465 California Street 

Suite 210 

• 

San Francisco 

California 941 04 

• 

(415) 421-2500 

Fax (415) 421-2560 

www.avialex.com 

law@avialex.com 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates 

Law Offices RECEIVED 

MAY 2 9 20a 

HEARING DOCKET 

FED EX: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building -Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

RE: Martinaire Aviation, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2011SW700189 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0040 

Dear Hearing Docket Clerk: 

May24,2013 

Enclosed herewith for filing is the following document: 

Martinaire Aviation'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 9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

FAA CASE NO. 2011SW700189 

FDMS: F AA-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 First Request for 

Documents and First Set oflnterrogatories, dated May 13, 2013. 

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

This matter arises out of twelve (12) alleged discrepancies in certain notification of pilotin-command ("NOPC") required under Section 175.33 ofthe Department ofTransportation's 
Hazardous Materials Regulations ("HMR's"), that were observed during an Federal Aviation 

Administration ("FAA") base inspection at MARTINAIRE's facilities on July 8, 2011. At the 

conclusion of the inspection, and during the outbriefing, MARTINAIRE admitted the 

discrepancies that the FAA found, and within the next three (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 at the 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 own policies and procedures. 

Not only did MARTINAIRE admit the discrepancies during the FAA outbriefmg, but 

during the pendency of this action, MARTINAIRE has continued to fully admit and take full 

responsibility for them. The sole issue in this matter is sanction. Complainant has proposed a 

penalty of $206,550.00 for the twelve (12) alleged discrepancies, far in excess of the 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 of reasonable 

discovery and seeking information that is already within Complainant's knowledge, care, 

custody and control. As of the date that Complainant initiated this discovery, Complainant had 

the benefit ofMARTINAIRE's admissions at the FAA outbriefing of July 11,2012, 

MARTINAIRE's detailed August 7, 2012 response to the FAA Letter oflnvestigation, including 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page2 
numerous attachments and submissions thereto, and the undersigned counsel's December 12, 

2012letter, including several attachments and submissions thereto. Subsequent to 

Complainant's initiation of this discovery, Complainant has taken the depositions of 

MARTINAIRE'S Chief Pilot, Assistant Chief Pilot and its Senior Vice President, Chief 

Operating Officer and Director of Operations. What else could Complainant possibly 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 investigation proceeds up through the 

time of hearing. Accordingly, these Responses should be considered tentative at b~st. 

Finally, MARTINAIRE, in its Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("Answer"), has 

asserted numerous affirmative defenses and reserves the right to 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 Complainant noticed and took the 

depositions of three MARTINAIRE employees, Assistant ChiefPilot Cory Smith, Chief Pilot 

Michael Bates and Senior Vice President/COO/Director of Operations Alan Rusinowitz, over a 

two-day period in Fort Worth, Texas, all at considerable expense and burden to MARTINAIRE, 

Complainant declined to order transcripts from the court reporter, forcing MARTINAIRE to bear 

the costs for the original transcripts, in addition to the copies that it had ordered. This suggests 

that Complainant knew that these depositions would serve no constructive purpose (other than to 

increase MARTINAIRE's costs of defense), or that Complainant simply wanted to obtain 

discovery and "stick" the costs to MARTINAIRE. Considering that MARTINAIRE has 

consistently admitted the discrepancies in the subject NOPC's and that the sole issue in this case 

is that of sanction, Complainant and its counsel's conduct constitute nothing less than an abuse 

of process. 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 3 
MAR TIN AIRE incorporates herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein. 

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 

The objections set forth above are hereby incorporated herein in their entirety as if fully 

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, and position of each person answering or 

assisting in answering these interrogatories. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 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 at Michael 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 of each person, other than expert 

witnesses, that you will or may call as witnesses at trial and summarize the expected testimony. 

FDMS: F AA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page4 
MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2 

MARTINAIRE has not yet decided who will be called to testify and discovery is 

currently ongoing. Without waiving said objections, Respondent currently intends to call the 

following persons to testify at hearing: 

1. Michael Bates, MARTINAIRE's ChiefPilot; 

2. Cory Smith, MARTINAIRE'S Assistant Chief Pilot; 

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 at hearing. 

MARTINAIRE further reserves the right to call as its witnesses any persons identified in 

Complainant's Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR), any persons now or hereinafter 

identified by Complainant as its witnesses and any persons who may be called to testify by 

Complainant at deposition or at hearing in this matter. 

