# SILVERBERG GOLDMAN& 

# BIKOFF, t.t.P. 

## J**QJ:O)w\~wf{PL§{i** • Sum 120 • 1101 30TH STREET, NW • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007
.

. VOICE (202) 944-3300 • fACSIMILE (202) 944-3306 ATTORNEYS AT LAW September 17, 2013 VIAFEDEX Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building ·suite2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 

# RECFI\tED SEP 1 82013 

## HEARING DOCKET (Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) Re: In the Matter ofAirborne Maintenance and Engineering Services FAADocket: FAA-2013-0291 FAA CaseNo. 2011S0290032 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case please find an original and one copy ofa Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan being submitted by Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services. Also enclosed is an additional copy of the Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan and a pre-addressed, postage paid envelope. Please date-stamp the additional copy and return it to our office in the enclosed envelope. Thank you for your assistance. Please call me at the telephone number listed above if you have any questions regardingthis matter.

. Very truly yours,

Enclosures
cc: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, LLP Attorneys for AIRBORNEMAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICESIn the matter of 

# RECEI\.tED SEP 1 82013 BEFORETHE
. · 

# u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONHEARING 

## DOCKET OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 Case No. 2011S0290032 AIRBORNE MAINTENANCEAND ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan


### PROPOSED SCHEDULING/DISCOVERY PLAN Pursuant to paragraph 2) ofthe Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, andDirecting Rule 26(£) Planning and Submission, served July 23, 2013 in the above-referenced case, Respondent hereby submits that althoughthe parties conferred ingood faith we have been

.unable to reach ajoint agreement on scheduling. As counsel for AMES, I will be unavailable to work onthis matter, evenpreliminary discovery matters, until the end oflitigation I am currently handling pendingbefore the U.S. District Court for the Western District ofVirginia with a December 1 7, 2013 trial date. Priorto the trial date, there are summaryjudgmentmotion deadlines and briefing schedules to be observed throughout the months ofOctober and November leading to the Decembertrial. Further, counsel have moved in the U.S. District Court litigation to delay the discovery cutoffto October 9th and many depositions have been scheduled between now and then. Although Ihave assigned an associate to work with me onthis FAA matter, I will not even be in a positionto provide necessary supervision during the remainder of the year, unless my other case were to settle, which Ijudgeto be unlikely. However, ifthecase
were to settle I would be agreeable to commencing discovery in this case reasonably soon thereafter.Although AMES and the FAA are not far apart inthe scheduling ofthe hearing for June
or July 2014, FAA counsel seeks to commence discovery in October and to close discovery in January. This leaves several months before trialfor the filing ofpre-trial motions. I question if the gap between the close ofdiscovery and the FAA suggested hearing date (even considering the filing ofdispositive motions and time for Your Honor to consider the motions) is necessary since inunder eitherproposed schedule the matter would be ready for hearing inJune orJuly 2014. Indeed, FAA counsel has indicated inhis Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan that if discovery is not commenceduntil early 2014, then a September 2014 hearing would be appropriate suggesting that there is no concern on the part ofthe FAA regarding the availability ofwitnesses orthe preservation ofrecords, should discovery inthis matter not start until2014. Counsel for AMES does not objectto such a hearing date so the only question is when discovery should commence. Accordingly, Respondent proposes the following scheduling/discoveryplan: January 7-Initial written discovery January 21-0bjectionsto written discovery requests February 6-Written discovery responses and opening ofperiod for depositions April24-Discovery cutoff May 23-Pretrial motions June 6-Reply to pretrial motions June 20-Responses to replies to pretrial motions July 23-Hearing (subject to Your Honor's schedule)

2Underthe circumstances, normally accorded consideration ofthe opposing counsel's case load warrants delay in discoveryuntil early 2014. I, along with my Associate, Jeffrey Johnson will beprepared to take this matterup with Your Honor atthe telephonic scheduling hearing scheduled for September24, 2013. Respectfully submitted, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. Attorneys for
·AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND

ENGINEERING SERVICES By:

# -----L-.o2""---""---~~~**A~L:t:::...._:__,** 4----=-r--- Robert

### P. Silverberg, Esq. L.**Jeffre~** Johnson, Esq. 1101 30t Street, N.W. Suite 120

3 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306• j I I'



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 1

## ih day of September 2013, I caused a true copy of the foregoing Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan to be served: by FedEx overnight delivery (original and one copy) addressed to: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 (Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) and by telecopier and First Class mail addressed to: The Hon. J.E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Fax: (202) 366-7536 Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 SouthernRegion Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 Fax: (404) 305-5223