 7-809-9520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have served tbe foregoing JOTNT PROPOSED 

SCHEDULTNG AND DISCOVERY PLAN on this date, March 20,2015 addressed to: 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ellc31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

VIA FAX: 202-366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration (Service by Mail) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

Deitrick H. Johnson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

VIA FAX: 404-305-5223 and E-mail fll';l.\Ils,:k,hjQI:!.l:!!illli.!f!lliJ;~~ 

Dated: March 20, 2015 

( :~:=--?~2J~~.::d·j Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800W ankegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 
2015-04-07 11:29 DOT 1 >> 1-815-356-7042 p 1/6 

ln The Matter Of: 

BIRMINGHAM 

FLIGHT CENTER 

Respondent 

SERVED: APRIL 7, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A TlON 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. F' AA-2014-0867 

Case No. 2012S0090053 

ORDER SETTING LITIGATION DATES AND PROCEDURES 

On January 6, 2015. an Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and 

Directing Rule 26(1) Planning and submission was filed. 

On March 20, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Pt•oposed Scheduling and Discovery Plan. 

On Apri17. 2015, the parties appeared by telephone for the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

ConfcrQnQe, and dis;ctiS~~rl their discovery plan. calendar availability. hearing dates. and otht:r 

litigation procedural matters. 

Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(1). (6) and (7). Civ. R. 16. 14 C.F.R. § 13.217, and 14 

C.F.R. § 13.220. and after reviewing all relevant caselaw. regulation. statutory authority. and 

being fully advised~ 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

A. The litigation dates. discovet'Y procedwes. and hearing dates are hereby set as follows: 

I. Aprill7, 2015: Deadline ror Initial Disclosures. To o.:nsure that the parties have 

sufficient time to address all issues in dispute. on or before April17, 2015 the parties 

shall serve each other with initial disclosures (as described in Civ. R. 26(a)(l)(A)(i). (ii). 

and (iii)) without waiting for a specific discovery request. 

2. On or before April20, 2015: Gencr;~l Discovery Initiated. Pmsuant to 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.220(a). the parties may immediately begin conducting gt:net-al discovery. In order to 

ensure full use of the discovery time allotted in this case, the parties shall begin 

exchanging or serving general discovery requests on or before April20, 2015. pursuant 

to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220 (b). (c). (d) and (e). General discovery includes, but is not limited 

to: notices of deposition: requests for production of docume11ts; propounding 

interrog<ltories: requests for admission: etc. 

EXHIBIT E 

j 

B j ----~ 
2015-04-07 11:29 DOT 1 >> 1-815-356-7042 p 2/6 

3. Service of Interrogatories. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. s 13.220(k)(l ), a party shall not serve 

more than thirty (30) interrogatories upon each other. Each subpart of an interrogatory 

shall be counted as a separate interrogatory. 

a. Obj~ction(s} to Interrogatories. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220(k}. any objection 

in response to an interrogatory must include the reason(s) supporting the 

objection. 

4. Motions to Limit Discovery upon Receipt of Discovery Request: A party served with a 

discovery request who seeks to limit discovery pursuant to 14 C.F.R. ~ 13.220{1). (g). and 

(h). shall tile a Motion for Reliel"within ten (10) days after se1·vice of the disputed 

discovery request. 

a. Good Faith Declaration Included: The Motion should include a declaration by the 

moving party. confirming that the movant has already conferrlld or attempted to 

confer in good faith with the opposing party regarding the disputed discovery or 

disclosure, to try and resolve th~: mattet· informally. prior to seeking court rdict: 

b. Copy of Disputed Discovery: Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(b), only a copy of 

the disputed discovery, in support of the motion, should be attached to the Motion 

or the Response. 

c. Response to Motipn to Limit Discovcrv: AtlY Response to th~ Motion should be 

filed no later than ten (10) days atler service of the Motion. 

5. Motions to Compel Discovery: A party seekiog to compel discovery must !ilea Motio11 

to Compel within ten (10) days after service ofa deficient response or after the response 

to the discovery is due. whichever occms first. 

a. PJ"Ocedure for Motion: Any Motion and/or Response to Compel Discovery shall 

be filed in the same manner as directed above for Motions to Limit Discovery 

(paragraph 4 and 4 (a)-( c)). 

6. Retnincd/Hired or Employee Expert Witness Disclosures. If a party retains or hires a 

witness to provide expt:rt testimony, or a party int~:nds to utilize the testimony ol'an 

employee to give expert t<)stimony- then the party intending to otl'er s~tch witness shall 

disclose this retained or employee expert witness to the opposing side pm·suant to the 

timeline below. The expert witness disclosure shall include the name of the witness. the 

witness's expert resume or qualifications. and the witness's written report or statement of 

opinion (including disclosure or the basis of that opinion). 

a) FAA Expert Disclosure Deadline: M>~y 15,2015. 

b) Respondent Expett Disclosure Deadline: May 29, 2015. 

c) E.xpert Rebuttal Reports Deadline: ,June 12, 2015. 

Page 2 of s 
2015-04-07 11:30 DOT 1» 1-815-356-7042 p 3/6 

7. Duty to Supplement or Amend Discovery: P11rsuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(i). a party 

who has responded to a discovery request in this case has a duty to supplement or amend 

the response throughout the litigation period, as soon as the information is known. 

8. June 19,2015: Deadline for Issuing Subpoenas/Arranging for Depositions. On or 

before June 19, 2015. the parties shall issue subpoenas and/or mutually arrange for 

depositions ol'witnesses and experts as may be n~cessary. 

9. August 21, 2015: Deadline for Completing Genernl Discovery. On or before August 

21, 2015, the parties shall finish responding and serving answers to all general discovery 

requests pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220. This includes the taking of fact witness and 

expert witness depositions, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. * 13.220lj). 

10. September 18,2015: List ofWitncsses/Jo;Jtchange of Eshlblts. 011ur u"lv··~ 

September 18, 2015, the parties will serve and file. the following: 

a) A list of the witnesses the party intends to call: 

b) A short statement of the testimony expected from each such witness: 

c) The resume or statement of qualifications of each witness who will be offered as 

an expert: 

d) The documents the party intends to offer in evidence (pre•marked as noted in 

paragraph£, inji·Cl); and 

e) An index cover sheet with a brief description of each document. 

11. October 16, 2015: Written Stipulation..~ nnd/or Agreed Motions ill Limine. On or 

before October 16, 2015. the parties shall file ""Y written ~tip11lations that na•·row the 

factual or legal issues, and/or that arc agreed Motio11s in Limine. 

12. Telephone Pre-Hearing Conference: October 28,2015 (10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. ET). 

The patties shall convene by telephone for a Pre-Hearing Conference on October 28, 

2015 (10:00 a.m.-11 :00 ,\.m. ET) to discuss any outst.1ndlng issues a11d disp11ted motions 

in/imine. 

