465 California Street Suite 210 

## •
San Francisco California 94104 

## • (415) 421-2500 Fax (415) 421-2560

www.avialex.com law@avialex.com 

### Michael 

### L. Dworkin and Associates Law Offices 

# RECEIVED MAY 2 920a 

## HEARING DOCKET

FEDEX: 

### FederalAviation Administration Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building -Suite 2W1000 800 IndependenceAvenue SW Washington, DC 20591


### RE: MartinaireAviation, Inc. FAA 

### Case No. 2011SW700189 FDMS 

### No. FAA-2013-0040



### Dear Hearing DocketClerk: May24,2013

Enclosed herewithfor filing is the following document: MartinaireAviation's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Request.

cc: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin
. Administrative Law Judge James Archier, Esq. FAA,ASW-7 Caitlin M. Miller Legal Assistant t, ,_.."MICHAEL L. DWORKIN #64047 MICHAEL L. DWORKIN and ASSOCIATES 465 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-02500 Facsimile: (415) 421-2560 Email: law@avialex.com Attorneys for MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

# RECEIVED MAY 2 92013 

## HEARING DOCKET

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
Inthe Matter of:

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC FAA CASENO. 2011SW700189 FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE AVIATION LLC'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S DISCOVERY REQUEST Judge: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin

MARTINAIRE AVIATION LLC (hereinafter referred to as "MARTINAIRE"), by and through its undersigned counsel, objects and responds to Complainant's FirstRequest for Documents and First Set oflnterrogatories, dated May 13, 2013.

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS This matter arises out oftwelve (12) alleged discrepancies in certainnotification ofpilotin-command ("NOPC") required under Section 175.33 ofthe Department ofTransportation'sHazardous Materials Regulations ("HMR's"), thatwere observed during anFederal Aviation Administration ("FAA") base inspection at MARTINAIRE's facilities onJuly 8, 2011. At the conclusion ofthe inspection, and during the outbriefing, MARTINAIRE admitted the discrepancies that the FAA found, and withinthe nextthree (3) days, implemented a number of corrective actions to prevent recurrence. All such corrective actions were fully to the FAA's satisfaction. Any such discrepancies were caused by MARTINAIRE pilot and dispatch personnel, who atthe time ha:d been fully trained in accordance with MARTINAIRE's FAAapproved Hazardous Materials**("HazMat"~** Training Program, and who should have known better. Moreover, the discrepancies that the FAA found were not only contrary to the HMR's, but clearly contrary to MARTINAIRE's ownpolicies and procedures. Not only did MARTINAIRE admit the discrepancies during the FAA outbriefmg, but during the pendency ofthis action, MARTINAIRE has continued to fully admit and take full responsibility for them. The sole issue inthis matter is sanction. Complainant has proposed a penalty of$206,550.00 for the twelve (12) alleged discrepancies, far inexcess ofthe penalties suggested in Complainant's established Sanction Guidance in its Order 2150.3B. Inasmuch as the sole issue is sanction, Complainant's discovery is excessive, compound, complex, overly broad and unduly burdensome, transcending the boundaries ofreasonable discovery and seeking informationthat is already within Complainant's knowledge, care, custody and control. As ofthe date that Complainant initiated this discovery, Complainanthad the benefit ofMARTINAIRE's admissions at the FAA outbriefing ofJuly 11,2012, MARTINAIRE's detailed August 7, 2012 response to the FAALetter oflnvestigation, including

