# D SEP 212016 U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINTON, DC 

# NG DOCKET In the Matterof: FELTS FIELD AVIATION Respondent ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) 

### Docket No: FAA-2015-3307 CaseNo: 20I5WP9I0090

RESPONDENT'S MOTIONTO COMPEL 

### The Respondent, by and through its attorneys, BENJAMIN L. 

### WYBORNEY and MARK J. CONLIN, move the Court for an Order to Compel Discovery in the above referenced matter. GROUNDS 

### The Complainant is withholding "facts known, oropinions held, by an expert who any otherparty expects to call to testify atthe hearing." 14 C.F.R. 

## § 13.220(e). BASIS On October 13,2015.the Respondent's attorney sent Interrogatories and Requests for Production by Certified Mail to the FAA. On October 16, 2015, the FAA received these requests. On July II, 2016,justpriorto aJuly 12, 2016 informal conference on the matter, the Respondent's attorneys received the Complainant's response to the Respondent's Interrogatories and Requests for Production. The Respondent's Interrogatory No. 3 was; "[f]or each expert Complainant intends to call at the Hearing, provide a Curriculum Vitae or other documents reflecting the expert's professional qualifications." The Complainant's response was; "[t]he Complainantintends to call Eric Wells as an expertwitness. A copy ofMr. Well's [sic]

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. DocketNo. FAA-2015-3307 CaseNo. 20 15WP910090 Page I of4 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### expert report and curriculum vitae is included in Exhibit C-2." Further, Exhibit C-1, of the Complainant's Response to the Respondent's Interrogatories, the Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR), was very heavily redacted. Due to the umeasonable level of redaction, at the July 12, 2016 informal conference, the Respondent's attorneys moved for more complete production and the production ofa privilege log. On July 14, 2016, this Court issued an order, ordering, 

## inter alias, that the Complainant serve a modified redacted copy ofExhibit C-1 or a privilege logjustifying the redactions to the current Exhibit C-1 by July 22, 2016, and that General Discovery is extended by two weeks from August 30,2016 to September 16, 2016. On July 21, 2016, the Respondent's attorneys received a privilege log and a supplemented Exhibit C-1. The supplemented Exhibit C-1 contained an additional four pages ofdocuments, some additional disclosure ofredacted information, and a privilege Jog. The four additional pages ofdocuments containedthe first page ofthe EIR, a (FAA) FORM 2150-5 EA and three pages ofvery heavily redacted supplemental information. The first eight pages ofthe supplemented Exhibit C-1, which includes the privilege Jog and the additional four pages ofdocuments, are found at Exhibit Ato this Motion. The FORM 2150-5 indicates that, while Ms. Simone Clinton is the reporting inspector, Mr. Eric Wells, the Complainant's expert witness, is the signatory of the Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) as the Team Coordinator. Exhibit A, page 3. Further Mr. Eric Wells, the expert witness, is also the signatory ofthe EIR's Regional Division Review as the Approving Official. Exhibit A, page 3. The EIR is essentially

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. DocketNo. FAA-20I5-3307 Case No. 2015WP910090 

### Page 2 of4 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### the research product of the FAA's expert witness, containing his "facts known, or opinions held." On September 13, 2016, based on the fact that the EIR is the research and investigative product ofthe expert witness, and that pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

## § 13.220(e) Scope of discovery., "
... [a] party may discover facts known, or opinions held, by an expert who any other party expects to call to testify at the Hearing.", the Respondent's attorneys requested an unredacted copy ofthe EIR. The Respondent's attorneys' request to the Complainant is found at Exhibit Bto this Motion. As of 12:00 pm, PDT (3:00pm, EDT) on September 16, 2016, the Respondent's request for documents containing "facts known, or opinions held" by the Complainant's expert witness has met with silence. Consequently, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

## § 13.220(m) Motion to compel discovery, the Respondent's attorneys respectfully move that the Complainantbe compelledto produce documents that are properlydiscoverable. In the alternative, in accordance with the Due Process spiritofthe BradyRule, the Complainant, a state actor, acting in aprosecutorial capacity to affect an administratively imposed civil penalty should be required to disclose exculpatory evidence. The redacted portions of the EIR apparently contain such exculpatory evidence; the paragraph headings indicate there is redacted information on "Reliability ofEvidence," "Conflicting Evidence," and "Other/Mitigating, Extenuating, or Aggravating Factors." Exhibit A, page 3, 4. 

### More specifically, in Bradv, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause ofthe Fifth Amendment requires disclosure ofexculpatory evidence "materialto guilt or punishment" known to the government but unknown to the defendant in criminal cases. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation. Inc. Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 Case No. 20\5WP9!0090 Page 3 of4 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

## See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 88 (1963). While acknowledging that this is not a criminal case; Due Process is still required since it is an administrative adjudication with the possibility of the deprivation of property interests. 