13. November 18, 2015 and November 19,2015: Hearing Dates. 

Based on the patties' agreement. the Hearing will take two (2) days or less. The 

Hea•·ing will begin on November 18,2015 (9:00 a.m•5:00 p.m. ET) in the Birmingham. 

AL area. The Hearing will continue 011 November 19,2015 (9:00 "·m-5:00 p.m. ET) 

and conclude by th~ end of that same day (5:00 p.m. EST). The speci lie loc.;ation of th~ 

Heal'ing will be provided to the parti~s prior to the Hearing. 

B. Discov.:ry Requests and Exchanges: 

Discovery •·equests and exchanges need not be tiled with the Ol'l'ict: of l·learings, 

cx~eptas part of a rnotion regarding limited dis~•wery. disputed discovery. or as part or u 

motion to compel discovery. 

P~ge 3of5 
2015-04-07 11:30 DOT 1» 1-815-356-7042 p 4/6 

C. Failure to Move for Timely Relief/Late Service of Discowry: 

The failure to timely respond to discovery requests. and/or to timely move for relief 

regarding discovery disputes during the discovery p~:riod. may result in a tinding that the 

party has. through its actions, waived its right to relief. Late service of discovery requests 

may also be grounds for denial of a motion to compel compliance with such requests. 

D. Scheduling Motion or Pre-Heal'ing Conferences on the Judge's Calt:ndar: 

Prior to the Hearing date(s). if a party wishes to schedule oral argument on any motion, or 

set up any type ofpre·hearing telephone conference on the Judge's calendar. the party shall 

first confer with opposing counsel about mutually agreeable alternate dates. The movant sh~ll 

next comact Mr. Cuo.ly L. Smith, Attorncy-Advieor, at the Office ofH,~rincs (202-366-6941) 

as soot1 as possible, with at least three (3) mutually-agreed. proposed alternate dates/times for 

the Judge's considel'ation. 

E. Exhibits Brought to the Hearing: 

Each party must bring to the Hearing at least three copies of any documents it intends to 

offer in evidence as exhibits (two for the Judge and one for the court reporter). The exhibits 

must have nn index cover sheet, lind should be pre-marked. Complainant's exhibits 

should be marked "C-1." "C·2." "C·3," etc. Respondent's exhibits should be marked .. R-1," 

R-2," "R-3." etc. 

F. Examination Process at the Hearing: 

At the Hearing. there will be the opportunity for direct examination, cross-examination. 

and t'Cdirect examination of each witness. Only one representative of a party may direct or 

cross•examinea witness on beha11'ofthat party. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.:l05 and 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.222, the Federal Rules of Evidence may be utilized as helpful guidance in determining 

the admission of evidence. 

G. Attorney Withdrawal: Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. ~ 13.218, an attorney who wishes to 

withdraw from representing a party must file a Motion to Withdraw. h1 this Motion. the 

attorney shall confirm the following: 

1. The date the Responde11t was served with written notice of the attorney's inwnt to 

withdraw; 

2. The name of the designated agent/lay representative if the Respondent in the action is 

a business entity: 

3. The current business address. telephone number. and fax numbet· ol'the Respondent 

and of its designated agent; 

4. A statement that the Respondent has been noti'fied in writing ofthe pending hearing 

dates in this litigation. as well as the pending pre-hearing discovery deadlines and 

telephone conferences; and 

5. A statement that the Respondent has been provided a copy of all Orders issued in this 

litigation. as well as any other legal documents to which the R.:spondent is entitled. 

Page 4 ofS 
2015-04-07 11:31 DOT 1 >> 1-815-356-7042 p 5/6 

1-1. Court Filing of E:<hibits with the Hearing Docket: 

All Exhibits that the parties have moved for admission during the Hearing will be 

anached to the court transcript and filed by the court reporter. 

I. Requests for Modification of this Order: 

Any 1-equests for modification of the litigation dates and procedures set forth in this Order 

should be made by written Motion. The parties may also file an agreed written request. 

.I, Clarification Ol' Questions: 

For clarifications of this order or questions with regard to the procedlu·es to be followed 

in this case. please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith. Attorney-Advisor. at the Oflice of Hearings 

(202-366-6941 ). 

PageS ofS 
2015-04-07 11:31 DOT 1 >> 1-815-356-7042 p 6/6 

Docket No. FAA-20\4-0867 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue. S.W. 

Washington, DC 2059) 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Mr. Deitrick H. Johnson 

Comp!Ciinant's Coum;d 

Federal Aviation Administration 

01'11ce of the Regional Counsel. AS0-7 

Southern Rt'gion 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park. GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Charles R. Barnett 

Respondenf's Counsel 

Bamett &. Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road. Suite 200 

Glenview. IL DUU:L~-4387 

TEL: 847-724-5520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

.Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrllliv~ Law Judge 

0111ce of Hearings. M-20 

U.S. Department oi'Tt'aJlspoltation 

1200 New .Jersey Avenue. S.E. (E11·310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Birmingham Flight Center. Inc. 

Re~1JOn,/ent 

4243 East Lake Blvd. 

Binningham. AL 35217 

'Service was by U.S. Mail, For service in person or by e'pcdited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviotion Administration. 600 Independence Avenue. S. W .. Wilbu•· Wright Building-Suite 2W 1000, Washington, 

DC 20~91: Attention: Hea,•ing Doc~et Cle<·k, AGC-430. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASlllNGTON, DC 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

Docket No. F AA-201 4-0867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No, 2012S0090053 

RESPONDENT'S INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES 

Respondent, by his attorneys, Barnett & Borth, LLC., hereby provides the following 

disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

(I )(A) Initial Disclosure. 

(i) Individuals likely to have discoverable information: 

I) Steven Pickett 

CEO 

Birmingham Flight Center 

Mr. Pickett will provide testimony respecting all FAA allegations contained in the 

Administrator's Compliant for which he has personal knowledge. In addition his testimony is 

expected to include, but will not be limited to, all facts and circumstances surrounding the 

subject demonstration flight, his occupations, the operation and history of the Birmingham Flight 

Center, his duties as CEO of the Birmingham Flight Center, his work history and work record 

including the tasks that he performed or performs, his work and employment record, his 

impressions respecting the records disclosed by the Administrator, his education, training and 

experience his relationship to the other witnesses in the case, his understanding of the purpose of 

the subject flight, his explanations for answers provided in adverse or cross examination. He 

will also provide foundation for Respondent's exhibits. 

2) Shawn Stacy Flowers 

PTC 

Birmingham Flight Center 

EXHIBIT 

c 

Mr. Flowers will provide testimony respecting all FAA allegations contained in the 

Administrator's Compliant for which he has personal knowledge. In addition his testimony is 

expected to include, but will not be limited to, all facts and circumstances surrounding the 

subject demonstration flight, his occupations, work history and work record including the tasks 

that he performed or performs, his work and employment record, his impressions respecting the 

liPage 
records disclosed by the Administrator, his education, training and experience his relationship to 

the other witnesses in the case, his conversations with Dr. Long, his planning of the subject 

demonstration flight, his understanding of the purpose of the subject demonstration flight, his 

explanations for answers provided in adverse or cross examination. He will also provide 

foundation for Respondent's exhibits. 