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page2numerous attachments and submissions thereto, and the undersigned counsel's December 12, 2012letter, including several attachments and submissions thereto. Subsequentto Complainant's initiation ofthis discovery, Complainanthas taken the depositions of MARTINAIRE'S ChiefPilot, Assistant ChiefPilot and its SeniorVice President, Chief Operating Officer and Director ofOperations. What else could Complainantpossibly need? Complainant's discovery appears to have been motivated less by a genuine need for relevant and probative information, and more to drive up the costs and burdens of MARTINAIRE's defense ofthis action to bludgeon MARTINAIRE into settlement. 1 MARTINAIRE's investigation is ongoing and continuing and MARTINAIRE reserves the right to supplement or amend these Responses as its investigationproceeds up through the time ofhearing. Accordingly, these Responses shouldbe considered tentative at**b~st.** Finally, MARTINAIRE, inits Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("Answer"), has asserted numerous affirmative defenses and reserves the rightto assert additionally affirmative defenses as they arise. Notwithstanding any response or admission contained herein, MARTINAIRE reasserts each and every affirmative defense contained in its Answer, which
1 Particularly telling is the fact that although Complainantnoticed and tookthe depositions ofthree MARTINAIRE employees, Assistant ChiefPilotCory Smith, ChiefPilot Michael Bates and SeniorVice President/COO/Director ofOperations AlanRusinowitz, over a two-day period inFort Worth, Texas, all at considerable expense and burdento MARTINAIRE, Complainant declined to ordertranscripts from the courtreporter, forcing MARTINAIREto bear the costs for the original transcripts, in addition to the copies thatit had ordered. This suggests that Complainantknew that these depositions would serve no constructive purpose (other than to increase MARTINAIRE's costs ofdefense), orthat Complainant simply wantedto obtain discovery and "stick" the costs to MARTINAIRE. Considering that MARTINAIRE has consistently admitted the discrepancies inthe subjectNOPC's and that the sole issue inthis case is that ofsanction, Complainant and its counsel's conduct constitute nothing less than an abuse ofprocess. FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 3MAR TINAIRE incorporates hereinbythis reference as iffully set forth herein.

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES The objections set forth above are hereby incorporated herein intheir entirety as iffully set forth herein. Notwithstanding these objections, MARTINAIRE, based on its information and belief, responds to the Interrogatories as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify the name, address, telephone number, andposition ofeachperson answering or assisting in answering these interrogatories. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 1: 1. Michael L. Dworkin, Michael L. Dworkin and Associates, 465 California Street, Suite 210, San Francisco California 94104, (415) 421-2500, MARTINAIRE's attorney; 2. John T. Van Geffen, 465 California Street, Suite 210, San Francisco California 94104, (415) 421-2500, an Associate atMichael L. Dworkin and Associates; and 3. Mr. Alan Rusinowitz, MARTINAIRE's Senior Vice President/COO and Director of Operations.

INTERROGATORY NO.2: Identify the name, address, and telephone number ofeachperson, other than expert witnesses, thatyouwill ormay call as witnesses attrial and summarize the expectedtestimony.

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page4MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2 MARTINAIRE has notyetdecided who will be called to testify and discovery is currently ongoing. Withoutwaiving said objections, Respondent currently intends to call the following persons to testify athearing: 1. Michael Bates, MARTINAIRE's ChiefPilot; 2. Cory Smith, MARTINAIRE'S Assistant ChiefPilot; 3. Alan Rusinowitz, MARTINAIRE's Senior Vice President/COO and Director of Operations; 4. Paul Klimas, Hazardous Materials Specialist and Complainant's investigating inspector; 5. Bryan Buchanan, Complainant's Manager, Hazardous Materials, Southwest Region. witnesses athearing. MARTINAIRE further reserves the rightto call as its witnesses any persons identified in Complainant's Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR), any persons now orhereinafter identified by Complainant as its witnesses and any persons who maybe called to testify by Complainant at deposition or at hearing inthis matter. The substance ofthe testimonies ofMessrs. Bates, Smith and Rusinowitz should be readily apparent to Complainant who has already takentheir depositions. MARTINAIRE incorporates and adopts as iffully set forth herein the transcripts ofsaid witnesses depositions. This testimony will include, butnotbe limited to the purpose and preparation ofNOPC's; MARTINAIRE's HazMat Training Program; the FAA base inspection during whichthe alleged

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 5discrepancies were discovered; MARTINAIRE's response to the FAA findings; MARTINAIRE's immediate and comprehensive corrective actions, including butnot limitedto revision oftheNOPC form, revision ofthe HazMat Training Program, retraining ofall pilot and dispatch personnel and institution ofdaily NOPC audits. The substance ofthe testimonies ofMessrs. Klimas and Buchanan should bereadily apparent to Complainant who has attended and participated intheir depositions taken in Arlington, Texas onMay 17, 2013. MARTINAIRE incorporates and adopts as iffully set forth herein thetranscripts ofsaid witnesses depositions. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and continuing, and MARTINAIRE reserves the right to amend and/or supplementthese responses up throughthe date ofhearing. MARTINAIRE further reserves the rightto utilize other witnesses, not identified herein, for impeachmentpurposes.



### INTERROGATORY NO.3: Identify by name, address and telephone number all persons who have personal knowledge ofthe Notification ofpilot-in-command documents alleged in Complainant's Complaint. 

### MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYN0.3 Objection. To the extentthat the Interrogatory seeks the names, address and telephone number ofindividuals that "havepersonal knowledge oftheNotification ofpilot-in-command documents alleged in Complainant's Complaint", itis overbroad and unduly burdensome as each

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 6ofMARTINAIRE's approximately 100 employees has some knowledge ofMARTINAIRE's HAZMAT policies and procedures, including but not limited to the existence and preparation of NOPC's, whether ornotthey may be directly involved in shipping, receiving, handling or transportation ofMARTINAIRE cargo. The interrogatory is also vague, ambiguous and uncertain as to whether itis addressing the subject 12 NOPC's orNOPC's in general. Interrogatory No. 3, as worded, conceivably requests the name, occupation andbusiness address ofevery single person who has worked for MARTINAIRE since the Company was founded. MARTINAIRE requests clarification from Complainant as to exactly what, ifany, information Complainant is seeking.



### INTERROGATORY NO.4: Identify by name address and telephone numbers all persons who havepersonal knowledge ofyour affirmative defenses alleged in your Answer. 

### MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0.4: Objection. To the extentthat Interrogatory No.4 requests attorney-client communications protected under the attorney-client privilege, or attorney work-product protected information, MARTINAIRE objects to this Interrogatory. Respondent further objects toInterrogatory No. 4 as being overbroad and burdensome as nearly all,.MARTINAIRE employees possess relevant knowledge ofand/or information about the matter giving rise to this case as such information was used as the basis for additional MARTINAIRE HAZMAT training and other corrective actions. To the extentthat the

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 7Interrogatory seeks the names, addresses and telephone numbers ofindividuals that "have personal knowledge ofMartinaire's affirmative defenses", it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as each ofMARTINAIRE's approximately 100 employees have some working knowledge ofMARTINAIRE's HAZMATpolicies and procedures. Without waiving the foregoing objections, please see MARTINAIRE's listing of potential witnesses identified.in its Response to Interrogatory No.2 above.



### INTERROGATORY NO.5: Identify bytitle, date, author, present custodian and content all documents obtained by your or inyour possessionrelating to the assertions in Martinaire's Answer, including affirmative defenses. 

### MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0.5: MARTINAIRE's provided Complainant with documentation evidencing and substantiating MARTINAIRE' corrective and responsive actions. Please see MARTINAIRE's LOI Response dated August 2, 2011, together with attachments and submissions thereto, and the undersigned counsel's letter to Complainant's counsel, dated December 12, 2012. MARTINAIRE intends to utilize all such documents as exhibits at hearing. Inthe interests of economy, they are notbeing reduplicated as they are already in Complainant'spossession, care, custody or.control. MARTINAIRE is also in possession ofand intends to utilize Complainant's Quarterly Enforcement Reports for the periods ofJuly 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012, which are

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 8publically available on Complainant's website. Betweenthe date ofthese Responses and the time ofhearing, there will likely be additional Quarterly Reports andMARTINAIRE reserves the rightto utilize same. Atthis moment, MARTINAIRE does not anticipate introducing any exhibits other than those documents that are already in Complainant's care, custody or control orhave already been provided to Complainant during its investigation or whichhave beenidentified above. However, MARTINAIRE reserves the rightto introduce any documentreferenced inthe EIR, Respondents' Operations and Training Manuals, and any subsequently discovered exhibits. MARTINAIRE also reserves the right to utilize any documents thathave been or will be produced by Complainant orwhich may be utilized by Complainant athearing. MARTINAIRE
reserves the right to amend and/or supplementthese responses up through the date ofhearing and further reserves the right to utilize other documents, notpreviously identified, for impeachment purposes.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify the name, address, telephone, number, and specialty ofeachpersonyouexpect to call as anexpert witness at trial, and for each expert identified, state the subject matter ofhis or her testimony and the substance ofthe facts and opinions to whichthe expert is expectedto testify. MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0.6: MARTINAIRE has not retained any experts inthis case and does not, at this time, intend

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page9to call any expert witnesses. Notwithstanding the foregoing, MARTINAIRE reserves the right to seek expert testimony from any persons identified in Complainant's EIR, any persons now or hereinafter identified by Complainant as its witnesses and any persons who may be called to testify by Complainant in this matter and/or any person who may offer experttestimony on Complainant's behalf.
. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and continuing, and MARTINAIRE reserves the right to amend and/or supplementthese responses up throughthe date ofhearing.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify the amount ofnet income Martinaire earned during 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0.7: Objection. By letter dated December 12,2012, MARTINAIRE provided extensive confidential financial documents for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and year-to-date 2012 for the sole purpose ofsettlement discussions, with express provisions to avoid any and all disclosures and dissemination. Complainant is well aware that there was anunderstanding that these documents were to be used for settlementpurposes only and to be returned thereafter. Complainantpresumably reviewed these documents and in response to MARTINAIRE's undersigned counsel'srequest, returned themunder cover ofletter dated May 15, 2013. None ofthe financial information ordocuments requested are in any way probative ofthe issues pending hearing inthis matter.

