U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINTON, DC 

In the Matter of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No: FAA-2015-3307 

FELTS FIELD AVIATION 

Case No: 20I5WP910090 

Respondent 

______________________ ) 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANT'S OPPOSITION TO 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

The Respondent, by and through its attorneys, BENJAMIN L. WYBORNEY and 

MARK J. CONLIN, moved this Court for an Order to Compel Discovery in the above 

referenced matter. The Complainant, by and through its attorney, FA TIMAH STOKLEY 

submitted an Opposition to that Motion. This is the Respondent's Response to the 

Complainant's Opposition. 

COMPLAINANT'S ARGUMENT 

The Complainant bases its opposition to the Respondent's Motion to Compel the 

Discovery of the Complainants Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) on the 

Government's deliberative process privilege. The Complainant's attorney cites several 

cases that apply that privilege. The Complainant then argues that Mr. Eric Wells, the 

Complainant's testifying expert witness, while the signatory of the subject EIR, is not the 

author of it. The Complainant finally argues that the Respondent has not met the bar for 

the exception to the deliberative process privilege, which occurs when the respondent can 

demonstrate a particularized need that outweighs the harm that could result to the 

Government by disclosing such privileged information. 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation. Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 

Case No. 2015WP91 0090 Page 1 of 12 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 

Spokane, W A 9920 1 

(509) 624-3020 

:'' 
The Complainant's opposition does not invoke any other privilege other than the 

deliberative process privilege. This leads to the conclusion that the Complainant 

concedes that the deliberative process privilege is the only privilege that may apply. 

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S ARGUMENT 

The Respondent recognizes that the deliberative process privilege ts well 

established. However, the Respondent argues that Complainant has not properly asserted 

the deliberative process privilege. If, arguendo, the Complainant has, or is subsequently 

able to properly assert the deliberative process privilege, then by designating Mr. Eric 

Wells as testifying expert witness, the Complainant has waived the privilege with regard 

to Mr. Wells, and his "facts known and opinions held." Further, if designating a 

privileged communicant as an expert witness does not waive the privilege, then contrary 

to the Complainant's contention, the exception to the privilege does apply because the 

Respondent has met the burden of showing a particularized need that outweighs any harm caused 

to the Government. Finally, the deliberative process privilege notwithstanding, the 

Complainant is a Goverrunent actor engaging in the "prosecutorial process" and should 

be subject to the Brady Rule. The Brady Rule requires that the Government disclose 

mitigating evidence. The EIR contains mitigating evidence. 

For the foregoing reasons. this Court should grant the Respondent's Motion to 

Compel the production of the testifying expert witness's unredacted EIR. 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter ofFeits Field Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. F AA-20 I 5-3307 

Case No. 20 I 5WP9 I 0090 Page 2 of 12 

Conlin. Maloney & Miller 

42 I W. Riverside Ave., Ste 9 I I 

Spokane. W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 
The Complainant has not properly invoked the deliberative process privilege. 

The Complainant has not properly invoked the deliberative process privilege. To 

assert the privilege effectively, the government must "(i) invoke the privilege through an 

agency head or properly chosen subordinate; (ii) specifically identify what records are 

subject to the privilege; and (iii) provide "precise and certain reasons" for withholding 

the requested'' inforn1ation. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 571, 

577 (2012). The Complainant has not provided any indication of who is asserting the 

deliberative process privilege or if that individual is authorized to do so. The 

Complainant has not stated "with particularity what information is subject to the 

privilege." ld. And the Complainant has not supplied the Court "with 'precise and certain 

reasons' for maintaining the confidentiality of the requested" document. !d. at 578. 

All that the Complainant has provided is a Privilege Log that does not indicate the 

author of the Log, when the author created the Log, who is asserting the deliberative 

process privilege, or if the asserting individual is authorized to assert the privilege. See 

Respondent's Motion to Compel, Ex. A. Further, while the Privilege Log does indicate 

the document to which it applies, the EIR, that indication does not provide sufficient 

··pm1icularity" because information within the EIR is the subject of the Motion to 

Compel. Finally, other than a blanket asse11ion of "Pre-decisional and Deliberative," the 

Log does not indicate ''precise and certain reasons" for each redaction. Sikorsky informs 

this Court that "[b]lanket asse11ions of the privilege are insufficient." ld. The 

Respondent addressed these issues with the Complainant, but to no avail. See 

Respondent's Motion to Compel. Ex. C. 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. F AA-20 15-3307 

Case No. 2015WP910090 Page 3 of 12 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 

Spokane, W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 
This Court should grant the Respondent's Motion to Compel because the 

Complainant has not properly asserted the deliberative process privilege. 