3) Justin Matthew Lollar 

Copilot/instructor 

Birmingham Flight Center 

Mr. Lollar will provide testimony respecting all FAA allegations contained in the 

Administrator's Compliant for which he has personal knowledge. In addition his testimony is 

expected to include, but will not be limited to, all facts and circumstances surrounding the 

subject demonstration flight, his occupations, work history and work record including the tasks 

that he performed or performs, his work and employment record, his impressions respecting the 

records disclosed by the Administrator, his education, training and experience his relationship to 

the other witnesses in the case, his conversations with Dr. Long, his planning of the subject 

demonstration flight, his understanding of the purpose of the subject demonstration flight, his 

explanations for answers provided in adverse or cross examination. He will also provide 

foundation for Respondent's exhibits. 

4) Sandi Pickett 

Owner, Birmingham Flight Center 

Ms. Pickett will provide testimony respecting all FAA allegations contained in the 

Administrator's Compliant for which she has personal knowledge. In addition her testimony is 

expected to include, but will not be limited to, all facts and circumstances surrounding the 

subject demonstration flight, her occupations, the operation and history of the Birmingham Flight 

Center, her duties with Birmingham Flight Center, her work history and work record including 

the tasks that he performed or performs, her work and employment record, her impressions 

respecting the records disclosed by the Administrator, her education, training and experience, her 

relationship to the other witnesses in the case, her understanding of the purpose of the subject 

flight, her explanations for answers provided in adverse or cross examination. She will also 

provide foundation for Respondent's exhibits. 

5) Yancey Rushton 

FAA 

Contact address currently unknown, investigation continues 

Mr. Rushton is expected to testify concerning his background, training and experience, 

his various business ventures, his experience as an FAA investigator, all aspects of the 

investigation he performed related to this case, all impressions and opinions that he made 

coincident with his investigation. He is expected to provide the foundation for the documents 

that he generated during his investigation. Investigation continues. 

21Page 
6) Pat Bruce (Operations Supervisor) 

FAA 

Contact address currently unknown, investigation continues 

Mr. Bruce is expected to testify concerning his background, training and experience, his 

various business ventures, his experience as an FAA supervisor, all aspects of the investigation 

he performed related to this case, all impressions and opinions that he made coincident with his 

investigation. He is expected to provide the foundation for the documents that he generated 

during his investigation. Investigation continues. 

7) Clay Perkins 

FAA Inspector 

Contact address currently unknown, investigation continues 

Mr. Perkins is expected to testify concerning his background, training and experience, his 

various business ventures, his experience as an FAA inspector, all aspects of the investigation he 

performed related to this case, all impressions and opinions that he made coincident with his 

investigation. He is expected to provide the foundation for the documents that he generated 

during his investigation. Investigation continues. 

8) David Hargett 

FAA Inspector 

Contact address currently unknown, investigation continues 

Mr. Hargett is expected to testify concerning his background, training and experience, his 

various business ventures, his experience as an FAA inspector, all aspects of the investigation he 

performed related to this case, all impressions and opinions that he made coincident with his 

investigation. He is expected to provide the foundation for the documents that he generated 

during his investigation. Investigation continues. 

9) BobKent 

Director of Operations, Aviation Services Group 

Mr. Kent will provide testimony respecting all FAA allegations contained in the 

Administrator's Compliant for which he has personal knowledge. In addition his testimony is 

expected to include, but will not be limited to, all facts and circumstances surrounding the 

subject demonstration flight, his occupations, the operation and history Aviation Service Group, 

his duties as director of operations of Aviation Services Group, his work history and work record 

including the tasks that he performed or performs, his work and employment record, his 

impressions respecting the records disclosed by the Administrator, his education, training and 

experience, his relationship to the other witnesses in the case, his understanding of the purpose of 

the subject flight, his explanations for answers provided in adverse or cross examination. He 

will also provide foundation for Respondent's exhibits. 

3IPage 
10) Rhonda Masters 

Scheduler/Dispatcher 

Aviation Services Group 

Ms. Masters will provide testimony respecting all FAA allegations contained in the 

Administrator's Compliant for which she has personal knowledge. In addition her testimony is 

expected to include, but will not be limited to, all facts and circumstances surrounding the 

subject demonstration flight, her occupations, the operation and history Aviation Service Group, 

her duties as scheduler/dispatcher of Aviation Services Group, her work history and work record 

including the tasks that he performed or performs, her work and employment record, her 

impressions respecting the records disclosed by the Administrator, her education, training and 

experience, her relationship to the other witnesses in the case, her understanding of the purpose 

of the subject flight, her explanations for answers provided in direct examination. She may also 

provide foundation for Respondent's exhibits. 

11) Dr. Alan Long 

Passenger 

Contact address currently unknown, investigation continues 

Dr. Long will provide testimony respecting all FAA allegations contained in the 

Administrator's Compliant for which he has personal knowledge. In addition his testimony is 

expected to include, but will not be limited to, all facts and circumstances surrounding the 

subject demonstration flight, his occupations, his relationships with Aviation Service Group and 

Birmingham Flight Center, his history of ownership and pursuits regarding the purchase of 

airplanes, his work history all aspects of the subject flight including the planning and post flight 

communications with other witnesses in the case, his impressions respecting the records 

disclosed by the Administrator, his relationship to the other witnesses in the case, his 

understanding of the purpose of the subject flight, his explanations for answers provided in 

adverse or cross examination. He will also provide foundation for Respondent's exhibits. 

12) Mr. Steve Allen 

Premier Group, Aircraft Broker 

Mr. Allen will provide testimony respecting all FAA allegations contained in the 

Administrator's Compliant for which he has personal knowledge. In addition his testimony is 

expected to include, but will not be limited to, all facts and circumstances surrounding the 

subject demonstration flight, his occupations, his relationships with Aviation Service Group, 

Birmingham Flight Center and Dr. Long, his history of ownership and pursuits regarding the 

purchase of airplanes, his work history all aspects of the subject flight including the planning and 

post flight communications with other witnesses in the case, his impressions respecting the 

records disclosed by the Administrator, his relationship to the other witnesses in the case, his 

understanding of the purpose of the subject flight, his explanations for answers provided in 

adverse or cross examination. He will also provide foundation for Respondent's exhibits. 

41Page 
13) Miscellaneous other witnesses: 

Due to the redactions in the ETR disclosed by the Administrator, many names of potential 

witnesses have been redacted. As such, at this time, Respondent is unaware of the names and 

addresses of further witnesses who may possess discoverable information concerning this case. 

Respondent has requested the identities of such individuals in Interrogatories propounded on the 

Administrator. Investigation continues. 