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 10Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, MARTINAIRE will considerproviding the requested information after such time as Complainant and/or the Administrative Law Judge demonstrate a legitimate need for same and an appropriate protective order is issued precluding the public availability, release or dissemination ofany such information.



### INTERROGATORY NO.8: Explain the factual basis for each denial inMartinaire's Answerto Complainant's complaint. 

### MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO.8: Objectionto the compound nature ofthis Interrogatory No.8. Moreover, MARTINAIRE objects to Interrogatory No.8, as each ofthe Denials and Affirmative Defenses contained in MARTINAIRE's Answer clearly speak for themselves. Notwithstanding said objections: MARTINAIRE'S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: The sanction soughtby Complainant is unwarranted by the facts, safety in commerce and the public interest and is not only excessive, but, far exceeds policy, precedent and Complainant's own Sanction Guidance Table. Further, the sanction is compounded, inviolation ofthe Complainant's Sanction Guidance Table. RESPONSE: Itwas notuntil the FAA July 8, 2011 audit that appropriate Senior Management of MARTINAIRE learned that the NOPC's had notbeen completed in accordance with the HMR's and MARTINAIRE's own policies, procedures and training. Those responsible for the discrepancies were acting contrary to established company policies, procedures and manuals and contrary to the training that they had been.given by MARTINAIRE. The majority ofthe

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 11employees involved were MARTINAIRE pilots, who themselves prepared the NOPC's, based upon information given to them by third parties. In essence, the pilots were preparing the notifications to themselves. Neither an enforcement action nor a sanction under these circumstances promotes or fosters safety and the public interest. Complainant's Sanction Guidance Table speaks for itself.

MARTINAIRE'S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: The Complainant's case, is unwarranted and without basis orjurisdictioninlaw or fact. RESPONSE: Itwas notuntil the FAA July 8, 2011 auditthat appropriate Senior Management of MARTINAIRE learned thattheNOPC's had notbeen completed in accordance withthe HMR's and MARTINAIRE's own policies, procedures and training. Those responsible for the discrepancies were acting contrary to established company policies, procedures and manuals and contrary to the training that they had been given by MARTINAIRE. The majority ofthe employees involved were MARTINAIRE pilots, who themselves preparedthe NOPC's, based uponinformation given to them by third parties. In essence, the pilots were preparing the notifications to themselves. Neither an enforcement action nor a sanctionunder these circumstances promotes orfosters safety and the public interest. Complainant's Sanction Guidance Table speaks for itself. MARTINAIRE'S TillRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Any and all alleged violations are the result ofhuman error onthe partofMARTINAIREpilots whose actions were in violation of MARTINAIRE's ownpolicies andprocedures and contrary to the specific training given to the

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 12**~------------------------------------------**pilots by MARTINAIRE, and without MARTINAIRE's knowledge or consent and are in no way indicative ofMARTINAIRE'sregulatory compliance disposition. The pilots involved were adequately trained and qualified and have since received additional training. RESPONSE: Itwas not until the FAA July 8, 2011 audit that appropriate Senior Management of MARTINAIRE learned that the NOPC'shad notbeencompletedin accordance withthe HMR's and MARTINAIRE's ownpolicies, procedures and training. Those responsible for the discrepancies were acting contrary to established company policies, procedures and manuals and contrary to the training thatthey had been given by MARTINAIRE. The majority ofthe employees involved were MARTINAIREpilots, who themselves prepared the NOPC's, based upon information given to them by third parties. In essence, the pilots were preparing the notifications to themselves. Neither an enforcement action nor a sanction under these circumstances promotes or fosters safety andthe public interest. Complainant's Sanction Guidance Table speaks for itself. MARTINAIRE'S FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: MARTINAIRE has proactively mitigated any and all damage suchthat this action is unwarranted by policy or the need for safety. Specifically, MARTINAIRE has:
1. Counseled the pilots involved in incident alleged inthe Complaint; ii. Counseled all flight department personnel regarding inthe interests ofpreventing
recurrence ofsuch incidents;
111. Revised its HAZMAT Training Program to specifically address saidproblems and