The substance of the testimonies of Messrs. Bates, Smith and Rusinowitz should be 

readily apparent to Complainant who has already taken their depositions. MARTINAIRE 

incorporates and adopts as if fully set forth herein the transcripts of said witnesses depositions. 

This testimony will include, but not be limited to the purpose and preparation ofNOPC's; 

MARTINAIRE's HazMat Training Program; the FAA base inspection during which the alleged 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 5 
discrepancies were discovered; MARTINAIRE's response to the FAA findings; 

MARTINAIRE's immediate and comprehensive corrective actions, including but not limited to 

revision ofthe NOPC form, revision ofthe HazMat Training Program, retraining of all pilot and 

dispatch personnel and institution of daily NOPC audits. 

The substance of the testimonies of Messrs. Klimas and Buchanan should be readily 

apparent to Complainant who has attended and participated in their depositions taken in 

Arlington, Texas on May 17, 2013. MARTINAIRE incorporates and adopts as if fully set forth 

herein the transcripts of said witnesses depositions. 

Investigation and discovery are ongoing and continuing, and MARTINAIRE reserves the 

right to amend and/or supplement these responses up through the date of hearing. 

MARTINAIRE further reserves the right to utilize other witnesses, not identified herein, 

for impeachment purposes. 

INTERROGATORY NO.3: 

Identify by name, address and telephone number all persons who have personal 

knowledge of the Notification of pilot-in-command documents alleged in Complainant's 

Complaint. 

MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0.3 

Objection. To the extent that the Interrogatory seeks the names, address and telephone 

number of individuals that "have personal knowledge ofthe Notification of pilot-in-command 

documents alleged in Complainant's Complaint", it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as each 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 6 
ofMARTINAIRE's approximately 100 employees has some knowledge ofMARTINAIRE's 

HAZMA T policies and procedures, including but not limited to the existence and preparation of 

NOPC's, whether or not they may be directly involved in shipping, receiving, handling or 

transportation ofMARTINAIRE cargo. The interrogatory is also vague, ambiguous and 

uncertain as to whether it is addressing the subject 12 NOPC's or NOPC's in general. 

Interrogatory No. 3, as worded, conceivably requests the name, occupation and business 

address of every single person who has worked for MARTINAIRE since the Company was 

founded. MARTINAIRE requests clarification from Complainant as to exactly what, if any, 

information Complainant is seeking. 

INTERROGATORY NO.4: 

Identify by name address and telephone numbers all persons who have personal 

knowledge of your affirmative defenses alleged in your Answer. 

MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0.4: 

Objection. To the extent that 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 to Interrogatory No. 4 as being overbroad and burdensome as 

nearly all,.MARTINAIRE employees possess relevant knowledge of and/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 extent that the 

FDMS: F AA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 7 
Interrogatory seeks the names, addresses and telephone numbers of individuals 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 HAZMAT policies 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 by title, date, author, present custodian and content all documents obtained by 

your or in your possession relating 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. In the interests of 

economy, they are not being reduplicated as they are already in Complainant's possession, care, 

custody or .control. 

MARTINAIRE is also in possession of and intends to utilize Complainant's Quarterly 

Enforcement Reports for the periods of July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012, which are 

FDMS: F AA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 8 
publically available on Complainant's website. Between the date of these Responses and the 

time ofhearing, there will likely be additional Quarterly Reports and MARTINAIRE reserves 

the right to utilize same. 

At this moment, MARTINAIRE does not anticipate introducing any exhibits other than 

those documents that are already in Complainant's care, custody or control or have already been 

provided to Complainant during its investigation or which have been identified above. However, 

MARTINAIRE reserves the right to introduce any document referenced in the EIR, 

Respondents' Operations and Training Manuals, and any subsequently discovered exhibits. 

MARTINAIRE also reserves the right to utilize any documents that have been or will be 

produced by Complainant or which may be utilized by Complainant at hearing. MARTINAIRE 

reserves the right to amend and/or supplement these responses up through the date of hearing and 

further reserves the right to utilize other documents, not previously identified, for impeachment 

purposes. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 

Identify the name, address, telephone, number, and specialty of each person you expect to 

call as an expert witness at trial, and for each expert identified, state the subject matter of his or 

her testimony and the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to 

testify. 

MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0.6: 

MARTINAIRE has not retained any experts in this case and does not, at this time, intend 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page9 
to 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 expert testimony on Complainant's 

behalf. . 

Investigation and discovery are ongoing and continuing, and MARTINAIRE reserves the 

right to amend and/or supplement these responses up through the date of hearing. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 

Identify the amount of net 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 of settlement discussions, with express provisions to avoid any and all disclosures 

and dissemination. Complainant is well aware that there was an understanding that these 

documents were to be used for settlement purposes only and to be returned thereafter. 

Complainant presumably reviewed these documents and in response to MARTINAIRE's 

undersigned counsel's request, returned them under cover ofletter dated May 15, 2013. 

None of the financial information or documents requested are in any way probative of the 

issues pending hearing in this matter. 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 10 
Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, MARTINAIRE will consider providing 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 of any such information. 

INTERROGATORY NO.8: 

Explain the factual basis for each denial in Martinaire's Answer to Complainant's 

complaint. 

MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.8: 

Objection to the compound nature of this Interrogatory No.8. Moreover, MARTINAIRE 

objects to Interrogatory No.8, as each of the Denials and Affirmative Defenses contained in 

MARTINAIRE's Answer clearly speak for themselves. Notwithstanding said objections: 

MARTINAIRE'S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: The sanction sought by 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, in violation of the Complainant's Sanction Guidance Table. 

RESPONSE: It was not until the FAA July 8, 2011 audit that appropriate Senior Management of 

MARTINAIRE learned that the NOPC's had not been 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 of the 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 11 
employees 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 or jurisdiction in law or fact. 

RESPONSE: It was not until the FAA July 8, 2011 audit that appropriate Senior Management of 

MARTINAIRE learned that the NOPC's had not been 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 of the 

employees 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 TillRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Any and all alleged violations are the 

result of human error on the part ofMARTINAIRE pilots whose actions were in violation of 

MARTINAIRE's own policies and procedures 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's regulatory compliance disposition. 

The pilots involved were adequately trained and qualified and have since received 

additional training. 

RESPONSE: It was not until the FAA July 8, 2011 audit that appropriate Senior Management of 

MARTINAIRE learned that the NOPC's had not been 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 of the 

employees 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 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: MARTINAIRE has proactively 

mitigated any and all damage such that this action is unwarranted by policy or the need for 

safety. Specifically, MARTINAIRE has: 

1. Counseled the pilots involved in incident alleged in the Complaint; 

ii. Counseled all flight department personnel regarding in the interests of preventing 

recurrence of such incidents; 

111. Revised its HAZMAT Training Program to specifically address said problems and 

FDMS: F AA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 13 
ensure future compliance; 

1v. Revised the NOPIC Form to make it more user friendly; 

v. Provided its personnel with additional Hazardous Materials training so as to prevent 

recurrent of such incidents, including: 

a. Hazardous Material Recognition; 

b. Acceptance and Transport of Dangerous Goods; 

c. Proper Completion of the revised NOPIC Form; and 

v1. Implemented a program of daily audits of all NOPIC' s which have since shown that 

compliance has been achieved. 

RESPONSE: It was not until the FAA July 8, 2011 audit that appropriate Senior 

Management ofMARTINAIRE learned that the NOPC's had not been 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 of the employees 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. 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 14 
Immediately in response to the FAA audit, MARTINAIRE "stepped up to the plate". It 

undertook immediate, swift and comprehensive corrective action, all to the complete 

satisfaction of the FAA (See depositions of Messrs. 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 at hearing. In the interests of economy, 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 such that 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 Complainant has 

relied upon FAA Order 2150.3B in determining the sanction in this case: 

1. Complainant has compounded the alleged violations and sanctions in contravention of 

said Order; 

2. Complainant seeks civil penalties in excess of those suggested in said Order's 

. Appendix C, in further contravention of said Order; 

3. Complainant has further contravened said Order in not taking into consideration the 

considerable corrective action that was immediately thereafter taken by 

FDMS: F AA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 15 
MARTINAIRE; 

4. Said Order, to the extent that it treats 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 of aircraft that MARTINAIRE 

operates (36, including 23 owned and 13 leased aircraft). While 3 of the owned 

aircraft are Beech 1900C' s with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 16,600 pounds, 

the remainder of MARTINAIRE's fleet consists of 33 Cessna Caravans (20 owned, 13 

leased), each having a maximum gross takeoff weight of8.750 pounds. However the 

Order and Table fail to account for the size of the aircraft or their payloads. Under the 

Order and Table, a carrier operating fewer, but larger, aircraft, carrying far greater 

payloads, and far greater numbers of hazardous 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 on MARTINAIRE caused by the proposed $206,550.00 penalty would be excessive. 