(ii) Description of all documents and tangible things that Respondent has in his possession: 

At this time, the Respondent is in possession of all pleadings and discovery documents 

exchanged by the parties. In addition, Respondent is in possession ofthe ETR disclosed by 

Administrator. Respondent is not in possession of any further documents for which Rule 26 

requires initial disclosure at this time. Investigation continues. 

(iii) Computation of damages: 

Does not apply. 

(iv) Insurance agreements: 

Does not apply. 

(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony. 

Respondent has not yet retained experts to testify at the hearing of this matter but 

specifically reserves the right to do so should the need arise based on the discovery responses of 

the Administrator. 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

Dated: A_priLl.fi, 2015 

( ::~~:;;~;:?';::::;7 Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

SIPage 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date faxed and emailed the foregoing RESPONDENT'S 

INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES addressed to: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

VIA FAX: 202-366-7536 

Deitrick H. Johnson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Service via: deltrick.h.johnson@faa.gov 

Dated: April 16, 2015 

( :==~~~:;:s_::o Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800W aukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-201 4-0867 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No, 2012S0090053 

RESPONDENT'S INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO COMPLAINANT 

Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, by its attorneys, Barnett & Borth, LLC., 

hereby requests that the Administrator provide the following discovery answers within 

(30) days, in accordance with Section 821.19 of the Rules of Practice in Air Safety 

Proceedings and Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS: 

A. T n answering these interrogatories, Complainant shall include all information 

known to them, their attorneys, agents, servants, employees, representatives, private 

investigators and all others who are in possession of or who may have obtained 

information for or on its behalf. 

B. A request to "Name" or "Identify" a person is deemed to require the person's full 

name, last known address, telephone number, job title, employer and employer's business 

address. If the job title, etc., are set out in another answer, their repetition is unnecessary. 

C. The term "document" as used in these interrogatories means any book, pamphlet, 

periodical, letter, report, memorandum, e-mail transmission, notation, message, record, 

study, working paper, chart, graph, index, tape, minutes, contract, lease, invoice, record 

of purchase or sale, correspondence, telegram, cable, electronic or other transcription or 

taping of telephone or personal conversations or conference, and any and all other 

written, printed, typed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter, however roduced or 

reproduced. EXHIBIT 

INTERROGATORIES: D 

I. Identify each person who signed, prepared, participated in the preparation of the 

answers to these interrogatories. 

liPagc 
2. Identify all persons who may have or claims to have knowledge of the events 

giving rise to this complaint or related events occurring thereafter? If so, please state the 

general substance of his or her knowledge. 

3. Was an investigation conducted of any portion of the Complainant's claims? If so, 

state for each such investigation; 

a) The identity of the person who conducted it; 

b) The identity of the person who requested the investigation to be made; 

c) The date on which the investigation was conducted; 

d) The places where the investigation was conducted; and 

e) The identity of each person now having custody of any written report or 

document made concerning the investigation. 

4. State whether any witoess or the Respondent made any oral statement to you or 

anyone else concerning the factual basis of this complaint. If so, as to each such 

statement: 

a) Identify the person who made the statement, 

b) Whether or not the statement is in written form, 

c) Identify the person spoken to, 

d) Identify when and where the statement was made, and 

e) Identify the individual(s) who is se custody each such written statement. 

5. Identify all individuals whom the Administrator relies to support his Complaint 

that the Respondent violated the Federal Aviation Regulations as charged in the 

Complaint. 

6. Identify each and every person known or believed by you to have any knowledge 

of relevant facts including, but not limited to, those persons with knowledge concerning 

the allegations concerning the incident(s) in question and/or the allegations contained in 

the Complaint. 

7. Identify all witoess(es) whom you expect to call to give testimony in this matter, 

and provide the substance of the facts and/or opinions to which he or she is expected to 

testify. 

8. Please describe, in detail, each document or tangible evidence relied upon to 

support the Administrator's claim that Respondent violated the Federal Aviation 

Regulations as charged in the Complaint, and identify the person having custody of each 

such document or tangible evidence. 

9. Identify and describe in detail, all documents or tangible evidence that you intend 

to present at the hearing of this matter including the identity of the person(s) who will be 

called upon to lay the foundation for such documents or tangible evidence. 

10. Identify and describe in detail, all documents or tangible evidence that you 

contend are self-authenticating, are considered judicial admissions, for which 

2JPage 
Complainant will seek judicial notice, or otherwise do not require foundation at the 

hearing of this matter. 

11. Identify all FAA Letters of Interpretation, NTSB Orders and case law that you 

intend to rely upon or cite at the hearing of this matter. 

Demand to Supplement: Pursuant to Federal Rules, the party answering these 

interrogatories is hereby requested to seasonably supplement or amend any prior answer 

or response whenever new or additional information subsequently becomes known to that 

party or the party's attorneys or agents. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

Dated: April20, 2015 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (84 7) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

3IPage 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date faxed and emailed the foregoing 

RESPONDENT'S INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO COMPLAINANT addressed 

to: 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

VIA FAX: 202-366-7536 

Deitrick H. Johnson 

Complainant 's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Service via: deltrick.h.johnson@faa.gov 

Dated: April20, 2015 

c::==/~~~:;:;:;F Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, 1L 60025 

Tel. (84 7) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

41Page 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, lNC. ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

Docket No. F AA-20 1 4-0867 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No, 2012S0090053 

RESPONDENT'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Respondent, BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, by its attorneys, Barnett & 

Borth, LLC., hereby requests that the Administrator provide the responses to the 

following requests for production within (30) days, in accordance with Section 821.19 of 

the Rules of Practice in Air Safety Proceedings and Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure: 

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS: 

A. The term "document" as used in these Requests means any book, pamphlet, 

periodical, letter, report, memorandum, e-mail transmission, notation, message, record, 

study, working paper, chart, graph, index, tape, minutes, contract, lease, invoice, record 

of purchase or sale, correspondence, telegram, cable, electronic or other transcription or 

taping of telephone or personal conversations or conferences, and any and all other 

written, printed, typed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter, however produced or 

reproduced. 

B. The term "subject flight" as used in these Requests means the September 18, 

2012, flight ofN525LP, a Cessna Citation Jet from Birmingham, Alabama to Destin, 

Florida. 

Request for Production of Documents: 

1. All documents other than the previously disclosed EIR that you intend to use at 

the hearing of this matter. 

2. Complete copies of all statements (oral, written, or transcribed, signed or 

unsigned) by parties or witnesses to this matter, including but not limited to individuals 

who: has or claims to have knowledge of any of the facts specified in the Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty 

EXHIBIT 

l!Page E 
3. Complete copies of all documents that were used to support the allegations set 

forth in the Complaint. 

4. All rules, regulations, bylaws, guidelines of any public authority, inspecting or 

reviewing authority or other private body, which you intend to use during the hearing of 

this matter. 

