In The Matter Of: 

u.s. DEPA~~~~~~~=~~RTATION R E c E I\/ ED 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

OCT 1 3 2015 

HEARING DOCr(ET 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Respondent. 

FAA Case No. 201280090053 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

During discovery in this matter, the FAA promulgated a variety of interrogatories to the 

Respondent. Some of these interrogatories were appropriately responded to. Many others were 

not, as discussed in more detail below. The problems with these responses have been identified 

to Respondent, and Respondent has refused to supplement in any way. Accordingly, the FAA 

now moves to compel Respondent to fully respond to its interrogatories. 

Background 

On April 20, 2015, the FAA promulgated discovery requests on Respondent, including 

seven interrogatories. See Exhibit A at 1-6. On July 7, 2015, the FAA promulgated additional 

discovery requests on Respondent, including fifteen interrogatories. See Exhibit B at 2-3.1 On 

August 1, 2015, Respondent responded to the April 20, 2015 interrogatories. Exhibit A at 1-6. 

On August 21, 2015, Respondent responded to the July 7, 2015 interrogatories. Exhibit Cat 1-7. 

On August 27, 2015, the undersigned provided Respondent with a list identifying deficiencies in 

1 As discussed in the recent motion conference in this case, at the time the undersigned served the July 7, 2015, 

discovery requests, the undersigned was unaware of the April20, 2015 discovery requests. As a result, there is some 

duplication between the two sets of interrogatories. In general, these duplications are of routine discovery requests -

identification of fact and expert witnesses, descriptions of their testimony, documents to be used at hearing, and the 

basis for the denial of the allegations in the Complaint. Unless otherwise specified, references in this motion to 

Interrogatory #X are references to interrogatories from the second set. 

1 
or inaccurate (whether simply inaccurate, mischaracterizing an otherwise true fact, or omitting 

pertinent information). Exhibit B at 2-3. Respondent refused to give any answer to any of these 

interrogatories. Exhibit C at 1-5. However, Respondent provided no valid basis for these 

refusals. Respondent asserted that the questions were vague, but they are not. Respondent 

asserted that the questions were "overly broad," but they are confined to the contents of specific 

documents that are exclusively about the exact matters at issue in this case. Respondent objected 

that these discovery requests could require a line-by-line review of the documents in question, 

but the fact that a discovery requests will require time and attention to respond to is not a valid 

basis for refusing to respond to it. Respondent asserts that these questions would be "more 

appropriately" addressed at a deposition, but Respondent's opinion as to what method of 

discovery the FAA should have chosen does not relieve Respondent of the obligation of 

responding to discovery. Respondent asserts that these questions would be "more appropriately" 

addressed at hearing, but that would defeat the entire purpose of discovery, which is to exchange 

information prior to hearing. Respondent objects to the interrogatories as calling for legal 

conclusions as to whether statements are false, but whether these statement are false are factual 

conclusions, not a legal ones - and, regardless, discovery requests can permissibly ask for legal 

conclusions. Respondent further objects on the basis that the questions ask what Respondent will 

do on cross examination, thus violating the work product privilege, but the requests simply ask 

for factual information (or, at least, Respondent's view of what the facts are). The FAA requests 

that the Court compel Respondent to answer these interrogatories. 

Interrogatory #4: This request asked Respondent to identify what, if any, basis it had for 

objecting to the particular sanction amount sought by the FAA, expressly asking Respondent to 

address sanction specifically by asking Respondent to respondent within the context of the 

3 
and the FAA is entitled to Respondent's acknowledgement of this relationship. The FAA 

requests that the Court compel Respondent to fully respond to this interrogatory. 

Conclusion 

Respondent failed to adequately respond, or in some cases respond at all, to 

Interrogatories I, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and II from the July 7, 2015 discovery requests and 

Interrogatory #2 from the April20, 2015 discovery requests. The FAA requests that the Court 

compel Respondent to respond to Interrogatories 2, 7, 8, and 9, and compel Respondent to 

respond fully to Interrogatories I, 4, 6, and 11. 

Respectfully submitted this b ~ay of October, 2015. 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

5 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion to Compel was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

one copy via certified mail to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Paul R. Borth, Esq. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

facsimile: (815) 356-7042 

Dated 

7 
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-2014-0867 

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 of Interrogatories as follows: 

Interrogatory No. I 

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

Answer: 

Steven Pickett, CEO, Birmingham 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 

liP age "' GOVERNMENT 

\ EXAlT I_..-! _ __. __ 
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. I, 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 backgrow1d, 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 ElR 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. 

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 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 

21Pagc 
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 personallmowledge 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 paTties 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 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 

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 of the reputations and pilot credentials ofthe 

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 EJR 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. 

41Page 
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. 1, whom you believe to have knowledge of the facts of this matter. 

Answer: 

None at this time. Investigation continues. 

Interrogatory No. 4 

Identify 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 

Identify 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 

SIP age 
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 Bim1ingham 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 ofthe Binningham 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 ofthe 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. 