The FAA's Sanction Guidance Table speaks for itself. Likewise, Complainant's Bryan 

Buchanan conceded that the civil penalty range in most NOPC 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 of defense in this matter (and in fact, 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 16 
July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012, the penalty which Complainant seeks against 

MARTINAIRE constitutes one of the largest HazMat penalties against any carrier of any size 

initiated by Complainant's Southwest Region. 

INTERROGATORY NO.9: 

Identify the employees in the 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 such training and possess relevant knowledge of and/or information about the subjects 

of such training. Essentially Complainant seeks the identifications of all persons who were ever 

hired or employed by MARTINAIRE since its formation. Moreover, MARTINAIRE objects on 

the grounds of relevancy. It is particularly telling that Complainant has not requested any 

information regarding HazMat training, the only relevant training, given the issues in this case, 

leading one to conclude that Complainant has propounded shotgun interrogatories for no 

FDMS: F AA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 17 
legitimate or constructive purpose other than to annoy, harass and cause undue burden to 

MARTINAIRE, so as to bludgeon it to settling. 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 18 
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS 

REQUEST N0.1: 

Produce a copy of each exhibit that Respondent intends to introduce into evidence at 

Trial. 

MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 

MARTINAIRE provided Complainant with documentation evidencing and substantiating 

MARTINAIRE' corrective and responsive actions. MARTINAIRE intends to utilize all such 

documents as exhibits at hearing. In the interests of economy, they are not being reduplicated as 

they are already in Complainant's possession. 

MARTINAIRE objects to Request to the extent that it seeks documents which are already 

in Complainant's care, custody or control, and/or which have been heretofore produced by 

MARTINAIRE and provided to Complainant, including but not limited to the following 

MARTINAIRE documents: 

1. General Operations Manual excerpt-HAZMAT Recognition Procedures; 

2. Martinaire Operations and Training Manual for the Acceptance and Transport of 

Dangerous Goods; 

3. Martinaire HAZMA T training materials for pilots; 

4. Revised NOPC form; and 

5. All other documents provided by MARTINAIRE under cover of its LOI Response 

dated August 2, 2011 and in its attorney's letter dated December 12,2012. 

To the extent that it has not already done so, MARTINAIRE will provide copies of all 

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 of hearing. 

Finally, MARTINAIRE reserves the right to utilize at hearing any document not 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 19 
identified in these Objections and Responses to Request for Production which may be utilized by 

Complainant and/or for purposes of impeachment. 

REQUEST NO. 2: 

Produce any expert report intended to be used at trial. 

MARTINAIRE'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2 

Not applicable at this time. 

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 who offer expert testimony on Complainant's behalf 

Investigation and discovery are ongoing and continuing, and MARTINAIRE reserves the 

right to amend and/or supplement these responses up through the date of hearing. 

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 Complainant with documentation evidencing and substantiating 

MARTINAIRE' corrective and responsive actions. MARTINAIRE intends to utilize all such 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 20 
documents as exhibits at hearing. In the interests of economy, they are not being reduplicated as 

they are already in Complainant's possession. 

Please see MARTINAIRE's Response to Interrogatory No.5, which MARTINAIRE 

adopts and incorporates as its response to Request No. 1 as if fully set forth herein. 

DATED this 24th day of May, 2013. 

/ [f:ltu:T. :t --~ /MICHAEL L. DWORKIN 

/ 

Attorney for MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

FDMS: F AA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 21 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 24th day of May, 2013, a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing MARTINAIRE AIRLINE INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 

TO COMPLAINANT'S DISCOVERY was served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

FAX: 1-202-366-7536 

\ 

{FAX and FEDEX} 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

{FEDEX} 

James Archier, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW -7 

2601 Meacham Boulevard, Suite 6E 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

FAX: 1-817-222-5092 

{FAX and FEDEX} 

Caitlin Miiief'""" ~ 

FDMS: FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE's Objections and Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

Page 22