5. A complete resume or Curriculum Vitae of all experts and FAA witnesses that 

that you intend to call upon to give testimony or present evidence at the hearing of this 

matter. 

6. Copies of all articles, papers treatises, textbooks, journals, or other literature 

considered and/or reviewed by your experts and witnesses. 

7. All written documents, materials, exhibits, diagrams, plats, photographs, records, 

films, and the like to be used by your experts and witnesses to prepare for testimony or 

create reports related to this matter. 

8. All written material, exhibits, diagrams, photographs and the like to be used by 

your attorney's in questioning or impeaching the Respondent and/or Respondent's 

witnesses at the hearing of this matter. 

9. All office or review notes, memos and all other documents generated by or on 

behalf of your experts in conjunction with their involvement in this case. 

10. Copies of all documents that were provided to your experts in this case. 

11. Copies of all correspondence by and between you and your experts in this case. 

12. Copies of all reports prepared by your expert witnesses. 

13. All documents of official or unofficial character for which you will seek the Court 

to take judicial notice of at the time of trial. 

14. All demonstrative and evidentiary exhibits you intend to use at the hearing of this 

matter. 

15. Each and every document, record, report, writing memorandum, physical object 

and the like revealed or referenced in Complainant's Answers to Interrogatories. 

16. Complete copies of all the validly adopted interpretations of laws, and regulations 

that the Administrator carries out that the Complainant intends to use at the hearing of 

this matter. 

17. All documents that reference or relate to Bob Kent of Premier Group concerning 

the subject aircraft, N525LP. 

2JPage 
18. All correspondence and e-mails sent to or sent from Dr. Alan Long related to the 

subject flight. 

19. All correspondence and/or e-mails to-from Aviation Services Group concerning 

Dr. Alan Long and/or the subject flight. 

20. All documents that demonstrate the storage or maintenance of Dr. Alan Long's 

airplane. 

21. All documents that refer to or relate to any existing between Dr. Alan Long and 

Aviation Services Group. 

22. All bills related to the subject flight. 

23. All written agreements between Dr. Alan Long and the Respondent and its agents. 

24. Complete and un-redacted reports of all individuals who performed investigation 

in this matter. 

25. All documents generated by Yancey Rushton, Pat Bruce, Clay Perkins, and David 

Hargett related to this case. 

26. Copies of all documents received through any subpoenas issued in this matter. 

27. Allproofofpayment for payments made by Dr. Alan Long to the Respondent for 

the subject flight. 

Demand to Supplement: Pursuant to Federal Rules, the party responding to these 

Requests to Produce is hereby requested to seasonably supplement or amend any prior 

response and disclosure whenever new or additional information subsequently becomes 

!mown to that party or the party's attorneys or agents. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

Dated: April 20, 2015 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800W aukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 prb@barnettlegal.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that T have this date faxed and emailed the foregoing 

RESPONDENT'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS addressed to: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

VTA FAX: 202-366-7536 

Deitrick H. Johnson 

Complainant 's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Service via: deltrick.h.johnson@faa.gov 

Dated: April20, 2015 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, TL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@bamettlegal.com 

41Page 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLJGHT CENTER, INC. ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

Docket No. F AA-201 4-0867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No, 2012S0090053 

RESPONDENT'S EXPERT DISCOVERY DIRECTED TO COMPLAINANT 

Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, by its attorneys, Barnett & Borth, LLC., 

hereby requests that the Administrator provide the following discovery answers within 

(30) days, in accordance with Section 821.19 of the Rules of Practice in Air Safety 

Proceedings and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

INTERROGATORIES 

1. Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4)(A)(i), identify the names and addresses of all expert 

witnesses who may be called upon to testify for you at the hearing of this matter. 

2. Pursuant to Rule 26(b )( 4)(A)(i), state: 

a) The subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify: 

b) The Substance of the facts and opinions to which each expert is expected to 

testify. 

c) A summary of the grounds for each opinion held by each expert: 

d) His or her qualifications, including the attachment of his or her Curriculum Vitae. 

3. With respect to each expert witness who is expected to render testimony or 

opinions at the hearing of this matter, please state: 

(a) The date on which each expert was retained; 

(b) The name of the person, firm or entity who retained the expert; 

(c) The date on which the substance of each expert's opinions were made known to 

the person, firm or entity retaining such expert; 

(d) The date on which each expert completed his/her work in this case 

EXHIBIT 

l!Page F 
(e) The number of frequency of times within the past four ( 4) years that each expert 

has been retained by the complainant or complainant's attorneys to act as expert or 

opinion witness; 

(f) The fmancial benefit derived by each expert from the case, referrals received by 

the defendant by each of said experts within the last four ( 4) years from the complainant 

or complainant's attorneys including the present case; 

(g) Please state the name, author, publisher, page and date of publishing of all 

articles, journals, tables, periodicals, medical literature, or other documents that the 

expert relies or may rely upon in the formation of each opinion and/or conclusion. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Pursuant to Rules 26(b )(3)(A) and (B) please provide copies of the following 

documents: 

I. All communications, e-mails, correspondence and the like between the 

Administrator and its expert witnesses that relate to compensation for the expert's study 

or testimony; 

2. All communications, e-mails, correspondence and the like between the 

Administrator and its expert witnesses that relate to or identity facts or data that the 

Administrator's attorney provided and that the expert considered in forming the opinions 

to be expressed; 

3. All communications, e-mails, correspondence and the like between the 

Administrator and its expert witnesses that relate to or identity assumptions that the 

Administrator's attorney provided and that the expert relied on in forming the opinions to 

be expressed. 

4. All signed written reports notes and documents prepared by an expert witness 

retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in this case and all witnesses 

whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. All 

reports must contain: 

(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons 

for them; 

(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them; 

(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; 

(iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the 

previous I 0 years; 

21Page 
(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as 

au expert at trial or by deposition; and 

(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case. 

5. A II articles, journals, tables, periodicals, medical literature, or other documents 

that the expert relies or may rely upon in the formation of each opinion and/or conclusion 

not already provided in response to request #4 above. 

6. All demonstrative exhibits that the expert intends to use at his/her deposition, 

hearing or trial. 

DEMAND TO SUPPLEMENT: Pursuant to Rule 26( e)( I )(B), if at the time of your 

answers to these Interrogatories and Requests for Production you have not retained an 

expert witness or you give your experts additional materials after they have been 

deposed, you are expected to seasonably supplement your answers to these 

Interrogatories pursuant to the Rules as set forth in Federal Rule 26. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Respectfully submitted, 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

Dated: April 20, 2015 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegau Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (84 7) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

31Page 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that I have this date faxed and emailed the foregoing 

RESPONDENT'S EXPERT DISCOVERY REQUESTS DIRECTED TO 

COMPLAINANT addressed to: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

VIA FAX: 202-366-7536 

Deitrick H. Johnson 

Complainant 's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue Co11ege Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Service via: deltrick.h.johnson@faa.gov 

Dated: April 20, 2015 

(~~~i~~:d,:7 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800W auk egan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

4IPage 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

Docket No. F AA-201 4-0867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No, 2012S0090053 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWERS TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, by its attorneys, Barnett & Borth, LLC. 

hereby answers the Administrator's First Set ofinterrogatories as follows: 

Interrogatory No. 1 

Identify each person you may call as a witness at a hearing on this matter. 