## See Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). Because Due Process is required, and the Complainant, by its own characterization (FAA Order 2150.3B, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program, is littered with the term), is '"prosecuting" an enforcement action that could deprive the Respondent ofa property interest, then the government should be compelled to disclose its exculpatory evidence. Based on this analysis, the Respondent's attorneys requested an unredacted copy of the EIR. Exhibit C. The Complainant refused to provide the information. Consequently, the Respondent's attorneys respectfully move that the Complainant be compelled to produce documents that contain exculpatory evidence. CONCLUSION Forthe foregoing reasons, this Court should grantthe Respondent's Motionto Compel. In the alternative, this Court should order an in camerareviewofthe redacted material to determine whether it contains exculpatory evidence. RESPECTFUL!.Y SUBMITTED this 16th day ofSeptember 2016.

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 2015WP910090 

### CONLIN, MALONEY & 

### MILLER



# /::-:r~~~--:7

Page 4 of4 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT A

! .S.

**!lEP.,RT~lENT** OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE

## orHEARINGS

WASillNGTON.ll.C. 

# REG MJC
CONLl;\1, M.-\LOt<EY & ;..1!LU::n D\.K'ke! No: Fi\A-2015-3307 CaseJ\io: 20l5\\.-'Pt)I0090 Judge J 

### .E. Sulllvan ('(H!PLAINANT'SSLI'PLEMENTAL RESPONSE TORESPONDENT'SFIRSTSET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQFESTSFOR l'RODtiCTION

# m· I)OCtiMENTS

**]l:ll.ri~-j~)** -\.

**-\h:;\~d!** .\...::ung -\Ssi:;tan: Clltel'(ounsd i(q- Fnfnr·ccnlcnt

StoUc: Fnl\,n:cmtiH !},.ision_

**V.'~._•c;rl!m** ['-' ·w-, J-'_\J. Bn\. CJ:2(J(l" !.'-'" C
...\ t)0009-20fi7

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-20 15-3307 the !C•IIuwing suppk-:mema1

**re~ponse** ts;) 1.ht·

Case No. 2015WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 1of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020C-l 

### DoclnnentType
.nfllrcemt:ni '.!nvc'Sllgati\\

. .' 

### Repon

Enforcement

**ln\\~Stigativc** Report
C'-l. Enfmcentcnt lnvestlg;;tivc Repon



### (

**;·::j_--~--Fn**f();;e

### ment pag:"' -, : !nvcstigatih'

**!~q>on**



### : **l!n·c~tipuivc** : Report



### MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the \1atterofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. DocketNo. FAA-20 15-3307 

### EXHIBIT A

Matter

**\J:,<~f\-.20!5** Simone- Author's ! Clinton opinion

**rt.~garding** regulations

**viol~ted** rutd sanction, Simone 

### Clintcm opinion regarding 

### sanction. Author's ('tinw.n opinion regarding possible theoriesof 

### the case and sanction. 

### opLnion regarding possible theoriesof the ca':ie and 

### sanction.
Clinton opinion regarding possible theoriesof 

### lhe ca;;e and sanction. 

### Privilege
and Deliberative



### and 

### Deliberative

and Deliberarive



### and 

## iDeliberative

an.d Deliberative

CaseNo. 2015WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 2 of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT A**::·hlFO~·:** -:EME01T**lNVEST!G.~.T!VI?** f:f'.:>ORT



## i 

# '

'!';**-----~"** 

# -·--·

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. DocketNo. FAA-2015-3307 f)A1A



### . 22

'·''\

Case No. 2015WP91 0090 Exhibit A: Page 3 of8 

### Conlin, Maloney & 

### Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT A Drug Abatement i..li'IISlO!'l SINGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENTACTION SECTION B Case Number: 2015VVP910090 Statement of Case

Felts Field AvlatlOf\ inc. :sa 135 certificate 11o!der (GFVA247E). Operations Specification A449 certii:es that the operator

### wilt comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 120 and 49 CFR part 40 for its Drug and Alcohol Testing Program.(IOP On April 7 20i5, an mspection 

### oi' Fe!ts F1eld Aviation. Inc.'s Antidrug and Alcohol M1suse Prevention Program was conducted. As a result ofthe inspection Letterof Investigation (file number 2015\IVP910090) was 1ssued on April 16. 2015 (lOP 2}. and

**t~esponse** dated Apnl27. 2015 was recerved {lOP 3) According to 14CFR 120,105: Each employee_ induding any assistant helpe; or mdividual in a training status, who

