10/13/201 1 12:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA - OMS @]001/003 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE Of HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMrNlSTRATlOK, 

Complainani, 

vs. 

DEAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.. 

Respondent. 

RECEIVED 

HEAR/^fG DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. Jr.AA-20ll-0069 

hAA Case Nos. 2010$O190256-,-;' ' 

Judge Sullivan 

2010SO190260" r'-'-^^-J 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF FAA'S MOTION TO COMPEL -* 

The FAA hereby replies in support of its Motion to Compel. .As discussed below. 

Respondent's concessions in its Response to the Motion to Compel eliminate the need for 

responses to some of the discovery requests. The FAA continues to request thai Respondent be 

compelled to fully respond to the remainder. 

Interrogatorics Generally and Interrogatory 2 

In its Response to the FAA's Motion to Compel, when addressing interrogatories 

generally, and several of the specific interrogatories, Respondent repeatedly defends its refusal to 

provide complete answers to interrogatories by asserting that the FAA could have obtained those 

answers in a deposition of Respondent's President. See Response at 1-A. This argument is 

misplaced. The fact that an opposing party would potentially be able to ask questions about a 

subject in a deposition is not a hasi.s lo decline to answer (or to decline to fully answer) 

interrogatories. Indeed, if Respondent's position was valid, this would mean that litigants would 

almost never have to respond to interrogatories, because ahnost any question in an interrogatory 
0/13/20, 1 12:59 FAX 2024835U2 FAA . 0„S • @002/0O6 

could also be asked at a deposition. The FAA's Motion to Compel should be granted, and 

Respondent required to fully answer the interrogatories. 

inie.f-rogmor)' ^-5 

In its fiAh interrogatory, tJic KAA asked tibout the purpose and nature of iht flights in 

question, to the extent those flights were not for the purposes of flight instruction. Respondent 

reiterates its prior assertions that, having asserted that there were no flight instructors on the 

aircraft, il need provide no further response. As di.<?cussed in ihc FAA's Motion lo Compel, even 

if (as Respondent now concedes) Respondent's aircraft are subject to the same maintenance 

requirements regardless of whether there was instruction given on the flights in question, this 

question is still relevant. Respondent's Response ignores this entirely. Sep. Response at 2. The 

particular nature aiid purpose of the flights remain rcJevant Respondent's affirmalive defenses 

that the 10-hour overfly was apphcable, and to its defense that it is not responsible for violations 

committed on these flights. 

Inlerroguiory 7, 8. W 

}n its response regarding these interrogatories, Rcsix^ndcnt for (he Jlr-^t time sittlcs the 

particular basis for its defense that there was no violation in overflying the regulatory 100-hour 

inspections. See Response at 3. Opposing counsel correctly notes that Respondent, pvior to 

obtaining representation, had identified a source of a 10-hour overfly permission. However, 

especially given that the lO-hocrr overf?y provision cited has no apparent applicability in this 

case, the FAA reasonably sought to fonnally confirm thai Respondent, now with counsel, was 

still relying on the same basis for the asserted affirmative defense. Additionally, ihe 

intenogatories sought not only the legal basis for the affirmative defense, but also the alleged 

facnial ba^is that would support the appiicabilily of the provision in question. Respondent has 
10/13/2011 12:59 FAX 202^935^2 FAft - DMS (^OOS/OOB 

now sufficiently idenli/ied the legal basis for his afllirnative defense, but should still be required 

to identify the factual basis, should it maintain that one exists.' 

Inrerro^alory / / 

The Aii-*'onhiness Directive M issue in this case specifically references "at the next 

scheduled inspection'' as one of the liming points for the AD inspection requirement. 

Interrogatory 17 asked, with regards to the specific flights in question, when that "next scheduled 

inspection" was. The interrogatory was relevant. Respondent should be required to fully 

lespond. 

Interrogatory 13 

To the extent that Respondent will at hearing or on judgment motion advance no 

argument regardin^^ the penalty proposed other than the mere assertion that the penalties are 

"harsh and unfair" because the violations were not deliberate and/or the Judge will prohibit any 

argument beyond this point, then the FAA's thirteenth interrogatory has been fully complied 

With. 

fmerrogalory 14 

Respondent's argument regarding this interrogatory has been fully addressed in the 

FAA's Motion to Compel, and above. Respondent should be required to fully respond to the 

interrogatory. 