Answer: 

Steven Pickett, CEO, Binningham Flight Center 

Shawn Stacy Flowers, PIC, Birmingham Flight Center 

Justin Matthew Lollar, Copilot/instructor, Birmingham Flight Center 

Sandi Pickett, Owner, Birmingham Flight Center 

Dr. Alan Long, Passenger, BE-58 owner 

Mr. Steve Allen, Premier Group, Aircraft Broker 

Respondent reserves the right to call and/or cross examine the FAA's witnesses involved 

in the investigation of this matter including but not limited to: 

Yancey Rushton 

Pat Bruce (Operations Supervisor) 

Clay Perkins Inspector 
David Hargett (Inspector) 

Mr. Pat Bruce (Rushton's Operations supervisor) 

Mr. Bob Kent, Director of Operations, Aviation Services Group 

Rhonda Masters, Scheduler/Dispatcher, Aviation Services Group 

Interrogatory No. 2 

For each person identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, state the subject matter 

upon which each is expected to testify and summarize the substance of that person's 

expected testimony. 

Answer: 

Steven Pickett, CEO, Birmingham Flight Center 

Mr. Pickett is expected to testify regarding his background, training and 

experience, his FAA credentials, his involvement in the instant matter, his operation of 

the Birmingham Flight Center, his assignment of pilots for the demonstration flight with 

Alan Long on N525LP, his understanding of the reputations and pilot credentials of the 

pilots involved in the subject demonstration flight, his interaction with Bob Kent and all 

witnesses involved in this matter, his understanding of the various e-mails, documents 

and correspondence respecting the FAA's investigation and EIR and all such documents 

related to the subject flight. He is expected to testify regarding his interaction with the 

Steve Allen, aircraft broker with Premier Group, regarding the subject aircraft and his 

understanding that Dr. Long was interested in the purchase ofthe aircraft. He is expected 

to testify regarding all aspects of the arrangements with Mr. Allen to perform the 

demonstration flight with Dr. Long. He is expected to testify regarding all conversations 

held with his employees and all statements made with FAA inspectors and investigators. 

He is expected to testify about all aspects of the demonstration flight with Alan Long, Dr. 

Long's flight training and Dr. Long's use and storage of his Baron aircraft. He is 

expected to testify regarding his company's relationship with Aviation Services Group 

and its employees and directors. He is expected to provide testimony concerning the 

denials of the allegations contained in the Administrator's complaint. He is expected to 

lay the foundation for all documents for which he has personal knowledge including 

those disclosed by the parties during the discovery phase of this case. 

Shawn Stacy Flowers, PIC, Birmingham Flight Center 

Mr. Flowers is expected to testify regarding his background, training and 

experience, his FAA credentials, his involvement in the instant matter, his demonstration 

flight with Alan Long on N525LP, his understanding of the reputations and pilot 

credentials of the pilots involved in the subject demonstration flight, his interaction with 

Bob Kent and all witnesses involved in this matter, his understanding of the various emails, documents and correspondence respecting the FAA's investigation and EIR and all 

such documents related to the subject flight. He is expected to testify regarding his 

2j~Page 
interaction with the Steve Allen, aircraft broker with Premier Group, regarding the 

subject aircraft and his understanding that Dr. Long was interested in the purchase of the 

aircraft. He is expected to testify regarding all aspects of the arrangements with Mr. 

Allen to perform the demonstration flight with Dr. Long. He is expected to testify 

regarding all conversations held with his employees and all statements made with FAA 

inspectors and investigators. He is expected to testify about all aspects of the 

demonstration flight with Alan Long, Dr. Long's flight training and Dr. Long's use and 

storage of his Baron aircraft. He is expected to testify regarding his company's 

relationship with Aviation Services Group and its employees and directors. He is 

expected to provide testimony concerning the denials of the allegations contained in the 

Administrator's complaint. He is expected to lay the foundation for all documents for 

which he has personal knowledge including those disclosed by the parties during the 

discovery phase of this case. 

Justin Matthew Lollar, Copilot/instructor, Birmingham Flight Center 

Mr. Lollar is expected to testify regarding his background, training and 

experience, his FAA credentials, his involvement in the instant matter, his demonstration 

flight with Alan Long on N525LP, his understanding of the reputations and pilot 

credentials of the pilots involved in the subject demonstration flight, his interaction with 

Bob Kent and all witnesses involved in this matter, his understanding of the various emails, documents and correspondence respecting the FAA's investigation and EIR and all 

such documents related to the subject flight. He is expected to testify regarding his 

interaction with the Steve Allen, aircraft broker with Premier Group, regarding the 

subject aircraft and his understanding that Dr. Long was interested in the purchase of the 

aircraft. He is expected to testify regarding all aspects of the arrangements with Mr. 

Allen to perform the demonstration flight with Dr. Long. He is expected to testify 

regarding all conversations held with his employees and all statements made with FAA 

inspectors and investigators. He is expected to testify about all aspects of the 

demonstration flight with Alan Long, Dr. Long's flight training and Dr. Long's use and 

storage of his Baron aircraft. He is expected to testify regarding his company's 

relationship with Aviation Services Group and its employees and directors. He is 

expected to provide testimony concerning the denials of the allegations contained in the 

Administrator's complaint. He is expected to lay the foundation for all documents for 

which he has personal knowledge including those disclosed by the parties during the 

discovery phase of this case. 

Sandi Pickett, Owner, Birmingham Flight Center 

Ms. Pickett is expected to testify regarding his background, training and 

experience, her FAA credentials, her involvement in the instant matter, her operation of 

the Birmingham Flight Center, his assignment of pilots for the demonstration flight with 

Alan Long on N525LP, his understanding of the reputations and pilot credentials of the 

pilots involved in the subject demonstration flight, her interaction with Bob Kent and all 

witnesses involved in this matter, her understanding of the various e-mails, documents 

and correspondence respecting the FAA's investigation and EIR and all such documents 

related to the subject flight. She is expected to testify regarding his interaction with Steve 

31Page 
Allen, aircraft broker with Premier Group, regarding the subject aircraft and her 

understanding that Dr. Long was interested in the purchase of the aircraft. 