61Page 
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 Bim1ingham Flight Center 

September 18, 2012 E-mail of.T. 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 I, 2015 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Bamett & Borth, LLC 

800Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (84 7) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@bamettlegal.com 

7[Page 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I 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 

D~ted: A. u .1, 2015 

-~~ ~~~ 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800WaukeganRoad 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

81Page 
In The Matter Of: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

Judge I.E. Sullivan 

Respondent. 

FAA Case No. 2012S0090053 

FAA'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

Pursuant to the provisions of 14 CFR § 13.220, please respond to the following 

Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission separately 

and fully under oath within 30 days from your receipt of this request. 

This request is intended to discover information and/or documents not only within your 

personal knowledge or obtainable by you, but also information in the possession of or obtainable 

by your attorneys, investigators, representatives, employees, agents, or anyone acting on your 

behalf or on their behalf. 

Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it 

is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. 

You may respond to the Requests for Production by producing true and accurate copies 

of the originals to the undersigned. If you refuse to produce any documents or other evidence on 

the basis of privilege or other objection, identify specifically the items withheld from production. 

Each response shall be continuing in nature so as to require you to file supplemental 

responses in the following circumstances: 

a) When you become aware of a fact or the identity and location of any docwnent 

that is not identified in your original response; 

b) When your original response was initially correct, but subsequently rendered 

incorrect or inaccurate based upon information discovered after the original response is prepared. 

If your answer to any interrogatory is "N/ A" or "Not Applicable," describe in detail your 

reasons for making such reply. In reply to any interrogatory, do not merely state, "see attached 

records" unless you have no additional memory of the matters referred to in the interrogatory. If 

you have any additional memory of the relevant events, describe it in detail. 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

(3 
DEFINITIONS 

"Documents" include, without limitation, notes, memoranda, invoices, work orders, receipts, 

reports, letters, audio and video tapes, photographs, facsimiles, transcripts, written statements, 

records of conversations, computer disks or tapes, e-mails, and other tangible or intangible 

materials. 

"You" or "your" refers to Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, Inc .. 

"Identify," when referring to persons, requires you to provide the full name, address, telephone 

number (business and residence, where available) and any other information pertinent to locating 

such person. When pertaining to an object or place, "identify" means to provide the name, 

location or other description of such object or place. 

"This matter" refers to the events and circumstances underlying the allegations set forth in the 

Complaint, including amendments and other additions to the Complaint. 

Interrogatories 

I. For each person listed in your initial disclosures, describe in detail that person's 

knowledge of and involvement with this matter, including not limited to what maintenance that 

person performed, what knowledge of the situation that person has, and any communications that 

person had with others about the situation. 

2. If you assert that the inspector's statements in this matter (inclusive of records of 

conversation, e-mails, memoranda, or other documents), as contained in the EIR, contain any 

inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such 

errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, and describe what 

you believe to be the actual situation. 

3. For each allegation in the Complaint that you deny, please state with specificity the basis 

(whether factual and/or legal) for that denial. 

4. If you assert that the penalty proposed in this case is inappropriate even if the FAA 

proves the allegations in the Complaint, please state with specificity the basis for that assertion, 

whether factual and/or legal. 

5. Describe in detail the circumstances and course of the September 18,2012, and all 

arrangements prior to, during, and after the flight. This includes, but is not limited to, any 

discussions about the nature of the flight, any arrangements for any payment of any sort to you or 

the pilots, the time and route of the flight, and how the route of the flight was determined. 

6. Describe in detail your relationship and involvement with Justin Lollar and Shawn 

Flowers during the second half of 2012. 
7. If you assert that the October 3, 2012 and/or October 12, 2012 statements by Alan Long 

contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically 

identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, 

describe what you believe to be the actual situation, and describe why Mr. Long made the 

erroneous statement. 

8. If you assert that the September 21,2012 and/or October 2, 2012 e-mails from Justin 

Lollar to Yancey Rushton contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other 

errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the 

statement is in error, describe what you believe to be the actual situation, and describe why Mr. 

Lollar made the erroneous statement. 

9. If you assert that the undated letters from Shawn Flowers to Yancey Rushton (stamped 

received by the AL/NW FLORIDA FSD0-09 on October 15,2012 and on October 24, 2012) 

contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically 

identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, 

describe what you believe to be the actual situation, and describe why Mr. Flowers made the 

erroneous statement. 

I 0. If you assert any inaccuracy or incompleteness in any of the maintenance records related 

to this case and/or included in the EIR, please identify with specificity any such inaccuracy or 

incompleteness, your basis for believing that the record is inaccurate or incomplete, and what the 

record should have stated. 

II. Identify each person you may call as a witness at hearing in this matter, identify the 

subject of their testimony, and summarize the substance of their expected testimony. You do not 

need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but you must expand on 

those answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory. 

12. Identify each person you may call as an expert witness in this matter, identify the subject 

of their testimony, summarize the substance of their expected testimony, and describe in detail 

your basis for believing that the witness is an expert. 