**n~·~mmo** a safety-sensitive function listed in tll!S section dlrectly or 

### by contract imduding by subcontract at any tier; for an employer as defined in this subpart must be subject to drug testing under a testing program implemented in accordance with this subpart This includes fu!!-t1me. part-th11e, temporary, and intermittentemployees rec1ar<Jie:se of the degree of supervisron The safety-sensitive functions are: (a) crewmember duties. According to 14CFR 120.215(a): Each employee. rncluding any assistant helper or individual in a training status. who performs a safety-sensitive function lrsted in this section directty or

### by contract (including 

### by subcontract at any tier} for an employer as defined in this subpart must

### be subject

### to alcohol testing under

### atesting 

### program implemented 

### in accordal'lce with this subpart This includes lull-t1me. part-time. temporary. and intermittentemployees regardless ofthe degre<1 ofsupervis1on. fhe safety-sensitive functions are: (a) Flight crewmemb-er dut!es Violation Description: On ,July 2. 2007. R1charo Webber completed the Ground Trarning Program foraircrafus. Cessna T-210 and Cessna C182RG (lOP 4) Mr Webber submitted to a Department of I ransportation (DOT) pre-employment test and was verified negative on May28. 2008. (lOP 5) A review of Felts Freid Aviation. Inc.'s Duty and I=light Time Records fromApril 9. 2013 to March 20. 2015 shows Mr. Webber performed a safety-sensitive function as a Pilot (lOP 6) Mr Webber was never added to the random drug and alcohol testing pool until April 6. 2015
.. (lOP 7 & 8) As a result Mr \IVebber missed random selections since May 2008 but more recently on quarterly selections conductedonApril 5. 2013 (lOP 9 & 17)
. .July 5. 2013 (lOP 10 & 17) October4. 2013 (lOP 11 & 17), January 3. 2014 (lOP 12 & 17) Apnl4 2014 (lOP 13 & 17). July 4. 2014 (lOP 14& 17).0ctober3, 2014 (lOP 15 & 17). and January 2. 2015 (lOP 15& 17) Mr. Webberwas not in the random testing pool forthese selsctions S{1 he had no chance ofbeing selected. (lOP 7) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public availability to be determined under5 USC 552 

### 1 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the MatterofFe!ts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. F AA-20 15-3307 Case No. 2015WP91 0090 ExhibitA: Page 4 of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave.• Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT A 2\lilh,t c"·i DocketNc FAA
..::'\J1b-3:.HJ7 Drug Abatement D1visiorr**~** SINGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION**~orting** Evidence: " Richard V\/ebber's ground rrammg record dated 2, 2007 for aircrafts, Cessna T210 Nand Cessna C182RG. (lOP 4) First Advantage pre-employment verified negative test result dated May 2008. specimen 

### !0# 0446011565 (lOP 5) ' Felts Field Avtation. inc.'s Duty and FlightTime Records for Richard Webber from Aprii 9. 2013 through March 20. 2015. (lOP 6) Felts Fie!d Aviation. lnc 's act;ve etnph:::;vee list fwm Fnst Advantage dated fv1ay 14. 2015. (lOP 7) ' Letterfrom OERILarry Schmeddtng dated April 7. 2015. (lOP 8) ' First Advantage enrollment history summary report for Felts Field Aviation, Inc. for the second quarter

### of 2013, dated April 5, 2013. (lOP 9) ' First Advantage enrollment history summary report for Felts Field Aviation. Inc. forthe third quarter of 2013, dated July 5, 2013. (lOP 10} F:rst Advantage enrollment h:story summary reportfor Felts Field Aviation, Inc. lor the fourth quarter of 2013. dated October 4, 2013. (lOP 11) " Frrsl Advantage enm!!ment h1story reporttor Fetts Ffeld Aviation. Inc for the first quarter of 2014, dated January 2014. (lOP 12) 

## • rtrs! Advantage enrollment history summary report tor felts Field Aviation. Inc. for the second quarter of2014. dated Apri14. 2014. (lOP 13} " First Advantage enrollment htstory su111mary report for Felts field Aviatron, Inc. for the third quatterof2014, dated July4. 2014. (lOP 14)

, First Advantage enrollment history summary report for Fells Field 1\via!ion, Inc. for the fourth quarter of 2014, dated October 3, 2014. (lOP 15) • First Advantage enrollment htstory summary reportfor Felts Field Aviation, Inc. fm the first quarter of 20'15. dated January 2. 2015. {lOP 16) • Rando111 Selection elates lor Felts Field Aviation from January2013**~April** 2015 from F<rst Advantage (lOP 17) Factors Affecting Sanction