The discoverability of facts known and opinions held by a testifying expert witness 

take precedence over the deliberative process privilege. 

The Respondent recognizes that the deliberative process privilege, if asserted 

properly, is a well established concept. However, equally well established, if not more 

so, is the discoverability of ·'facts known and opinions held by" a testifying expert 

witness. The issue then, is which takes precedent; the Government's need to protect its 

unhindered internal communications with the deliberative process privilege or the 

Respondent" s due process rights to discover "facts known and opinions held by" the 

Government's identified, testifying expert witness. 

The Respondent respectfully submits that the discoverability of "facts known and 

opinions held by" a testifying expert witness takes precedence. First, when the 

Complainant designated Mr. Eric Wells as testifying expert witness, they waived 

privilege in regard to Mr. Wells, and his "facts known and opinions held." Second, Mr. 

Wells. as the signatory of the EIR, is responsible for, knowledgeable of, and is the 

approval authority for the EIR 's contents. Reasonably, he is basing his expert opinion 

testimony on the EIR's contents, making the EIR's contents discoverable. Third, 

considering the regulatory guidance, 14 C .F .R. § 13 .220( e), the rules of statutory 

interpretation indicate that the discovery of a testifying expert's facts and opm10ns 

controls the issue because the sentence authorizing the discovery of "known facts, or 

opinions held,"' by a testifying expert comes after the sentence limiting discovery to "a 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-20 !5-3307 

Case No. 20!5WP9!0090 Page 4 ofl2 

Conlin. Maloney & Miller 

421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 9! I 

Spokane, WA 99201 

(509) 624-3020 
matter that is not privileged .... " Fourth, and finally, as the Respondent's attorneys are 

endeavoring to discover Mr. Wells· signed report as "facts known, and opinions held, by" 

a testifying expeti witness and not as a direct attempt to pierce the deliberative process 

privilege, they need not qualify for the exception by showing a particularized need that 

outweighs any harm. 

First, none of the Complainant's cited cases are directly on point. The proffered 

cases consider the deliberative process privilege, but they do not address that privilege 

with regard to a testifying expert witness. Indeed, there seems to be a dearth of 

precedential cases directly on point. Arguably, the reason for the lack of precedent is that 

generally, the Government does not designate its privileged communicants as testifying 

expert witnesses, thereby by making their ''facts known and opinions held" discoverable. 

However, in the present case, the Government did designate a privileged communicant as 

a testifying expert and his report, the EIR, reasonably the basis of his expert testimony, is 

discoverable. See Panasonic Commc'ns Corp. of Am. v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 422 

(20 I 1) 

In Panasonic, inter alia, the taxpayer moved to compel the discovery of 

information held by the IRS's 'prospective' trial expert witness. The IRS asserted that 

this information was protected by the attorney-client privilege, not the deliberative 

process privilege. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims did not allow discovery of the 

information because the expert was a 'prospective' testifying expert in the trial in main 

and not a testifying expert in the instant administrative hearings prior to the trial in main. 

l_cL at 428. More directly on point the court found "[i]f and when he is formally 

identified, the question of what expert discovery Plaintiff may undertake of the IRS 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-20 15-3307 

Case No. 2015WP910090 Page 5 of 12 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 

Spokane, W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 
regarding Dr. Wright may be pertinent (and attorney-client privilege and work product 

doctrine issues be renewed)." !d. at 429. The court further observed that the IRS noted, 

''the documents at issue will become discoverable only to the extent the privilege or 

protection may hereafter be waived by Dr. Wright's designation as a testifying expert for 

the United States." ld. 

In the case at bar, Mr. Wells is a testifying expert witness in the case in main. 