13. For each interrogatory, request for production and request to admit, identify the 

individuals aiding in responding to that request. 

14. For each document identified in your initial disclosures, describe how that document 

supports your position in this matter. 

15. If you deny any request for admission, state with specificity the basis for that denial. 

Requests for Production 

With respect to each of the request for production below, you need not produce an additional 

copy of any document that was contained in the EIR in this matter, but should identify any such 

document that is not being produced and which request for production it is responsive to. 
I. Please produce each and every document referred to in your initial disclosures. 

2. Please produce any document referenced in your interrogatory responses. 

3. Please produce any document you may use as evidence in this matter. 

4. Please produce any document used, relied upon, or referred to in answering the 

interrogatories or requests to admit. 

5. Please produce all documents relating to N525LP during September 2012, including but 

not limited to any insurance agreements in effect at the time, any leases in effect at the time, 

aircraft and engine logbooks, maintenance records, flight records, and financial records relating 

to the maintenance, operation, or lease of the aircraft. 

6. Copies of all correspondence (letters, e-mails, or otherwise) to or from Birmingham 

Flight Center, Steven Pickett, and/or Sandi Pickett concerning this case or the operation of 

N525LP in September 2012. 

Request to Admit 

I. Admit that (regardless of your intent) the September 18,2012 flight in N525LP were not 

demonstration flights. 

2. Admit that Dr. Long was charged amounts beyond those permitted by 14 C.F.R. 

§ 91.50 I (d). 

3. Admit that it was the intent of Birmingham Flight Center and the pilots involved in the 

September 18,2012 flight to charge amounts that are not listed as permissible charges in 14 

C.F.R. § 91.50l(d). 

4. Admit that you operated N525LP on September 18,2012. 

y"\ 

Submitted this 1_ day of July, 2015. 

C~. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's First Discovery Requests was sent via certified mail 

and facsimile to: 

Paul R. Borth, Esq. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

facsimile: (815) 356-7042 

Legal 

~&~N~ Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

,J U L .. 

I 2GJJ 

Dated 
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 ANSWERS TO COMPLAINANT'S "INITIAL" SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, by its attomeys, Bamett & Borth, LLC. 

hereby answers the Administrator's "Initial" Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for 

Production as follows: 

1. For each person listed in your initial disclosures, describe in detail that person's 

knowledge of and involvement with this matter, including not limited to what 

maintenance that person performed, what knowledge of the situation that person has and 

any communications that person had with others about the situation. 

Answer: 

See Respondent's Answers to Interrogatories 1 and 2 of the Administrator's first set of 

Interrogatories filed on August 1, 2015. 

2. If you assert that the inspector's statements in this matter (inclusive of records of 

conversation, e-mails, memoranda, or other documents); as contained in the EIR, contain 

any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically 

identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in 

error, and describe what you believe to be the actual situation. 

Answer: 

This lnterrogatory is overly broad and vague and would require a narrative response 

better suited to deposition and/or hearing testimony of the witnesses in this case. The 

requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete factual detail and 

a line by line review of all documents that are referenced. To the extent that this question 

seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overbroad and would more 

appropriately be addressed by way of deposition or hearing testimony. Respondent 

further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that they are asked to state a legal opinion 

liP age ~GOVERNMENT 

j EXHIBIT 

i c 
on "falsehoods", errors, etc. In addition, the Rules of Civil Procedure do not require the 

Respondent to explain and disclose what the Respondent intends to show by way of cross 

examination of the FAA's inspectors and witnesses which places this interrogatory in the 

category of requesting the mental impressions and work product of the Respondent's trial 

counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. 

Respondent further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it 

(i) Requests that Respondent provide a lengthy narrative response to an impermissibly 

broad and compound question; 

(ii) Requests the Respondent to provide detailed legal analysis of such infonnation. An 

undertaking of this nature is not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is 

designed to burden and harass Respondent and to cause it to incur enormous expenses. 

(iii) Marshall facts from all documents in this case to support any contentions of"error", 

misrepresentation, etc. 

3. ·For each allegation in the Complaint that you deny, please state with specificity 

the basis (whether factual and/or legal) for that denial. 

Answer: 

This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome because it attempts to require 

Respondent to provide a narrative account of each potential witness' anticipated 

testimony and to develop a narrative account of each and every potential defense that 

Respondent may assert in this action. "Each interrogatory should consist of a brief, 

simple, direct, and unambiguous question, dealing with one point only. The question 

should be objective and non-argumentative. They should not seek narrative answers or 

attempt to argue, cross-examine, or impeach." Hilt v. SFC. Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186-187 

(D.Kan. 1997). In addition, the denials of each of the Administrator's complaint 

allegations stand on their own and are self-explanatory. The Respondent has no burden 

of proof in this case. See also Answer to Interrogatory number 6 of the Administrator's 

first set of Interrogatories filed on August I, 2015. 