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public availabilityto be determined under5 USC 552 2 MOTIONTO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 Case No. 2015WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 5 of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920 I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBITA Drug Abatement



### Divisio~-~t-:rJ:t c;-, SINGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION



### Whetherthe ViolationWas Inadvertentand NotDeliberate

Certificate Holder's level of Expenence and Responsibility Felts F1eld Aviation, \nc. is a 

### ·135 certificated air carrier based in Spokane, WA underthe parent company of Empire Lumber. They are also associated with Idaho Chip & Fiber and ParK Ranch Land 

### &Cattle Company This was the company's fourth inspection, the last being onApril 9. 2013 They have two

**a~rcraft,** N2AK and 

### N6i6EL, on their D085. Felts Field Aviation. inc. also has a Part 145 certificate and has two Forest Service 

## 7 contracts with the State ofWashfngton.



### FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public availabilityto be determined under5 USC 552 3 MOTION TOCOMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. DocketNo. FAA-20 15-3307 CaseNo. 2015WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 6 of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT A Cx:n;bit C>;

**Onck~t** No.

**fA/'1~20~5-3307** Drug Abatement Division SINGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION

Violation History Felts Fteld Aviation, Inc, does not have a history ofvtolations tnvolving 

### its Drug and Alcohol Testing Program
I
. • '

**~** • I

**~** Multiple Violations/Acts

What CorrectiveAction Has BeenTaken?

Other Information

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public availability to be determined under 5 USC 552 4 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. DocketNo, FAA-2015-3307 Case 7\h 20 15WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 7 of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W, Riverside Ave,, Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBITA FXh(bi\ C.'! f}(;::f:EH N:J FAA-2(!1b<J-:lo/ Drug Abatemet1t Division SINGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION

Recommendation Aboutthe Type ofSanction

Reasons Justifying Recommendations for EnforcementAction and (Type of) Sanction

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public availability to be determined under5 USC 552 5 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Marter offelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket 1\o. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 2015WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 

### 8of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 624-3020MarkJ. Cou.liu 1'Jmmru; R M."tlouey (1996) Tbw:nw;J.Miller BeujantinL. Wyborney September 13, 2016 

### EXHIBIT B CONLIN, MALoNEY

### & MILLER A'ITOR.''EYS AT LAW 421 W. RIVERSIDEAVEh"UE,SUJTE9ll SPOKAl'IF..,

**WASHL~GTON** 99201

Fatimah Stokley.

**Attom~?y** 

### EnfOrcement Division. Western Team P.O. Box 92007 Lo;-; Angeles, CA

**90009~2007** RE: Fdts Field Avlation NTSB Docket No·. FAA-2015-3307 FAA Case No: 2015WP9!0090 

### .Ms. Stokley. l'dapbo:nelOi00}-&24·SWU Faco<imile: (50$)623·1650 N..rtfurSerrieeln'

**N~**

**blw®cu~mla:w:finn.net**

As \\·C 

### have previously discussed. we have received the FAA's Supplemental 

### ResponSe to our First Set of Interrogatories and Requests lilr Production. We appreciate the Supplemental 

### R-:sponse. however. wr.:: 

### had hoped tOrmore. In ;.our response to the Respondent's Interrogatory No.3: ""For each expect C,omplairumt intends to cal! at the Hearing, provide a Curriculum Vitae or other documents reflecting the expert's pro1tssional qualiii.cations." You answered. '"The Complainant intends to call Eric Wells as an expert witness. 

### A 

### copy ofMr. Well's [sic] expert report and curriculum vitae is included in Exhibit C-2:' This response cstah!ishes

**~'1r.** \},-'ells as an expert witness 

### that the FAAintends to call at the Hearing. 

### Mr. Wells. the FAA's expert witness. is 

### both the 

### signatory ofthe 

### Enforcement Investigative 

### Report (E!R) (Supplemental Response Exhibit 

### C-l, page l) as the Team 

### Coordinator and the signatory of the EIR·s Regional Division Revie\v U!") tht: Approving Official (id.). The EIR is essentially yourexpert witness·sproduct. containing his kno\lvlJ facts and opinions.. 