She is expected to testify regarding all aspects of the arrangements with Mr. Allen 

to perform the demonstration flight with Dr. Long. She is expected to testify regarding 

all conversations held with his employees and all statements made with FAA inspectors 

and investigators. She is expected to testify about all aspects of the demonstration flight 

with Alan Long, Dr. Long's flight training and Dr. Long's use and storage of his Baron 

aircraft. She is expected to testify regarding his company's relationship with Aviation 

Services Group and its employees and directors. She is expected to provide testimony 

concerning the denials of the allegations contained in the Administrator's complaint. She 

is expected to lay the foundation for all documents for which he has personal knowledge 

including those disclosed by the parties during the discovery phase of this case. 

Dr. Alan Long- Passenger, BE-58 owner 

Dr. Long is expected to testify regarding his background, training and experience, 

his FAA credentials, his involvement in the instant matter, his involvement in the 

demonstration flight, his understanding of the reputations and pilot credentials of the 

pilots involved in the subject demonstration flight, his interaction with the Respondent's 

employees and all witnesses involved in this matter, his understanding ofthe various emails, documents and correspondence respecting the FAA's investigation and EIR and all 

such documents related to the subject flight. He is expected to testify regarding his 

interest in the purchase of the aircraft. He is expected to testify regarding all 

conversations held with his employees and all statements made with FAA inspectors and 

investigators. He is expected to testify regarding his relationship with Aviation Services 

Group and its employees and directors. He is expected to lay the foundation for all 

documents for which he has personal knowledge including those disclosed by the parties 

during the discovery phase of this case. 

Mr. Steve Allen- Premier Group, Aircraft Broker 

Mr. Long is expected to testify regarding his background, training and experience, 

his involvement in the instant matter, his involvement in providing the aircraft for use in 

the demonstration flight, his understanding ofthe reputations and pilot credentials of the 

pilots involved in the subject demonstration flight, his interaction with the Respondent's 

employees and all witnesses involved in this matter, his understanding of the various emails, documents and correspondence respecting the FAA's investigation and EIR and all 

such documents related to the subject flight. He is expected to lay the foundation for all 

documents for which he has personal knowledge including those disclosed by the parties 

during the discovery phase of this case. 

FAA Witnesses: 

Respondent reserves the right to call and/or cross examine the FAA's witnesses 

involved in the investigation of this matter including but not limited to the following 

witnesses. They are expected to testify respecting their relative involvement, 

observations, research and all other aspects of the facts and allegations contained in the 

Administrator's Complaint in this matter. 

4)Page 
Yancey Rushton 

Pat Bruce (Operations Supervisor) 

Clay Perkins Inspector 

David Hargett (Inspector) 

Mr. Pat Bruce (Rushton's Operations supervisor) 

Interrogatory No. 3 

Identify each person, other than any person already identified in response to Interrogatory 

No. I, whom you believe to have knowledge of the facts of this matter. 

Answer: 

None at this time. Investigation continues. 

Interrogatory No. 4 

Identity each expert witness you 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 and records that 

form the basis for such opinion). 

Answer: 

None at this time. Respondent reserves the right to disclose expert(s) should the 

need arise. 

Interrogatory No. 5 

Identity documents and any tangible items that you may proffer as evidence in a hearing 

on this matter. 

Answer: 

See Respondent's response to the administrator's requests for production of 

documents. 

Interrogatory No. 6 

If you deny any of the allegations of the Complaint, explain the factual basis for each 

denial, and identify witnesses and exhibits you anticipate offering as evidence for such 

factual bases. 

Answer: 

The Respondent specifically denies that the subject flight was anything but a 

demonstration flight and awaits answers to the discovery propounded upon the 

Administrator to discover what if any documents and proof are disclosed to prove the 

5!Page 
prima facie elements of the Administrator's case in chief. The e-mail transmissions by 

and between the Respondent its witnesses and Dr. Long establish that Dr. Long was 

involved in a demonstration flight, that his was in the market for an airplane and that 

nothing that the Respondent or its witnesses did violates any FAR. Birmingham flight 

center did not act under the rules of part 135 as outlined in the EIR. Money did not 

change hands between Birmingham Flight Center and Dr. Long. Dr. Long requested a 

demonstration flight, Birmingham Flight Center found an available option. Dr. Long 

expressed interest in the option. Dr. Long was at that time a management client as well as 

a student of the Birmingham Flight Center. He owned a Beech craft Baron 58. For 

several months prior he had been speaking of upgrading into a larger aircraft in order to 

transport his family to and from various destinations. A citation seemed to be the best 

choice given it's speed and efficiency. On the 18th of September, Justin Lollar was 

scheduled to have a flight with Dr. Long in his Baron that Birmingham Flight Center 

managed for him. This flight had been scheduled for quite some time. The day prior to 

the flight, Mr. Lollar contacted Mr. Pickett with concerns that the weather forecast 

showed conditions that may be outside the capabilities of the Baron. Knowing that Dr. 

Long had an interest in the citation series of aircraft, Mr. Pickett contacted Shawn 

Flowers to let him know that Dr. Long had expressed interest in buying a jet, and to 

verify that his was still listed for sale. He confirmed it was still for sale. The flight was 

agreed upon by all parties to be a demonstration flight of the CJ's capabilities to Dr. 

Long, as he had expressed interest in that caliber of aircraft and needed to see it's 

capabilities prior to going down any avenues of purchase. Premier Group was contacted 

to arrange a demonstration of the aircraft. They contacted the owner, who approved the 

use of the plane for a demonstration flight. Birmingham Flight Center did not charge 

anything for setting up the demonstration flight. Premier group gave us a verbal estimate 

of the price per hour for operation of the aircraft, which was passed directly to Dr. Long. 

Dr. Long paid for the fuel directly. Birmingham Flight Center did not receive income for 

the aircraft, fuel, or the pilots in any way whatsoever. Accordingly the Respondent 

stands by its denials of the allegations of Administrator's complaint as set forth in its 

answer. 

Interrogatory No. 7 

State each affirmative defense you assert, explain the factual basis for each, and identify 

witnesses whose testimony you may offer, and exhibits you may proffer into evidence, at 

trial to prove those factual bases for affirmative defenses. 

Answer: 

Respondent has not filed any affirmative defenses in this action. 

61Paoe " 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

In response to the Administrator's request for production, Respondent attaches the 

following documents: 

June 17, 2012 E-mail of Alan Long to Birmingham Flight Center 

September 18, 2012 E-mail of J. Steven Allen, President Premier Group to Dr. Long 

September 19, 2012 E-mail of Dr. Long to J. Steven Allen, President Premier Group and 

Sheila Wallace 

September 23, 2012 E-mail of Justin Lollar to Dr. Long 

Respondent reserves the right to utilize and introduce the exhibits disclosed by the 

Administrator with the appropriate witnesses at the hearing of this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

Dated: August l, 2015 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800W aukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, TL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that T have this date faxed and emailed the foregoing 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWERS TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION addressed to: 

Christopher Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Service via e-mail: chris.stevenson@faa.gov 

Dated: AJ!gusq, 2015 

(~~~;;~~~~;~> 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (84 7) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

81Page 
Sandi Pickett 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

/\ian Long <alan.long@yahoo.corn> 

Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:10 PM 

bfdlc@wi ndstrea m.net 

R.e: owrier·sllip analysis 

Steven, ey 

What is the practical limit on runway length for Citation V? Could you !an~ it in 4500ft? 