4. If you assert that the penalty proposed in this case is inappropriate even if the 

FAA proves the allegations in the Complaint, please state with specificity the basis for 

that assertion, whether factual and/or legal. 

Answer: 

The proposed penalty asserted by the FAA in this case is inappropriate by virtue of the 

fact that the FAA cannot prove its allegations of violation of the cited regulations since 

the in light of the fact that the subject flight was a demonstration flight and was not 

operated for compensation or hire. The various e-mails contained in the FAA's EOR, the 

statements made by Mr. Picket and the e-mail transmissions disclosed by Respondent of 

the pertinent witnesses in this case bear out the fact that the subject flight was a 

demonstration flight thereby rendering the allegations of the Administrator's compliant 

moot. 

21Page 
5. Describe in detail the circumstances and course of the September 18, 2012, and 

all arrangements prior to, during, and after the flight. This includes, but is not limited to, 

any discussions about the nature of the flight, any arrangements for any payment of any 

sort to you or the pilots, the time and route of the flight, and how the route of the flight 

was determined. 

Answer: 

This request is overly broad, compound and unduly burdensome because it attempts to 

require Respondent to provide a narrative account of each potential witness' anticipated 

testimony and to develop a narrative account of each and every potential defense that 

Respondent may assert in this action. "Each interrogatory should consist of a brief, 

simple, direct, and unambiguous question, dealing with one point only. The question 

should be objective and non-argumentative. They should not seek narrative answers or 

attempt to argue, cross-examine, or impeach." Hilt v. SFC. Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186-187 

(D.Kan. 1997). Notwithstanding the information that is sought in this interrogatory can 

be gleaned from the rather extensive investigative reports of the FAA's investigator's and 

witnesses and the documents contained in the FAA's EIR and the documents previously 

disclosed by the Respondent. 

6. Describe in detail your relationship and involvement with Justin Lollar and 

Shawn Flowers during the second half of2012. 

Answer: 

See the documents contained in the FAA EIR and Respondent's Answers to 

Interrogatories I and 2 of the Administrator's first set of Interrogatories filed on August 

1,2015. 

7. If you assert that the October 3, 2012 and/or October 12, 2012 statements by Alan 

Long contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please 

specifically identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing that the 

statement is in error, describe what you believe to be the actual situation, and describe 

why Mr. Long made the erroneous statement. 

Answer: 

This Interrogatory is overly broad, compound and vague and would require a narrative 

response better suited to deposition and/or hearing testimony of the witnesses in this case. 

The requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete factual 

detail, and to the extent that this question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is unduly 

burdensome and overbroad and would more appropriately be addressed by way of 

deposition. Respondent further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that they are 

asked to state a legal opinion on "falsehoods", errors, and the general credibility of Dr. 

Long without the benefit of his sworn testimony or cross examination. ln addition, the 

Rules of Civil Procedure do not require the Respondent to explain and disclose what the 

Respondent intends to show by way of cross examination of Alan Long which places this 

interrogatory in the category of requesting the mental impressions, strategic impressions 

and tactics and attorney work product of the Respondent's trial counsel which is not 

3IPage 
allowed and is objectionable. See also the contemporaneous e-mail transmissions to and 

from Dr. Long contained in the FAA's EIR and those previously disclosed by 

Respondent. 

8. If you assert that the September 21, 2012 and/or October 21 2012 e-mails from 

Justin Lollar to Yancey Rushton contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, 

mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in 

detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, describe what you believe to 

be the actual situation, and describe why Mr. Lollar made the erroneous statement. 

Answer: 

This Interrogatory is overly broad, compound and vague and would require a narrative 

response better suited to deposition and/or hearing testimony of Mr. Lollar and Mr. 

Rushton. The requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete 

factual detail, and to the extent that this question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is 

unduly burdensome and overbroad and would more appropriately be addressed by way of 

deposition. Respondent further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that they are 

asked to state a legal opinion on "falsehoods", errors, etc. Without the benefit of the 

testimony of Mr. Rushton, an assessment concerning the credibility of his investigation 

cannot be surmised. 1n addition, no such e-mails have been disclosed by the 

Administrator nor are they contained as items of proof in the FAA EIR. The Rules of 

Civil Procedure do not require the Respondent to explain and disclose what the 

Respondent intends to show by way of cross examination of Alan Long which places this 

interrogatory in the category of requesting the mental impressions and work product of 

the Respondent's trial counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. See also theemail transmissions to and from Dr. Long contained in the FAA's EIR and those 

previously disclosed by Respondent. 

9. If you asseJi that the undated letters from Shawn Flowers to Yancey Rushton 

(stamped received by the AL/NW FLORJDA FSD0-09 on October 15, 2012 and on 

October 24, 2012) contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other 

errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing 

that the statement is in error. describe what you believe to be the actual situation and 

describe why Mr. Flowers made the enoneous statement. 