While the deliberative process privilege is not exactly the same as the attorney-client 

privilege, they are similar privileges and can be pierced with the same waivers. The court 

in Panasonic indicates that designation as a testifying expert witness waives attorneyclient privilege. Designation as a testifYing expert witness also waives deliberative 

process privilege. 

Second, the Complainant counters that Mr. Wells is not the author of the EIR, Ms. 

Clinton is. This does not matter. On the EIR's face, Mr. Wells is the signatory; this 

implies that Mr. Wells is familiar with, agrees with, and approves the EIR. See 

Respondent's Motion to Compel, Ex. A, Page 3. One can safely assume that Mr. Wells 

will base his expect testimony on information contained in the EIR. Indeed, if Mr. Wells' 

testimony will be not be based on his discoverable facts known and opinions held as 

indicated in his EIR, then the Respondent respectfully requests that the Complainant 

produce the document that does contain the factual basis on which Mr. Wells forms his 

expert opinion. 

Further, considering signatory supervisors, analogously, a judge is not generally 

the author of an order that they sign. Usually, either a moving attorney submits an order 

or a judge's clerk authors the order. However, when a judge signs the order, regardless 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-20 !5-3307 

Case No. 20 I5WP91 0090 Page 6 of 12 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 

Spokane, W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 
of the actual author, the judge is responsible for the contents of the order. It is considered 

the judge's order, not the clerk's. The same analysis should apply to Mr. Wells' EIR. 

Third, the rule of statntory interpretation of leges posteriores priores contrarias 

abrogant. or ''later laws abrogate prior contrary laws", or even more commonly "last in 

time" is instructive here. When two statutes, or in this case, sentences in a regulation 

conf1ict, the latter sentence nnllifics the fonner. An examination of 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(e) 

Scope of discovery reveals that the sentence "[a J party may discover facts known, or 

opinions held, by an expert who any other party expects to call to testify at the hearing" 

follows the sentence "[s]ubject to the limits on discovery set forth in paragraph (t) of this 

section, a party may discover any matter that is not privileged .... " Because the 

discoverability of facts known, and opinions held by a testifying expert witness follows 

the non-discoverability of privileged matters in the paragraph, the designation of a 

privileged commnnicant as a testifying expert witness nullifies or waives the privilege 

with regard to that expert witness. 

Fourth, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has not shown a 

particularized need to discover the Complainant's allegedly privileged EIR that 

outweighs any hann caused by discovery. As the Respondent seeks to discover the EIR 

based on the Complainant's designation of Mr. Wells as a testifying expert witness and 

the resulting waiver of privilege, no showing of a pa.tiicularized need is required. 

The Complainant has waived the privilege with regard to Mr. Wells by 

designating him a testifying expert witness. Facts known, and opinions held, by Mr. 

Wells are discoverable. Facts known, and opinions held, by Mr. Wells are contained in 

his EIR. The EIR is discoverable. Even if the Complainant has attempted to properly 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 

Case No. 2015WP910090 Page 7 of 12 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

42 I W. Riverside Ave., Ste 9 I I 

Spokane, W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 
assert the deliberative process privilege, this Court should still grant the Respondent's 

Motion to Compel Discovery of the EIR. 

If designating Mr. Wells as a testifving expert witness does not waive the 

deliberative process privilege, then the EIR is still discoverable because the 

Respondent has met the burden of showing a particularized need that outweighs 

any harm caused to the Government. 

Initially, the Complainant provided a very heavily redacted copy of the EIR. See 

Exhibit A. Following an Order from this Court, the Complaint produced a supplemented, 

somewhat less redacted EIR and an insuilicient Privilege Log. See Respondent's Motion 

to Compel, Ex. A .. Ex. C. The Respondent reviewed the unredacted information and 

identified several inappropriate redactions and errors. Further, the Respondent has not 

specified the harm it seeks to prevent. 

