10/13/201 1 12:5 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - OM S @]001/00 3



### U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O f

HEARING S FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

FEDERALAVIATIO N ADMrNlSTRATlOK , Complainani , vs . 

### DEA N INTERNATIONAL , INC. . Respondent . 

# RECEIVE D HEAR/^f G DOCKE T

FA A Docket No . Jr.AA-20ll-006 9 hA A Cas e Nos . 2010$O190256-,-; ' ' Judg e Sullivan

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



### REPL Y I N SUPPOR T O FFAA' S MOTIO N T O COMPE L- * The FA A hereb y replie s i

n suppor t o f it s Motio n to Compel . .A s discusse dbelow . Respondent' s concession s i n it s Respons e t o th e Motio n to Compe l eliminat e th e nee dfo r response s to some o f

the discover

y requests . The FA

A continue s t o reques t

thai Respondent

b e compelle dto full

y respon dt o the remainder . Interrogatoric s Generall y an dInterrogator y 2 I n it s Respons e to the FAA' s Motio n to Compel , whe n addressin g interrogatorie s generally , an

dseveral o f

the specifi c interrogatories , Respondent repeatedl y defend s it s refusa l t o provid e complete answer s t o interrogatorie s b y assertin g tha

t th e FA A coul dhav e obtaine dthos e answer s i n adepositio n o f

Respondent' s President . See Respons e a t 1-A . Thi s argumen t

i s misplaced . Th e fact

tha t a n opposin g part

y woul dpotentiall y b e abl e t o ask question s abou t

a subjec t i n adepositio n i s no t

ahasi. s lo declin e t

o answer (or to declin e t o fully answer ) interrogatories . Indeed , i f Respondent' s positio n wa s valid , thi s woul dmea n tha t litigant s woul d almos t neve r hav e t o respon dto interrogatories , becaus e ahnos t an y questio n i n a

n interrogatory0/13/20, 1 12:5 9 FA X 2024835U 2 FA A . 0„ S • @002/0O 6

coul dals o b e aske da

t adeposition . Th e FAA' s Motio n t o Compe l shoul db e granted , an d Responden t

require dt o full y answe r th e interrogatories . inie.f-rogmor) ' ^-

5 I n it s fiA hinterrogatory , tJi c KA A aske dtibou t

th e purpos e an dnatur e o f ih t flight s i n question , t o th e exten t

thos e flight s wer e no t

for th e purpose s o f

fligh t instruction . Responden t reiterate s it s prio r

assertion s that , havin g asserte dtha t ther e wer e n o flight

instructor s o n th e aircraft , i l nee dprovid e n o furthe r response . A s di.<?cusse

di n ih c FAA' s Motio n l o Compel , eve n i f (a s Responden t

no w concedes ) Respondent' s aircraf t ar e subjec t

t o th e sam e maintenanc e requirement s regardles s o f whethe r ther e wa s instructio n give n o n th e flight s i n question , thi s questio n i s stil l relevant . Respondent' s Respons e ignore s thi s entirely . Sep . Respons e a t 2 . Th e particula r natur e aii dpurpos e o f

th e flight s remai n rcJevan t Respondent' s affirmaliv e defense s tha t th e 10-hou r

overfl y wa s apphcable , an dt o it s defens e tha t i t i s no t responsibl e fo

r violation s committe do n thes e flights . Inlerroguior y 7 , 8 . W } n it s respons e regardin g thes e interrogatories , Rcsix^ndcn t fo r (h e Jlr-^ t tim e sittlc s th e particula r basi s for

it s defens e tha t

ther e wa s n o violatio n i n overflyin g th e regulator y 100-hou r inspections . Se e Respons e a t 3 . Opposin g counse l correctl y note s tha t Respondent , pvior

t o obtainin g representation , ha didentifie dasourc e o f a10-hou r

overfl y permission . However , especiall y give n that

th e lO-hocr

r overf? y provisio n cite dha s n o apparen t applicabilit y i n thi s case , th e FA A reasonabl y sough t t o fonnall y confirmtha i Respondent , no w wit hcounsel , wa s stil l relyin g o n th e sam e basi s for th e asserte daffirmativ e defense . Additionally , ih e intenogatorie s sough t

no t onl y th e lega l basi s fo r th e affirmativ e defense , bu t als o th e allege d facnial ba^i s tha t

woul dsuppor t

th e appiicabilil y o f

th e provisio n i n question . Responden t ha s10/13/201 1 12:5 9 FA X 202^935^ 2 FAf t - DM S (^OOS/OO B

no w sufficientl y idenli/ie dth e lega l basi s for hi s afllirnativ e defense , bu t shoul dstil l b e require d t o identif y th e factua l basis , shoul di t maintai n tha t

on e exists. ' Inrerro^alor y / / Th e Aii-*'onhines s Directiv e M issu e i n thi s cas e specificall y reference s "a t th e nex t schedule dinspection' ' a s on e o f th e limin g point s fo r th e A D inspectio n requirement . Interrogator y 1 7 asked , wit hregard s t o th e specifi c flight s i n question , whe n tha t "nex t schedule d inspection " was . Th e interrogator y wa s relevant . Responden t shoul db e require dt o full y lespond . Interrogator y 1 3 T o th e exten t

tha t Responden t

wil l a t hearin g o r

o n judgmen t

motio n advanc e n o argumen t regardin^ ^ th e penalt y propose dothe r tha n th e mer e assertio n that th e penaltie s ar e "hars han dunfair " becaus e th e violation s wer e no t deliberat e and/o r