Answer: 

This Interrogatory is overly broad, compound and vague and would require a narrative 

response better suited to deposition and/or hearing testimony of Mr. Flowers. The 

requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete factual detail, 

and to the extent that this question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is unduly 

burdensome and overbroad and would more appropriately be addressed by way of 

deposition. Respondent further object to this Interrogatory to the extent that they are 

asked to state a legal opinion on "falsehoods", errors, etc. The Rules of Civil Procedure 

do not require the Respondent to explain and disclose what the Respondent intends to 

show by way of direct or cross examination of Mr. Flowers Long which places this 

intenogatory in the category of requesting the mental impressions and work product of 

41Pagc 
the Respondent's trial counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. As to the 

October 15, 2012 dated letter it speaks for itself. The October 24 dated letter, the first 

three paragraphs appear to be accurate while the last paragraph appears to be a lay 

assessment ofunlmown FAR's that would require a legal analysis and mental 

impressions to decipher and comment upon rendering this question which invades 

attorney work product. See also the contemporaneous e-mail transmissions to and from 

Dr. Long contained in the FAA's EIR and those previously disclosed by Respondent. 

10. If you assert any inaccuracy or incompleteness in any of the maintenance records 

related to this case and/or included in the EIR, please identify with specificity any such 

inaccuracy or incompleteness, your basis for believing that the record js inaccurate or 

incomplete, and what the record should have stated. 

Answer: 

None of the allegations of the Administrator's compliant concern the "maintenance 

records" of anything nor have any such records been produced by the Administrator or 

contained in the FAA's EIR. As such, Respondent has no way to answer the 

interrogatory and questions the relevance of the interrogatory to any aspect of this matter. 

11. Identify each person you may call as a witness at hearing in this matter, identify 

the subject of their testimony, and summarize the substance of their expected testimony. 

You do not need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but 

you must expand on those answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory. 

Answer: 

See Respondent's Answers to Interrogatories 1 and 2 of the Administrator's first set of 

Interrogatories filed on August 1, 2015. 

12. Identify each person you may can as an expert witness in this matter, identify the 

subject of their testimony, summarize the substance of their expected testimony, and 

describe in detail your basis for believing that the witness is an expert. 

Answer: 

None. 

13. For each interrogatory, request for production and request to admit, identify the 

individuals aiding in responding to that request. 

Answer: 

Steven Pickett 

SIP age 
14. For each document identified in your initial disclosures, describe how that 

document supports your position in this matter. 

Answer: 

This Interrogatory is overly broad, compound and vague and would require a narrative 

response The requested answer would require a narrative response requiring complete 

factual detail, and to the extent that this question seeks to narrow this Interrogatory is 

unduly burdensome and overbroad In addition, the Rules of Civil Procedure do not 

require the Respondent to explain and disclose what the Respondent intends to show by 

way of the voluminous documents that make up this case. This interrogatory is in the 

category of requesting the mental impressions and work product of the Respondent's trial 

counsel which is not allowed and is objectionable. 

15. If you deny any request for admission, state with specificity the basis for that 

denial. 

Answer: 

REQUEST TO ADMIT: 

l. Admit that (regardless of your intent) the September 18,2012 flight in N5254LP 

were not demonstration flights. 

ANSWER: 

Denied on the basis that the intention and purpose of Birmingham Flight Center, its 

principals, employees and agents that the flight was a flight taken as a demonstration 

flight on the authority of the owner and broker of the aircraft. 

REQUEST TO ADMIT: 

2. Admit that Dr. Long was charged amounts beyond those permitted by 14 C.F.R. 

§ 91.50l(d). 

ANSWER: 

Denied on the basis that § 91.501 (b) provides that operations that may be conducted 

under the rules in this subpart instead of those in parts 121, 129, 135, and 137 of this 

chapter when conunon carriage is not involved, include (3) Flights for the demonstration 

of an airplane to prospective customers when no charge is made except for those 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section. 

§ 91.501 (d) then provides that the following may be charged, as expenses of a specific 

flight, for transpmtation as authorized by paragraphs (b) (3) and (7) and ( c )(1) of this 

section: 

(1) Fuel, oil, lubricants, and other additives. 

(2) Travel expenses of the crew, including food, lodging, and ground transportation. 

(3) Hangar and tie-down costs away from the aircraft's base of operation. 

( 4) Insurance obtained for the specific flight. 

(5) Landing fees, airport taxes, and similar assessments. 

(6) Customs, foreign permit, and similar fees directly related to the flight. 

(7) In flight food and beverages. 

61Page 
· (8) Passenger ground transportation. 

(9) Flight planning and weather contract services. 

(I 0) An additional charge equal to I 00 percent ofthe expenses listed in paragraph ( d)(l) 

of this section. 

No inappropriate charges were requested nor incurred of or by Dr. Long and no 

documentation to the contrary is contained in the FAA's EIR nor has any such 

docwnentation that any inappropriate charges were requested of or by Dr. Long been 

produced by the Administrator. 

REQUEST TO ADMIT: 

3. Admit that it was the intent of Birmingham Flight Center and the pilots involved 

in the September 18,2012 flight to charge amounts that are not listed as permissible 

charges in 14 C.P.R.§ 91.50l(d). 