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 13**'------------------------------------------~-**ensure future compliance; 1v. Revisedthe NOPIC Formto make it more user friendly;
v. Provided its personnel with additional Hazardous Materials training so as to prevent recurrent ofsuch incidents, including:
a. Hazardous Material Recognition; b. Acceptance and Transport ofDangerous Goods;
c. Proper Completion ofthe revisedNOPIC Form; and v1. Implemented a program ofdaily audits ofall NOPIC's whichhave since shown that compliance has been achieved. RESPONSE: Itwas notuntil the FAAJuly 8, 2011 audit that appropriate Senior Management ofMARTINAIRE learned that the NOPC's had notbeen completed in accordance withthe HMR's and MARTINAIRE's ownpolicies, procedures and training. Those responsible for the discrepancies were acting contrary to established company policies, procedures and manuals and contrary to the training that they had been given by MARTINAIRE. The majority ofthe employees involved were MARTINAIREpilots, who themselves prepared the NOPC's, based upon information given to thembythird parties. In essence, the pilots were preparing the notifications to themselves. Neither an enforcement action nor a sanction underthese circumstances promotes or fosters safety and the public interest. Complainant's Sanction Guidance Table speaks for itself.

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 14Immediately inresponse to the FAA audit, MARTINAIRE "stepped up to the plate". It undertook immediate, swift and comprehensive corrective action, all to the complete satisfaction ofthe FAA (See depositions ofMessrs. Rusinowitz, Klimas and Buchanan). MARTINAIRE's provided Complainant with documentation evidencing and substantiating MARTINAIRE' corrective and responsive actions. MARTINAIRE intends to utilize all such documents as exhibits athearing. Inthe interests ofeconomy, they are not being reduplicated as they are already in Complainant's possession. MARTINAIRE'S FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: MARTINAIRE has taken all necessary corrective actions to avoid repeated mishaps suchthat additional penalties are redundant and will not result in any increase in safety. RESPONSE: Please see MARTINAIRE's response concerning the Fourth Affirmative Defense above, which MARTINAIRE adopts and incorporates as its response with respect to the Fifth Affirmative Defense. MARTINAIRE'S SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: To the extent that the Complainanthas relied upon FAA Order 2150.3B in determining the sanction inthis case: 1. Complainant has compoundedthe alleged violations and sanctions in contravention of said Order; 2. Complainant seeks civil penalties in excess ofthose suggested in said Order's

. Appendix C, in further contravention ofsaid Order; 3. Complainanthas further contravened said Order innottaking into consideration the considerable corrective actionthat was immediately thereafter taken by

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 15MARTINAIRE; 4. Said Order, to the extentthat ittreats MARTINAIRE as a Group II carrier, is arbitrary, capricious and unenforceable. Specifically, Figure C-1 ofthe Sanction Guidance Table contained within said Order mandates that MARTINAIRE be treated
as a Group II carrier and accordingly be subjected to higher penalties than Group III or IV carriers. The sole reason for this is the number ofaircraft that MARTINAIRE operates (36, including 23 owned and 13 leased aircraft). While 3 ofthe owned aircraft are Beech 1900C's with a maximum gross takeoffweight of 16,600 pounds, the remainder ofMARTINAIRE's fleet consists of33 Cessna Caravans (20 owned, 13 leased), eachhaving a maximum gross takeoffweight of8.750 pounds. However the Order and Table fail to account for the size ofthe aircraft ortheirpayloads. Under the Order and Table, a carrier operating fewer, but larger, aircraft, carrying far greater payloads, and far greater numbers ofhazardous materials shipments and generating substantially greater revenues, could be treated as a smaller carrier and be subject to lesser penalties. RESPONSE: As a small business that operates only small aircraft with less than 100 employees, the burden onMARTINAIRE causedby the proposed $206,550.00 penalty wouldbe excessive. The FAA's Sanction Guidance Table speaks for itself. Likewise, Complainant's Bryan Buchanan conceded thatthe civil penalty range in mostNOPC cases is $30,000-40,000? Moreover, according to Complainant's own Quarterly Enforcement Reports for the period from
2 To date, MARTINAIRE's costs ofdefense inthis matter (and infact, its costs of attending depositions and responding to Complainant's discovery) have exceeded this amount.
FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 16July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012, the penalty which Complainant seeks against MARTINAIRE constitutes one ofthe largest HazMatpenalties against any carrier ofany size initiatedby Complainant's Southwest Region.



