## SERVED: .January 

## 13, 2017
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTJOBf'A'RTMEHT 

## OF Oli'Ji'ICE OF HEARINGS 

## TRANSPORTATION W ASIIINGTON, DC 

## p ,,. 

## ZO ZDll JAN 11 "-"
In The Matter Of: 

## DOCKET OPERATIONS DocketNo. FAA-2015-1319 WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2014NM090046 Respondent



### ORDER GRANTING THE Ji'AA'S MOTION TO RESCHEDULE

On December 14, 2016, an Order Setting NewTelephone Conference for Summary JudgmentArguments, Setting Deadline for Supplemental Materials, and Granting/Denying Other Relief("December 14, 2016 Order") was filed. Among other things, this December 14, 2016 Orderdirected the parties to appear by telephone for a Motion Conference on Wednesday, January 25, 2017 (1 :30 p.m.-3:00p.m. Eastern time) to present oral argument on both the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and the FAA's Cross-Motion. (Dec. 14, 2016 Order, 7**~** 4.) On January 6, 2017 theprose Respondent, Mr. William A. Curtwright, filed a two (2) page Letter, in which he objected to "changing our scheduled hearing [sic] ofJanuary 26, 2017 [sic]" (Jan. 6, 2017 Letter, 1). Three (3) days later, on January 9, 2017, the FAA filed a two (2) page Claimant's Request to Change the Time ofthe Next Scheduled Prehearing Conference Call ("Motion"). In this Motion, the FAA sought to "changethe time" ofa "prehearing conference call [sic]" which the FAA alleged the Courthad set for "January 25,2017 at I0:30am PST [sic]." (Mot. Resched., 

### 1 ).1. Procedural Matter First, aprocedural issue must be addressed. The record clearly reflects that the December 14, 2016 Orderdirected the parties to appearbytelephonefor a Motion Conferenceon Wednesday, January25,2017 (1:30 p.m.-3:00p.m. Eastern time). (Dec. 14, 2016 Order, 7**~** 4.) Both parties are hereby remindedthat any future motion (orresponse) that refers to court orders and directives should accurately reflect what the Order specifically states. In other words, ifaparty seeks relieffrom a court orderorreferences a court's order, the party has a basic obligationtoaccurately identify the directives and information contained in the Order (e.g., the type ofconference, the date ofthe conference, the time, the time zone, etc.). 2. BriefDiscussion Regarding the Motion
The FAA has filed a general motion,pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(a), seeking a rescheduling ofthe January 25, 2017 (I:30 p.m. EST) Motion Conference. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.218(b), theFAAhas provided "particulargrounds" in support ofits Motion. Although the Respondent filed his Letterthree (3) days priorto the FAA filing its Motion, this Letter (which primarily focuses ondiscovery issues), also contains a general assertion by the Respondent that he "believe[s]"the FAA's stated reasons for requesting a change in the scheduled time set for the Motion Conference shouldbe viewed with suspicion. (Letter, 1**~** 1 ). Becausethe Respondent'sJanuary 6, 2017 Letter directly opines on the FAA'sJanuary 9, 2017 Motion, the Respondent's January 6, 2017 Letter is deemed to be the Respondent's response to the Motion, pursuant 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(d). Thus, the Court need not wait until January 19, 2017 (i.e., ten days after service ofthe motion) for any further response from the Respondent. The

### pro se Respondent did not provide any factual evidence ortestimony to support his assertion that the FAA's Motion, andthe grounds offered in support ofits Motion, should be viewed with suspicion. Absent any otherbasis offered in oppositionto the Motion, the Respondent's objection lacks merit, and the FAA'sMotion should be granted. In addition, in regard to the Respondent'srenewed requests for discovery, those issues will be shortly addressed by separate Order.
Page 2 of 33. Conclusion
Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205 and 13.218, and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The FAA's Motion, in which it seeks a rescheduling ofthe January 25, 2017 (1 :30 p.m. EST) Motion Conference, is granted overthe Respondent's objection. 2. The January 25, 2017 (1 :30 p.m. EST) Motion Conference is hereby rescheduled to February 8, 2017 (1 :30 p.m.- 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time). Oral argument will be heard regarding both the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and the FAA's CrossMotion. Should time permit, final status ofdiscovery as well as potential hearing dates (in the event the matters herein are not fully resolved by summaryjudgment) will also be addressed. To access the Court's Conference line, the pat1ies shall dial 888-278-0296 and enter code 5851842.
3. Forclarifications ofthis orderorquestions with regard to the procedures to be followed in this case, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor at the Office of Hearings (202-366-6941).

Attachment: Service List Judg 

### U.S.

Page 3 of 3' 4 DocketNo. FAA-2015-1319 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1

Mr. David F. Shayne Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAX: 425-227-1007 Dr. William Ames Curtright, DBA Respondent P.O. Box 1350 Jefferson, OR97352 TEL: 503-209-7388 FAX: 503-485-0812 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. AdministrativeLawJudge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 ONE COPY

1Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WJOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.