ANSWER: 

Denied on the basis set forth in answer to Request to admit 1 and 2. 

REQUEST TO ADMIT: 

4. Admit that you operated N525LP on September 18, 2012. 

ANSWER: 

Denied on the basis that the term "operated" is not defined and Respondent does not wish 

to have an inappropriate definition of"operated" to be applied to the factual situations 

involved to admit or imply that the subject flight was a charter, 135 or commercial flight 

or any other flight other that a demonstration flight which it was. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

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

Provides the following responses: 

1. Please produce each and every document referenced in your initial diclosures. 

Response: 

See Respondent's Responses to the Administrator's first set of Requests for Production of 

Documents filed on August 1, 20 15 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on 

August 17,2015. 

2. Please produce any document referenced in your interrogatory responses. 

Response: 

See Respondent's Responses to the Administrator's first set of Requests for Production of 

Documents filed on August 1, 2015 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on 

August 17,2015. Other documents are contained in the FAA's EIR. 

71Page 
3. Please produce any document you may use as evidence in this matter. 

Response: 

See Respondent's Responses to the Administrator's first set of Requests for Production of 

Documents filed on August I, 2015 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on 

August 17, 2015. Other documents are contained in the FAA's EIR. The specific 

documents to be used at the hearing of this matter will be produced with appropriate 

exhibit reference on or before the September 18,2015 date for disclosures as set forth in 

the Court's Pre-Trial Order at~ I 0. 

4. Please produce any document used relied upon, or referred to in answering the 

interrogatories or requests to admit. 

Response: 

Respondent utilized all documents set forth in Respondent's Responses to the 

Administrator's first set of Requests for Production of Documents filed on August I, 

2015 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on August 17, 2015. Other 

documents are contained in the FAA's EIR. 

5. Please produce all documents related to N525LP during September 2012 

including but not limited to any insurance agreements in effect at the time, any leases in 

effect at the time, aircraft, engine and maintenance logbooks, maintenance, flight records 

and financial records relating to the maintenance, operation or lease of the aircraft. 

Response: 

Respondent was not the owner of the subject aircraft and is not in possession of any 

records or documents responsive to this request. 

6. Copies of all correspondence (letters, e-mails or otherwise) to or from 

Birmingham Flight Center, Steven Pickett, and/or Sandi Pickett concerning this case or 

the operation ofN525LP in September 2012. 

Response: 

See Respondent's Responses to the Administrator's first set of Requests for Production of 

Documents filed on August 1, 2015 and Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on 

August 17,2015. Other documents are contained in the FAA's EIR. 

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

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

81Page 
Respectfully submitted, 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

Dated: August 21 , 2015 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800\VaukeganRoad 

Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

91Page 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

RESPONDENT'S ANSWERS TO COMPLAINANT'S "INITIAL" 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION addressed to: 

Christopher Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-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 21,2015 

~~ 

Paul 

c~~~ R. Borth 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road 

Suite 200 

Glenview, lL 60025 

Tel. (847) 724-5520 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

10 I Page 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

federal Aviation 

Administration 

VIA E-MAIL ONLY 

PaulR.Borth 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

facsimile: (815) 356-7042 

email: prb@barnettlegal.com 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Re: FAA v. Birmingham Flight Center, F AA-2014-0867 

Mr. Borth: 

Enforcement Division 

Southern Team 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

20 12S0090053 

I am writing to follow up on your August 21, 2015 responses to the FAA's July 7, 2015 

discovery requests. These responses were substantially deficient in a variety of ways, as 

discussed in more detail below. Please let me know immediately if you plan up updating your 

responses to correct these deficiencies and, if so, when you anticipate doing so. Given that these 

responses were two weeks late and that we are now outside of the currently-scheduled discovery 

period, prompt action will be required on this front. Accordingly, be advised that if I do not 

receive a suitable response regarding your intentions by close of business tomorrow, August 28, 

2015, a Motion to Compel will be filed next week. 

Intenogatories #I, 11: Interrogatory # 1 sought a detailed description of several persons' 

"knowledge of and involvement with this matter," including what their knowledge of the 

situation was and what conm1Llnications that person had with others about the situation. 

Intenogatory # 11 sought similar information with regard to expected witnesses -

identification of the subject of their testimony, and a summary of the substance of that 

testimony. In response to both of these intenogatories; you refened to your answers to 