Requests for Froduaion 6. 7. S 

Respondent reiterates us position that it should not have lo produce maintenance records 

for the aircraft in question. See Response at 4-5. Respondent continues to assen an affinnative 

defense that it is noi responsible for these violations because of its "systems" in place to prevent 

There is no indicjiion tJia: dny such factual basis ixists. However, :»o lotig a.<r Respondent conriiiue.^ to ayserf th« 

defense, it must provide what it purports the facraal basis lo be. 
10/13/201 1 12:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA - QMS 21004/OOB 

violations, and has indicated that it will call witnesses lo testify about the maintenance of these 

aircrafl. Respondent cannot reasonably expect to present an affirmative defense about the longtenn maintenance of these aircrafl, and then not have to produce records concerning that defense. 

The requested documents are relevant. Additionally, the time penod in question is appropriate. 

Indeed, the FAA could have reasonably requested a longer time fi-ame of production^ given that 

the "systems'" in question were only put into place in late 200S as a result of Respondent's 

Presideni's virtually identical violations. Respondent should be required to produce the 

requested documents. 

Request for Produce ion 10. II 

Now that Respondent has formally conceded that the maintenance requirements at issue 

in this case are fully applicable to the flights regardless of whether there was flight insrruciion. 

this request for production is now of limited relevance, and the FAA withdraws its motion lo 

compel with regards lo requests for production 10 and 11. 

Request for Production 9 

Respondent provides no justification for his refusal lo comply with this request for 

production. While Respondent describes the request as "extremely broad," it was, in fact, a 

narrow one - it requested "all" documents, but the scope was limited to the specific flights at 

issue in this case. Respondent's assertion thai a request for records concerning the specific 

flights is "unjustified harassment and annoyance" is without foundation, it should need no 

explanation thai company records about the flights charged in the Complaint are relevant, or 

could lead to the discovery of rclcvam information, especially where Respondent asserts that the 

operation of its own aircrafl on lliglits that it dispatched was such that it is not responsible for the 

unairu'orrhy condition of iho^e aircraft. 
10/13/201 1 12:59 FAX 202^935142 FAA . DhS • @005/00 8 

However, in Respondent's statements regarding the relevance of the possibihr)' of flight 

instruction, Respondent concedes the applicability of the maintenance requiremenls at issue in 

this case. As such, the portions of this request that sought business records and llight instruction 

records are now of greatly reduced relevance, and Respondent has indicated in response to other 

requests for production that it has no additional maintenance records concerning these fliglits. 

Accordingly, the FAA will narrow the scope of this request to exclude billing-related documents 

and records of flight instruction. Howe\'er, the FAA docs not withdraw the whole request, as 

Respondent may have additional documentation concerning these flights, which may contain 

relevant information, or may lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible information. 

Accordingly, the FAA continues to request that the 7udge compel Respondent lo produce any 

such records that mighl exist. 

WHEREFORE, the FAA requests that the judge compel Respondent to comply with the FAA's 

discovery requests, except to the extent That those discovery requests have been mooted by 

Respondent's concessions, as described above. 

. 3 rJV 

Respectfully submitted this j ^ day of October. 2011, 

CHRJSTOPHBR STE<^ENSON 

Attorney 

Otfice of the Regional Counsel 
10/13/2011 12:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ QMS I^OOG/OOG 

CERTIFICATE QFSER\T[CE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Reply in Support of Motion to Compel was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail and Federal Express Lo: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S-W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Allention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

one copy via certified mail. Federal Express, and facsimile to: 

The Honorable J.B. Sullivan 

Otfice of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: 

Stuart Goldstein. Esq. 

Siuaii A. Goldsteiii. PA. 

9350 South Dixie Highway. 10th Floor 

Miami, FL 33156 

facsimile C305) 6-70-7065 

DONNA STANLEY i 

Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel