U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RECEIVED 

JUL -8 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, } 

Complainant, } 

} 

~ } 

} 

FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, LLC, } 

Respondent. } 

In the Matter of Fisher 

Scientific Company, LLC 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1321 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Judge Goodwin 

RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

Respondent Fisher Scientific Company, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as "Fisher") moved on 

June 23, 2015, to dismiss the Complaint in the above-captioned civil penalty proceeding because 

the Complaint fails to state a "knowing" violation for which a civil penalty can be imposed and 

included allegations that were out-of-time and in violation of the Federal Aviation 

Administration's (hereinafter "FAA's" or "the Agency's") Rules of Practice ("Ru1es"). Instead 

of filing a timely response permitted by Ru1e 13.218(d), FAA's Southern Regional Counsel 

("Regional Counsel") moved for an "Extention [sic, Extension] to File Response." Regional 

Counsel failed even to allege the presence of any grounds to grant such a motion cognizable 

under Rule 13.213(b) and otherwise failed to adhere to other applicable Rules. Accordingly, 

Complainant's Motion cannot lawfully be granted and Regional Counsel must be considered to 

have waived FAA's opportunity to respond to Respondent's Motions to Dismiss. 

Ru1e 13.213(b) is clear. As with any other party, an FAA "motion for an extension of time" 

must be filed with the judge "not later than 7 days before" a response to a Respondent's written 

motion "is due." Regional Counsel filed FAA's motion for extension exactly zero days before 

the response was due. A judge has authority essentially to waive this seven-day requirement 

only if"good cause for the late filing is shown." Nowhere in Regional Counsel's Motion is there 

so much as a naked assertion that FAA had "good cause" to file zero days ahead of the due date 

instead of seven days ahead, as unequivocally required under the Rules. 

In any case, the Rules allow a judge to grant an extension of time to respond to a Motion to 

Dismiss only "if good cause for the extension is shown." Once again, Regional Counsel failed 
Respondent's Opposition to Motion for Extension 

even to include so much as a declarative statement that such grounds exist. The Motion states 

that FAA desires "an extension in order to effectively respond [sic]." It does not even suggest 

there are any special circumstances or any other reasons whatsoever to conclude that the time 

otherwise allowed by the Rules was inadequate. Absent those circumstances, the Motion for 

Extension would have failed even if it had been timely filed. 

Regional Counsel goes on to claim that Fisher will not be "prejudiced by an extension." This 

statement is false but, even if it were true, it does not constitute "good cause" for permitting FAA 

to ignore the seven-day advance filing rule for its Motion for Extension or the 1 0-day rule for 

filing FAA's response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Rule !3 .2!3(b) is meaningless if 

Regional Counsel can avoid it without making any pretense of an affirmative showing why the 

requested extension is necessary. 

Regional Counsel's Motion is merely the latest example of how FAA's handling of this matter 

has prejudiced Fisher's ability to defend against the Complaint. The alleged incident occurred in 

July, 2011. FAA did not file any Notice in the matter until July, 2013. That Notice made no 

allegation whatsoever that Fisher failed to employ a particular type of packaging product. FAA 

filed another Notice in July, 2014, more than three years after the alleged incident, which is 

based almost entirely on the previously missing allegation about packaging. FAA then waited 

until June, 2015 ~almost four years after the event- to file its Complaint. When Fisher moved 

to dismiss the Complaint in part because ofF AA' s dilatory approach to the case, Regional 

Counsel's only response has been to seek an extension to August 3, 2015, a date that is beyond 

four years after the event. 

Meanwhile, FAA has overseen or permitted the destruction of crucial evidence. If this case 

eventually goes to a hearing, witnesses on both sides potentially will be required to rely on 

nothing more than faded recollections. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that Regional Counsel's otion for Extension be DENIED. 

Dated: July 7, 2015 

. Cox, Esq. 

allows Rd., Suite 401 I 

Vienna, VA 22180 

(email) 

(tel) 703-757-5866 

Counsel for Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., and 

Fisher Scientific Co., LLC 

2 
Respondent's Opposition to Motion for Extension 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

On July 7, 2015, the undersigned mailed at least one copy of the foregoing Opposition to Motion 

for Extension to each person listed below. 

[One Copy] 

William Vines, Esq. 

Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

[One Copy] 

The Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

[Original and One Copy] 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Wilbur Wright Bldg., Suite 2W1000 

600 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

3