Interrogatories #1 and #2 of a prior set of discovery requests. However, those discovery 

responses do not adequately answer this interrogatory. In particular, I note that the answers to 

those intenogatories provide no detail about what the individuals knew or what their 

communications were. for example, the prior response concerning Steven Pickett states that 

he is expected to testify about "all aspects" of the flight and about his communications with 

various individual. But it does not say what he actually knows about the flight or what those 

communications were. Your responses identify the potential subject of testimony, but 

provide no information about the substance of that testimony. For example, it is not enough 

to simply say that a witness will "testify about the weather" - a complete response would 

specific that the witness was going to testify that it was raining and chilly, or wann and 

sunny. 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

0 
Interrogatories #2, 7, 8, 9: These interrogatories asked Respondent to state whether it 

considered the contents of various statements, letters, and records of conversation to he 

accurate or inaccurate (whether simply inaccurate, mischaracterizing an otherwise true fact, 

or omitting pertinent information), You refused to answer any of these questions, However, 

yom slated reasons tor doing so are not valid ones, Contrary to your assertion, these 

questions are not vague, Contrary to your assertion, they are not "overly broad," but rather 

are confined to specitic documents used as Items of Proof in the ETR in this case, You are 

correct that they require a line-by-line review of the documents in question, but that is not a 

reason to refuse to answer the question. You suggest that these questions .would be "more 

appropriately" addressed at a deposition, but your opinion as to what method of discovery the 

FAA should have chosen does not relieve Respondent of the obligation of responding to 

discovery. You suggest that these questions would be "more appropriately" addressed at 

hearing, but that would defeat the entire purpose of discovery, which is to exchange 

information prior to hearing, You object to these questions as calling for legal conclusion as 

to whether statements are false, but that is a factual conclusion, not a legal one - and, 

regardless, discovery requests can permissibly ask for legal conclusions, You further object 

on the basis that this request asks what you intend to do in cross examination, but that is 

inaccurate, TI1is request asks for factual information (or, at least, Respondent's view of what 

the facts are), Respondent must answer these interrogatories, 

Interrogatory #4: This request sought Respondent's arguments, if any, for asserting that the 

penalty was inappropriate "even if the FAA proves the allegations in the Complaint" Your 

answer to this question exclusively consisted of denying that the allegations in the Complaint 

were true, Unless Respondent will agree to stipulate that, if the violations are proven, the 

penalty is appropriate, Respondent must answer this interrogatory as to the alleged defects in 

the sanction selected, 

Interrogatory #5: This interrogatory sough a detailed description of the circumstances of the 

flight at issue in this case. You objected to the interrogatory as "overly board" and "unduly 

burdensome" and because, you asserted, it sought a narrative accow1t of each witness's 

complete testimony, Your objection without merit The discovery request does not call for 

such a response- it calls for a description of events, not a description of testimony, It is 

entirely appropriate for an interrogatory to seek a description of events at issue in a case, In 

addition to objecting, you also responded by referring to the EIR. This is not an adequate 

response, especially when we know that Respondent does not actually agree with every 

aspect of each of the accounts of events contained in those documents (for example, DL 

Long asserts the notion of a demonstration flight never came up until after the flight, while 

Respondent asserts that it did), The intonnation sought by this interrogatory is not what those 

individual witnesses said- the information sought by this interrogatory is what the 

Respondent's ot1icial position is as to what transpired with regards to this flight 

lnteiTogatory #6: 111is intenogatory sought a description of the relationship between 

Respondent and pilots Justin Lollar and Shawn Flowers during the latter half of 2012, You 

did not object to this question, but only responded by referring to other interrogatory 

responses, and to the entire EIR. This is not an adequate response, First, the interrogatory 
responses referenced to do appear to address this at all- as noted above, those responses 

simply referenced topics without content. Second, simply referring to EIR as a whole is 

inappropriate- it could perhaps be appropriate to direct the FAA to the contents of a 

particular docwnent, if that document contained information that fully and completely 

answered the question. But there was no such direction provided, the undersigned is unaware 

of such a document, and iftl1ere is such a document, Respondent must still go on the record 

as fom1ally adopting the contents of that document. 

Interrogatory # 15 and Requests for Admission 1, 4: This interrogatory requested that 

Respondent identify the basis for denying any requests for admission that had been denied. 

All of these interrogatories were responded to. However, these responses revealed that there 

was not a valid basis for the original denials. Request tor Admission #1 specifically asked 

Respondent to admit that the flight was not a demonstration flight, regardless of whether 

Respondent intended it to be a demonstration flight. Your response to tllis interrogatory is 

that the basis for the denial is that tl1e "intention and purpose" of the flight was a 

demonstration flight- in shmi, the denial had nothing to do with the question. Request for 

Admission #4 asked Respondent to admit that it had operated the night. That request was 

denied, and the explanation provided was that the term "operated" was not defined. In short, 

Respondent answered "denied" even though it had no basis to deny the request for 

admission. You are advised that the definition of the word operate is contained in 14 C.F.R. 

§ 1.1. As to both of these interrogatories, Respondent must revise its answer to the request 

for admission and/or supplement its response to this interrogatory to provide a valid basis for 

denying the requests for admission. Failure to do so will result in the filing of a Motion to 

Deem Admitted. 

As noted above, please let me know by close of business tomorrow, August 28, 2015, whether 

you intend to correct these deficiencies, and if so, your anticipated time frame for doing so. 