th e Judg e wil l prohibi t an y argumen t beyon dthi s point , the n th e FAA' s thirteent hinterrogator y ha s bee n full y complie d With . fmerrogalor y 1 4 Respondent' s argumen t regardin g thi s interrogator y ha s bee n full y addresse di n th e FAA' s Motio n t o Compel , an dabove . Responden t shoul db e require dt o full y respon dt o th e interrogatory . Request s fo r Froduaio n 6 . 7 . S Responden t

reiterate s u s positio n tha t i t shoul dno t

hav e l o produc e maintenanc e record s fo r th e aircraf

t i n question . Se e Respons e a t 4-5 . Responden t

continue s t o asse n a n affinnativ e defens e tha t

i t i s no i responsibl e for

thes e violation s becaus e o f it s "systems " i n plac e t o preven t

Ther e i s n o indicjiio n tJia : dn y suc hfactua l basi s ixists . However , :» o loti g a.< r Responden t

conriiiue. ^ t o ayserf

th « defense , i

t mus t provid e wha t

i t purport s th e facraa l basi s l o be .10/13/201 1 12:5 9 FAX 202493514 2 FA A- QM S 21004/OO B

violations , an dha s indicate dtha t i t wil l cal l witnesse s l o testif y abou t th e maintenanc e o f

thes e aircrafl . Responden t

canno t reasonabl y expec t

t o presen t

an affirmativ e defens e abou t th e long

ten n maintenanc e o f

thes e aircrafl , an dthe n no t hav e t o produc e record s concernin g tha t defense . Th e requeste ddocument s ar e relevant . Additionally , th e tim e peno di n questio n i s appropriate . Indeed , th e FA A coul dhav e reasonabl y requeste dalonge r tim e fi-ame o f

production ^ give n that th e "systems' " i n questio n wer e onl y pu t int o plac e i n lat e 200 S a s aresul t o f Respondent' s Presideni' s virtuall y identica l violations . Responden t shoul db e require dt o produc e th e requeste ddocuments . Reques t fo r Produc e io n 10 . I I No w tha t Responden t

ha s formall y concede dthat th e maintenanc e requirement s a t issu e i n thi s cas e ar e full y applicabl e t o th e flight s regardles s o f whethe r ther e wa s fligh t

insrruciion . thi s reques t

for productio n i s no w o f

limite drelevance , an dth e FA A withdraw s it s motio n l o compe l wit hregard s l o request s fo r productio n 1 0 an d11 . Reques t fo r Productio n 9 Responden t

provide s n o justificatio n for hi s refusa l l o compl y wit hthi s reques t fo r production . Whil e Responden t describe s th e reques t

a s "extremel y broad, " i t was , i n fact , a narro w on e - i

t requeste d"all " documents , bu t th e scop e wa s limite dt o th e specifi c flight s a t issu e i n thi s case . Respondent' s assertio n tha i areques t fo r record s concernin g th e specifi c flight s i s "unjustifie dharassmen t an dannoyance " i s withou t foundation , i t

shoul dnee dn o explanatio n tha i compan y record s abou t th e flight s charge di n th e Complain t ar e relevant , o r coul dlea dt o th e discover y o f rclcva minformation , especiall y wher e Responden t assert s tha t

th e operatio n o f

it s ow n aircraf

l o n lliglit s tha t

i t dispatche dwa s suc htha t i t i s no t responsibl e fo

r th e unairu'orrh y conditio n o f iho^ e aircraft .10/13/201 1 12:5 9 FAX 202^93514 2 FA A. Dh S • @005/00 8



### However , i

n Respondent' s statement s regardin g the relevanc e o f th e possibihr) ' o f

fligh t instruction , Respondent

concede s th e applicabilit y o f the maintenanc e requiremenl s a t issu e i n thi s case . A s such , the portion s o f thi s reques t

tha t sought busines s record s an

dlligh t instructio n record s ar e now o f greatl y reduce drelevance , an dRespondent

ha s indicate di

n respons e to other request s fo

r productio n tha

t i t ha s no additiona

l maintenanc e record s concernin g thes e fliglits . Accordingly , the FA

A wil l narro w the scop e o f thi s reques t

to exclud e billing-relate ddocument s an drecord s of

fligh t instruction . Howe\'er , th e FA A doc s not

withdraw the whol e request , a s Respondent

ma y hav e additional documentatio n concernin g thes e flights, whic hma y contai n relevant information , or

ma y lea dto the discover

y o f relevant andadmissibl e information . Accordingly , th e FA

A continue s t o reques t

tha t th e 7udge compe l Responden t lo produc e any suc hrecord s tha

t mighl exist . WHEREFORE , the FA

A request s tha

t th e judg e compel Respondent t o compl y wit

hthe FAA' s discover y requests , excep t

t o th e extent

Tha t thos e discover

y request s hav e bee n moote db y Respondent' s concessions , a s describe dabove .



# . 3 rJ V Respectfully submitte dthi s j ^da y o f October . 2011 , CHRJSTOPHB RSTE<^ENSO N Attorne y 

### Otfic e o f the Regiona

l Counse l10/13/201 1 12:5 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ QM S I^OOG/OO G



### CERTIFICAT E QFSER\T[C E I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Repl y i

n Suppor t o f Motio n to Compel wa s sent : origina l an don e cop y vi acertifie dmai l andFedera l Expres s Lo: Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 800 Independenc e Avenue , S-W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Allention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 one cop y vi acertifie dmail . Federa l Express , an

dfacsimil e to : The Honorabl e J.B . Sulliva n Otfic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE12-32 0 U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 facsimile : (202 ) 366-753 6 one copy vi acertifie dmai l andfacsimil e to : Stuar t Goldstein . Esq . Siuai i A . Goldsteiii . PA . 935 0 Sout hDixi e Highway . 10t

hFloo r Miami , F L3315 6 facsimil e C305) 6-70-7065

DONN A STANLEY i Legal Assistant Offic e o f th e Regiona

l Counse l