When comparing the original and supplemented E!Rs it is apparent that the 

Complainant is inappropriately redacting information. See Ex. A and Respondent's 

Motion to Compel, Ex. A. In addition to not providing four out of six pages, in the 

original EIR, the Complainant redacted quotations of regulations, citations to Items of 

Proof, the paragraph heading •·supporting Evidence", and all of the citations to Items of 

Proof thereunder. Withholding entire pages, even if the entire page is redacted is 

inappropriate. An Item of Proof is detinitionally a fact. Redacting a citation to an Item 

of Proof is inappropriate. Redacting the name of and the citations that are the substance 

of the "Supporting Evidence" index is inappropriate. 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 

Case No. 20 15WP91 0090 Page 8 of 12 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 91 I 

Spokane, W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 
When rev1ewmg the supplemented unredacted information, the Respondent is 

able to identify factual eJTors. The Complainant indicates that the Respondent "has a Part 

145 certificate and has two Forest Service contracts with the State of Washington." See 

Respondent's Motion to Compel, Ex. A., Page 6. This is incoiTect. The Respondent 

relinquished these items several years ago. Ifthere are two eiTors in the only substantive 

paragraph in the supplemented information, that waiTants production and inspection of 

the entire of the ElR. 

The Respondent argues that it will suffer "potential" haiTn if it produces the EIR 

and that the Respondent has not demonstrated a particularized need that outweighs that 

harm. See Complainant's Opposition, Page 3. The Complainant does not specify any 

actual hann. The Complainant only postulates disclosure would cause nebulous harm to 

the "FAA's investigative and prosecutorial process and discourage candid 

communication between Agency personnel .... " !d. at 4. Since there is no specification 

of actual harm, there is no way to deteiTnine what weight to give to any haiTn. Since the 

Complainant's haiTn is indeteiTninate, the Respondent's particularized needs easily 

outweigh it. 

Where the Complainant has established that it is willing to redact information 

inappropriately, this by itself shows a particularized need that outweighs any haiTn to the 

Govermnent. Where disclosure of previously redacted infoiTnation reveals factual errors, 

this also shows a need to verify that outweighs any haiTn. Where the GoveiTnDent can 

only speculate as to "potential" harm, this speculative harm is outweighed by any 

quantum of particularized need. For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the 

Respondent's Motion to Compel. 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 

Case No. 2015WP910090 Page 9 of 12 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 

Spokane, W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 
In the alternative, the Brady Rule should require the production of exculpatory 

evidence. 

In accordance with the Due Process spirit of the Brady Rule, the Complainant, a 

state actor, acting in a prosecutorial capacity to affect an administratively imposed civil 

penalty should be required to disclose exculpatory evidence. The redacted portions of the 

EIR apparently contain such exculpatory evidence; the paragraph headings indicate there 

is redacted information on '·Reliability of Evidence," "Cont1icting Evidence," and 

"Other/Mitigating, Extenuating, or Aggravating Factors." See Respondent's Motion to 

Compel, Ex. A., page 3, 4. 

More specifically, in Brady, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause 

of the Fifth Amendment requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence "material to guilt or 

punishment" known to the government but unknown to the defendant in criminal cases. 

See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 88 (1963). While acknowledging that this is not a 

criminal case; Due Process is still required since it is an administrative adjudication with 

the possibility of the deprivation of property interests. See Bd. of Regents of State 

Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). 

Because Due Process is required, and the Complainant, by its own characterization 

is engaging in a "prosecutorial process" that could deprive the Respondent of a property 

interest, then the government should be compelled to disclose its exculpatory evidence. 

Sec Claimant's Opposition, Page 4. 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. F AA-20 15-3307 

Case No. 2015WP910090 Page 10 of 12 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

421 W. Riverside Ave .. Ste 911 

Spokane, W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 
CONCLUSION 

Considering the forgoing, the Respondent respectfully requests that this Court 

grant the Respondent's Motion to Compel. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of September 2016. 

CONLIN, MALONEY & MILLER 

/y ~7 

Benjamin L. Wyborne)j, WSBA # 50070 

Attorney for Respondent 

421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 911 

Spokane, WA 99201 

(509) 624-3020 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 

Spokane, W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 

Docket No. F AA-20 15-3307 

Case No. 20 !5WP91 0090 Page II of 12 
Statement of Case 

EXHIBIT A 

Drug Abatement Division 

SINGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION 

SECTION B 

Case Number: 2015WP91 0090 

Felts Freid Aviation. Inc. is a 135 certificate holder (GFVA247E). Operations 

Specification A449 certifies that the operator will comply with the requirements of 14 

CFR part 120 and 49 CFR part 40 for its Drug and Alcohol Testing Program. (lOP 1 ). 

