Robert Spitzer 

FAA Office of Regional Connsel 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Telephone: (425) 227-1457 

Facsimile: (425) 227-1007 

RECF~''ED SEP 2 6 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Michael J. Huerta, Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration; 

Complainant, 

vs. 

Alaska Airlines; 

Respondent. 

FAA Case Number: 2011NM020013 

FDMSNo. FAA-2013-0287 

Judge Richard Goodwin 

ADMINISTRATOR'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION 

The Administrator, through his representatives, hereby submits this response to the Respondent's 

Motion for Clarification sent1 

on September 13, 2013. The Administrator submits that this motion is 

repetitive and not required in light of the Judge's manifestly clear order. 

While the Respondent has titled its motion as a Motion for Clarification, this motion actually 

appears to be a motion for reconsideration as the Respondent has merely resubmitted the arguments 

they previously made in their Motion to Compel and subsequent Reply in Support of Motion to 

Compel. The issues raised in their instant motion were unambiguously ruled upon by the Judge in 

his Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Respondent's Motion to Compel. Respondent 

appears to either be unwilling or unable to accept the Judge's decision. 

1 The Administrator notes that the Motion for Clarification was not properly served in Accordance with 

14 C.F.R. Part 13 upon the FAA. 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for Clarification 

Alaska Airlines- FDMS No. FAA-2013-0287 

Page 1 of4 

ROBERT SPITZER, FAA A TIORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-1417; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
In the instant motion, the Respondent seeks to compel the Administrator to supply an unredacted 

portion of the EIR to the Judge in this matter for in camera review, to determine whether the 

information sought should have been supplied, the same argument which was made in the 

Respondent's original Motion to Compel and Reply in Support of Motion to Compel. However, the 

Judge unambiguously rejected this suggestion in his Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 

Respondent's Motion to Compel: "The testimony and remaining documents fall within the 

deliberative process privilege and, as such, may remain confidential." Respondent appears to be 

simply unsatisfied with this decision, and despite their title of "Motion for Clarification" have 

simply restated the arguments concerning the EIR which the Judge dismissed previously. 

The Respondent also attempts to reargue the Judge's decision that the FAA did not waive the 

deliberative process privilege. Questions about individuals' discussions and details of their 

participation during the preparation of the EIR remain protected under the deliberative process 

privilege. The Judge's order in no way alters this fact. "The grant of the Motion extends only to the 

agency's EIR Checklist and related comments. My decision rests simply on the fact that this 

information has become public .... But I do not find that the agency has waived any privilege 

thereby." Judge's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Respondent's Motion to Compel, 

August 30,2013. While the Respondent makes no secret of its desire to obtain this protected 

information and attempt to introduce it into evidence in the trial of this matter, the fact remains that 

this information is protected, and not subject to release. The Judge's Order is limited only to the 

actual checklist, which had been previously released. Since the further information sought by the 

Respondent has not been already released, it is not subject to release. The Order in this matter 

demonstrates that the Judge was not convinced by Respondent's arguments in its first two filings on 

this issue and the instant motion contains no new arguments to support Respondent's desire to 

obtain the privileged information. 

Respondent's attempts tore-litigate the original Motion to Compel are unnecessary and simply 

waste valuable court time. Since the issues presented in the Respondent's Motion for Clarification 

have already been ruled upon by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter, in his Order Granting 

in Part and Denying in Part Respondent's Motion to Compel, there is no need to clarify what is 

already abundantly clear. 

Accordingly, the Administrator respectfully requests that the Respondent's Motion for Clarification 

be denied. 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for Clarification 

Alaska Airlines- FDMS No. FAA-2013-0287 

Page2 of4 

ROBERT SPITZER_ FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-1417; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
Respectfully submitted this 20th day of September 2013. 

DOUGLAS R. ANDERSON 

Acting Regional Counsel 

By: 

Robert Spitzer 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel (AMN-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(404)227-1417 

(404) 227-1007 FAX 

E-mail: robert.spitzer@faa.gov 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for Clarification 

Alaska Airlines- FDMS No. FAA-2013-0287 

Page3 of4 

ROBERT SPITZER, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-1417; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for 

Clarification has been served via Fax and First-Class Mail this date, to the following: 

Honorable Richard Goodwin 

Office of Hearings 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Fax:202-493-5142 

William V. O'Connor 

Morrison & Foerster, LLP 

12531 High Bluff Drive 

San Diego, CA 92130-2040 

Fax: 858-720-5125 

Jeremy Ross 

Senior Attorney 

Alaska Airlines, Inc. 

P.O. Box 68900- SEAZL 

Seattle, WA 98166 

Fax: 206-392-5468 // 

Dated this 20th dayofSepte~~ 

Offite 

~/ 

of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA98057 

(425) 227-2160 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for Clarification 

Alaska Airlines- FDMS No. FAA-2013-0287 

Page 4 of4 

ROBERT SPITZER, F AAATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-1417; FAX: (425) 227-1007