Sincerely, 

CIIRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Chief Counsel- Enforcement Division, Southern Team 
800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 • Glenview, Illinois 60025 

847-809-9520 

September 29,2015 

Christopher Stevenson 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 

Via E-mail: Chris.StevensoniWfaa.gov 

Re: In Re Birmingham Flight Center Discovery 

Mr. Stevenson: 

prb@barnettlegal.com 

I have had the opportunity to review your discovery responses and have the following 

comments. In response to respondent's expert interrogatories you state that "the FAA has not 

identified any expert witnesses at this time." In addition, you object claiming privilege in 

response to Respondent's expert requests for production numbers 2, 3, 4 and Respondent's 

request for production numbers 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 24, and 25. A review of the docwnents disclosed 

by Administrator demonstrate that Mr. Rushton and Mr. Hargett were both involved in the 

investigation of this case on behalf of the FAA and both wrote reports concerning their 

investigation. 

It is our position that both Mr. Rushton and Mr. Hargett are experts in the eyes of the 

Federal Rules subject to rule 26 and, accordingly, your objections and claims of privilege 

respecting response requests for expert discovery are unfounded. You have identified Mr. 

Rushton as an individual who will provide testimony at the hearing but have merely disclosed 

that "Mr. Rushton will provide testimony respecting all FAA allegations contained in the 

administrator's complaint for which he has personallmowledge". Your answer to Respondent's 

interrogatory number 7 states that the FAA anticipates calling the three FAA aviation safety 

inspectors who were involved in the investigation as well. 

The allegations of the administrator's complaint concern CFR's that one would assume 

Mr. Rushton has studied and for which Mr. Rushton holds opinions vis-it-vis the factual scenario 

involved in this case drawing on his experience as a former owner of a charter service (Rushton 

Air). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26 (2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony dictates that: 

(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 

26(a)(l), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of 

any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal 

Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

liPage E 
(B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report. Unless 

otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must 

be accompanied by a written report-prepared and signed by the 

witness-if the witness is one retained or specially employed to 

provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the 

party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. 

The report 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 fmming 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; 

(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, 

the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and 

(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and 

testimony in the case. 

(C) Witnesses Who Do Not Provide a Written Report. Unless 

otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, if the witness is not 

required to provide a written report, this disclosure must state: 

(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present 

evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702,703, or 705; and 

(ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is 

expected to testify. (Emphasis supplied). 

Both Mr. Yancey and Mr. Hargett meet the criteria of "one whose duties as the party's 

employee regularly involve giving expert testimony". They are both employees of the FAA and 

their positions with the FAA likely involve regularly providing expert testimony in cases such as 

the present one. Accordingly the Administrator has failed to comply with Rule 26 (2)(B) in all 

respects and notwithstanding Rule 26(2), Respondent would be severely prejudiced by being 

forced to cross examine an expert whose opinions have not been previously disclosed. We would 

appreciate it if you would reconsider your objections and purported privileges and provide us 

with full disclosure of the opinions and documents requested in respondent's discovery requests. 

In addition to your purported privileges have not been accompanied by a privilege log. 

Since 1993, FRCP 26(b)(5) has included the following language: "When a party withholds 

information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to 

protection as trial preparation material, the party must: i) Expressly make the claim; and ii) 

Describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or 

disclosed -- and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or 

protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim. The language of Rule 26(b)(5) is 

"commonly satisfied by filing a privilege log." Wolk v. Green, No. C06-5025 BZ, 2007 WL 

3203050, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. 2007). We would appreciate it if at your earliest convenience, you 

would file a privilege log that meets the above criteria so that an in camera inspection may be 

conducted. 

With respect to your answers to Respondent's non-expert interrogatories, interrogatory 

number 7 requests a brief summary of the facts and opinions of which each identified witness 

will testify. Absent from your answer is any indication of the facts and opinions that will be 

expressed by the three FAA aviation safety inspectors. At your earliest convenience please 

provide a more thorough answer to this interrogatory. 
Interrogatory n\lmber 8 asks the Administrator to provide a list of the documents that will 

be used to support the Administrators claim that respondent violated aviation regulations. While 

the Respondent is in possession of the EIR, he is not cognizant of which documents contained in 

the EIR will be used by the Administrator to support his case. While it is true that the 

Respondent "can read the documents for itself' the Respondent is uncertain of which documents 

the Administrator deems supportive of his case. Please provide a more thorough answer to this 

interrogatory. 

Based on the Administrator's answer to interrogatory number 10 and 11 and the 

Administrator's response to respondent's request for production numbers 16, the Respondent 

assumes that the Administrator has no affirmative responses to these requests and is waving the 

potential use of responsive documents related to these requests. Please advise if the Respondent 

is mistaken in this regard. 

With respect to the Respondent's responses to the Administrator's discovery, Respondent 

stands by the answers and responses previously served upon the Administrator and disagrees 

with the arguments to the contrary set forth in your undated letter on this subject. 

PRB/tbm 

31Pagc 

Sincerely, 

BARNETT & BORTI!, LLC 

~--·..---=' ~?~ 

Paul Borth, Attorney at Law