On April7. 2015, an mspection of Fe~s Field Aviation, Inc.'s Antidrug and Alcohol 

Misuse Prevention Program was conducted. As a result of the inspection Letter of 

Investigation (file number 2015WP910090) was issued on Apri116, 2015 (lOP 2), and 

Response dated Apri127, 2015 was received (lOP 3). 

Violation Description: 

On July 2, 2007, Richard Webber co.the Ground Training Program for aircrafts, 

Cessna T-210 and Cessna C182RG. Mr. Webber submitted to a Department of 

~ortation (DOT) pre-employment test and was verified negative on May 28, 2008. 

-A review of Felts Field Aviation, Inc.'s Duty and Flight Time Records from April 

9, 2013 to March 20, 2015 shows Mr. Webber performed a safety-sensitive function as 

a Pilot- Mr. Webber was never added to the random drug and alcohol testing 

pool until April6, 201 As a result, Mr. Webber missed random selections 

2008 but selections · 5, 2013 

5, 201 4, 2013 3, 

~~- April4, 201 October 3, 2014 (lOP 15 & 17), and January 2. 2015 Mr. not in the 

indom testing pool for these selections. so he had no chance of being selected .• 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public availability to be determined under 5 USC 552 i Exhibit C-1 Docket No. FM-2015-3307 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation. Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 

Case No. 20 15WP9 I 0090 Exhibit A: Page I of2 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

42 I W. Riverside Ave., Ste 91 I 

Spokane, W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 
EXHIBIT A 

Drug Abatement Division 

SINGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION 

ground training record dated July 2, 2007 for aircrafts, Cessna 

T-210 Nand Cessna Ci82RG j [ 

• First Advantage pre-employment verified negative test result dated May 28, 

2008, specimen 10 # 0446011565 (1111111111111111!1111 

• Felts Field Aviation. Inc.'s Duty and Flight Tiiiimj'elliiRiielicords for Richard Webber 

from April9. 2013 through March 20, 2015 .• 

• Felts Field Aviation, Inc.'s active employee list from First Advantage dated May 

14, 2015. 

• Letter from Schmedding dated April 7. 2015.-

• First Advantage enrollment history summary report for F~d Aviation. Inc. 

for the second quarter of 2013, dated Apri15. 2013 .••• 

• First Advantage enrollment hrstory summary report for Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

for the third quarter of 2013, dated July 5, 2013.-

• First Advantage enrollment history summary report folr IFielltsiiiFiield Aviation, Inc. for the fourth quarter of 2013. dated October 4, 2013. 

• First Advantage enrollment history summary report for Field Aviation, Inc. 

for the first quarter of 2014, dated January 3, 20 

• First Advantage enrollment history summary report for Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

for the second quarter of 2014, dated April 4, 2014.-

• Flist Advantage enrollment history summary report for Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

for the third quarter of 2014. dated July 4. 2014.-

• First Advantage enrollment history summary report for Felts Field Aviation, Inc. 

for the fourth quarter of 2014, dated October 3, 2014 .••• 

• First Advantage enrollment history summary report ~ield Aviation, Inc. 

for the first quarter of 2015, dated January 2, 2015.-

• Random Selection dates for Felts Field Aviation from January 2013- April 2015 

from First Advantage ... 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public availability to be determined under 5 USC 552 ~ Exhibit C-1 Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

In the Matter of Felts Field Aviation. Inc. 

Docket No. F AA-20 15-3307 

Case No. 2015WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 2 of2 

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 

Spokane, W A 9920 I 

(509) 624-3020 
CERT!FICA TE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion to Compel Discovery has been served via 

facsimile (where indicated), and Regular Mail on September 30, 2016 to the following: 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Of1lce of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202-366-6941 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Fatimah Stokley, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

P.O. Box 920007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Fax: (310) 725-6816 

DATED this 30th day of September, 2016 

Benjamin LWYOrn~ 

Attorney for Respondent 

421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 911 

Spokane, WA 99201 

(509) 624-3020