Thanks 

From: "bfcllc@wlndstrearn. ner· <bfc:{lc{Wwi ndstream. net> 

To: glan.lonmffivahoo.com 

Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 5:38 "M 

Subject: ownership analysis 

Here yoll go 

Sleven 

205-6!3-9688 

205-849-7722 

- ~- ----------

1 

• 

I 

~--~---~------------~~--~~-~~-~---~~-··---
Sandi Pickett 

From: 

Sent 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Alan Long, M.D. <along@skindxgroup.com> 

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:06AM 

Steven Allen, Jr. 

Shelia Wallace 

Re: N525LP Demonstration Flight 

.. 

' 

I really appreciate your help and look forward to finding the plane(s) that best meets our needs. Thanks again. 

Alan 

On Sep 18, 2012, at 10:47 PM, "Steven Allen, Jr." <jsair@premiergroupinc.com> wrote: 

>Dr. Long: 

> 

>Good evening, although later than usual, I just got a moment to stop and sit down. 

> 

>I wanted to thank you for your continue·d interest in purchasing an aircraft, particularly a Citation Jet. Thank you for 

taking the demonstration flight on our listed CJ N525LP. 

> 

>It is my understanding that the demo flight went well and was to your satisfacijon. I hope that in the very near future 

we can sit down and discuss your future in aviation and your future aviation nee~s beyond that of your Baron. 

> 

>Again, I appreciate your taking the time to explore what our or another CJ can help you accomplish. If you need 

anything at all or have any questions or comments please feel free to call or email me at anytime, day or night. 

> 

> Kindest regards, 

> 

> J. Steven Allen, Jr. 

>President 

>Premier Group 

> (205)-841-6720 

> Sent from my iPhone 

1 

" I 
hvd: t'ihJt J·(',~-; fl"l!" '_), H5-2U I:: . 

.'\[nn Lung 

'!""·.m;..:c; ltu_,hl>ll'\ 

!U-'0;1·20!2 Ul !X T'f\1 

Ft,•ln: \!a1: j 11Hg: aiun.lun,~,;-'tl:,ah_rmolrn ~ 

f<'l.' YttnL"\:-.\ Rushtnn,,\Si)'f:\.-"\ilf-\,.\, 

Dca,. Dr. Long 

Cloud aftcnwon sir anJ I hope aU lw:-i been \vdl. Due to the clwngc in plans on ·rtwsday 1

s fligh1. th~ 

billing" ''ill he di!li:rentthan usuallc1r the llighL The pilot fcc Jllf myself on the day is S41J(L lt can toe 

mailed tn n1y honk address: at 

(;7R6 [)eerl;><ll Drive 

Pinson /\L, ~5 I 26 

since the B_inningham Hight t:cnter \Vas not an oi'ticiai manager of !h(:" nircraft used !i::tr the-demo -Dight 

e\erylhing wi\I be done separatdy hom the flight cCnt.er. 

I wanl tu thank ,-ou 1{Jr ven-· much J()r aJk•'-vinQ me Lu fh vou and I look tt:Jn\--ard tt1- our nexl meeting. l--L::n·e 

;;1 h!cs~cd duy a1~d I will. talk tn you soon. ._ -

Jus!in \L Lnlbr 

Comnlcrc.ial PHot ScrYiccs 

('II 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS, WASHINGTON, DC 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

Docket No. F AA-201 4-0867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No, 2012S0090053 

RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, by its attorneys, Barnett & Borth, LLC. 

hereby attaches a copy of the following document as a supplemental response to the 

Administrator's Requests for Production of Documents: 

September 19,2012 and September 20,2012 E-mails of Dr. Long and Shawn Flowers. 

Respondent reserves the right to utilize and introduce the exhibits disclosed by the 

Administrator with the appropriate witnesses at the hearing of this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

Dated: August 17,2015 

PaulR.Borth 

Counsel for Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800W aukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@bamettlegal.com 

liP age 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date emailed the foregoing RESPONDENT'S 

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION addressed to: 

Christopher Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Service via e-mail: chris.stevenson@faa.gov 

Dated: August 17,2015 

c~:::~s~~=']:;:::d~;; PaulR.Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800W aukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (84 7) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

21Page 
from: "Alan Long, M.D." <~.@ikindxgroup.com> 

To: 'Shawn Flowers' <ss.flowers@yalloo.com> 

Date: September 20. 2012 at 7:44:41 AIM COT 

Subject: Rf: Demo flight to Destin 

Shawn/ 

Thank you for your availability and for showing us the CJ. We' I! get this to you. 

Alan 

t t~Jan lA:~ngft 

CEO 

Skin Diagnostics Group, PC 

3125 Independence Drivel Suite 301 

Homewood, AL 35209 

205-879-2260 phone 

205-879-2261 fax 

alonq@skindxgroup.com 

www.skindxqroup.com 

From: Shawn Flowers [rnailto:ss.flowerscruyahoo.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:59 PM 

To: Alan Long, M.D. 

Subject: Demo Flight to Destin 

Dr. Long 

I enjoyed demonstrating the capabilities of the Citation Jet to you yesterday. 

I have attached a copy of my invoice for the Pilot services if you have any 

further questions please don't hesitate to ask. 

Thanks 

Shawn Flowers 

205-492-9652 cell 
Sandi Pickett 

From; 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subjecl: 

Alan Long1 fv1.D. <along@s·kindxgroup.com::--

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:06AM 

Steven Allen, Jr. 

Shelia Wallace 

Re: N52SLP Demonstration Flight 

I really appreciate your help and look forward to finding the plane(s) that best meets our needs. Thanks again. 

Alan 

On Sep 181 20121 at 10:47 PM, nsteven Allen, JL" <fsafr@premiergroupfnc.com> wrote: 

>Dr. Long: 

> 

>Good evening, although later than usual, I just got a moment to stop and sit down. 

> 

> I wanted to thank you for your continue'd interest in purchasing an aircraft, particul<:~rly a Citation Jet. Thank you for 

taking the demonstration flight on our listed 0 N525LP. 

>It is nw understanding that the demo flight went well and was to your· satisfacljon. I hope that in the very near future 

we can sit down and discus-s your future in aviation and your future aviation neei!s beyond that of your Baron. 

> 

> Again, l appreciate your taking the tfrne to explore what our or another CJ c2n help you accDmplish. If you need 

-anything at all or have any questions or comments plea.?e feel free to ca\l or email me at anytime, da.y or night. 

> 

>Kindest regards, 

> 

> J. Steven Allen, Jr. 

>President 

>Premier Group 

> (205)-841-6720 

>Sent from my iPhone 

EXHIBIT 

H