### INTERROGATORY NO.9: Identify the employees inthe Martinaire, Texas who received the following training: (a) General awareness/familiarization training; (b) Function-specific training; (c) Safety Training; (d) Security awareness training; (e) In-depth security training. 

### Response to Interrogatory No.9: Objection. MARTINAIRE objects to Interrogatory No.9 as being overbroad and burdensome as all MARTINAIRE employees, both present and past, receive and/or have received suchtraining andpossess relevant knowledge ofand/or information aboutthe subjects ofsuchtraining. Essentially Complainant seeks the identifications ofall persons who were ever hired or employed by MARTINAIRE since its formation. Moreover, MARTINAIRE objects on the grounds ofrelevancy. It is particularly telling that Complainanthas not requested any information regarding HazMattraining, the only relevant training, given the issues in this case, leading one to conclude that Complainanthas propounded shotgun interrogatories for no

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 17legitimate or constructive purpose otherthanto annoy, harass and cause undue burdento MARTINAIRE, so as to bludgeon itto settling.

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 18RESPONSE TO REQUESTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS REQUEST N0.1: Produce a copy ofeach exhibit that Respondent intends to introduce into evidence at Trial. MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 MARTINAIREprovided Complainantwith documentation evidencing and substantiating MARTINAIRE' corrective and responsive actions. MARTINAIRE intends to utilize all such documents as exhibits athearing. Inthe interests ofeconomy, they are notbeing reduplicated as they are already in Complainant's possession. MARTINAIRE objects to Requestto the extentthat it seeks documents which are already in Complainant's care, custody or control, and/or which have beenheretofore producedby MARTINAIRE and provided to Complainant, including but not limited to the following MARTINAIRE documents: 1. General Operations Manual excerpt-HAZMATRecognition Procedures; 2. Martinaire Operations and Training Manual for the Acceptance and Transport of Dangerous Goods; 3. Martinaire HAZMA T training materials for pilots; 4. RevisedNOPC form; and 5. All other documents providedby MARTINAIRE under cover ofits LOI Response dated August 2, 2011 and in its attorney's letter dated December 12,2012. To the extentthat it has not already done so, MARTINAIRE will provide copies ofall documents it intends to submit at hearing. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and continuing, and MARTINAIRE reserves the right to amend and/or supplement these responses up through the date ofhearing. Finally, MARTINAIREreserves the rightto utilize athearing any document not

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 19identified in these Objections and Responses to Request for Production which may be utilized by Complainant and/or for purposes ofimpeachment.
REQUEST NO. 2: Produce any expertreport intended to be used at trial. MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2 Not applicable at this time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, MARTINAIREreserves the rightto seek expert testimony from any persons identified in Complainant's EIR, any persons now orhereinafter identified by Complainant as its witnesses and any persons who may be called to testify by Complainant inthis matter and who offer experttestimony on Complainant's behalf Investigation and discovery are ongoing and continuing, and MARTINAIRE reserves the right to amend and/or supplementthese responses up through the date ofhearing.
REQUEST NO. 3: Produce all documents supporting Respondent's answers to Complainant's First Set of Interrogatories. MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3 MARTINAIRE provided Complainantwith documentation evidencing and substantiating MARTINAIRE' corrective andresponsive actions. MARTINAIRE intends to utilize all such

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 20documents as exhibits at hearing. Inthe interests ofeconomy, they are notbeing reduplicated as they are already inComplainant's possession. Please see MARTINAIRE's Response to Interrogatory No.5, whichMARTINAIRE adopts and incorporates as its response to RequestNo. 1 as iffully set forth herein.

DATEDthis 24th day ofMay, 2013. 

## / [f:ltu:T. :t

# --~ /MICHAEL L. DWORKIN 

# / Attorney for MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 21CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that onthis 24th day ofMay, 2013, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing MARTINAIRE AIRLINE INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S DISCOVERY was served as follows: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor Room E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 FAX: 1-202-366-7536 \ 

### {FAXandFEDEX} Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

### {FEDEX} James Archier, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel Southwest Region, ASW-7 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Suite 6E Fort Worth, TX 76137 FAX: 1-817-222-5092 

### {FAXandFEDEX}

Caitlin

# Miiief'"""**~**

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery Page 22