### Pursuant to 

### 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.220(

### e) Scope ofdiscovery., ··...

### Apar!y may 

### discoverfacts known, 

### oropinions held, 

### by an expert -who any other

### party expects to call to 

### testifyatthe

### Hearing."' \\'c·

**re~pcctfhll~y** request 

### an unredat:ted copy

**th~** 

### EIR which we believe contains"'facts known, or opinions hckr' by your expert wiint:-s;;, 

### Ifyuu have a11y

**questlons~** 

### please do not hesitate t.o contactme. Cordially yours. 

### Conlin. !'v'faloney & Miller



# /~/~/~7 Ben Vv'ybomcy / cc: Respondent. Felts. Field Aviation

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the MatterofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 Case \lo. 2015WP910090 Exhibit B: Page I of! Page 1ofI 

### Conlin, Maloney & 

### Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 

### Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 624-3020MarkJ. Couli.u

**TbomiD~** B. Maloney 0996) Tiwm.SI! J. Millet' &upunin L_ Wyb6tlley August 9, 20!6 

### EXHIBIT C CONLIN,MALONEY

### &MILLER 421 W.RIVERSIDE AV'ENL'E, SUm;911 SPO"I(Ah'E, WA.."iHL"JGTON 99201



### Fatimah Stokley, Attorney Enforcement Division.

**\'~/estern** 

### Team P.O. Box 92007 l.os Angeles. 

### CA 90009-2007 RF: h:-lts Field A

### dation 'iTSB Docket No: Fi\A-20J.j.3307 FAA CaseNo: 2015WP910090 

### Ms. Stokley. Te.leplWM:(Jro9}-624-sn:ro FacsU:!aile: (Soo)S23-1SSO NotfbrServioo ot·N(lti!;:e



### We have

**rec~ived** 

### the FAA's Supplemental Response to our First Set of lnterrogatories and Requests for 

### Production. We appreciate the Supplemental Response, however, we 

### had hoped 

### lbr more. 

### first withholding ofdiscoverable material issues aside. it 

### appears that 1he FAA has added .t{)ur rages to Exhibit C-1. The 

### original Exhibit C-1 contained 37 pages. 

### The new Exhibit C-1 contain::; 41.

**However~** 

### it appears that the f Ai\ has not internally

**differe~tiated** the t'triginai 

### Exhibit C-1 from 

### the supplemented C-1 other than

### the location

### of!he

### lal{el 

### "Bxbibit.C·l"; In the original, the 

### footers contain 

### "Exhibit C-1" and 

### apage numl?er. 

### In !hesupplementthe

### headers all indicate "Exhibit C-

### 1", 

### but the 

### page numbers

### remain in 

### the footer. This hasaverybigbpotential 

### 10 cause confusion as this matterproceeds. Would it 

### be possible-to indicate eitherin the

**foote~;** or 

### in the header, ·'Exhibit C-1 (Supplemented)" 

### or if the situation requires, "Exhibit C-1 tSupplcmcnt I)"? 

### Second. \\-e find the supplemented rcdactc;d material and 

### entirely new pages s()rnev.ilat wanting. As we arc dlscussing the Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR), l have inclUded.guidance from 

### FAA Order215038,

### Change II !Order

### 2150.38). According to Order

**~150.3.8,** 

### Chapter 8. Paragraph J.b.(2) 

### Factors 

### .affCCting Sanc:tiont ''FA'-\

**investig<.:~tivc** persmmd analyze \Vhdher each nf the factors- in chapter

**7~** paragraph 4 or 

### Appendix C 

### is relevant and applies 

### to the ease." This paragraph goes on to indicate !hat

### '"[i]fa 

### factor is rdevant to the Ctt.'-'e.

**FA/~** 

### investigative personnel

**~xplain** 

### in section Bof

### the EIR.how the i8.cts and circumstances support the applicability ofthat fhctor to the alleged 

### viOhitions. Itis our 

### imention to discover the ··facts and circumstam.:es·- that the FAA investigative personnel:are 

### considering. Given the amount of the proposed ciVil penalty, \\'e cannot understate the importance of

**double~checking** these 

### ··facts and 

### circumstances". r\n example ln point is the Certificate Holdef's Level ofExperienc_e and Responsibility section, Exhibit C-1. page 4. This section indicates. "Felts Field Aviation, Inc. also .htts a Part 145 Ccrtillcatc '"'d has 

### two Forest Service Contracts with !he State of \V!JShhigton." This iniOrmation is 

### incorrect Felts Field 

### Aviation does .not maintain a Part 145 Cerii:Qcate or any contracts 

### with thl.' State ofWashington. If

### there- arc 

### errors in this section, what-other
__errors are

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. F

### AA-20 15-3307 CaseNo. 20 15WP910090 

### Exhibit C: Page I of6 Page I of6 

### Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920I 

### (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBITC concealed 

### by redactions'' Further. these erroneous facts are quite possibly affOi'tingtheproposed sanction_ This is exactly the justilication f(>r discovering all ofthe 

### facts on which 

### the FAA is basing the sanction. Further. Order 215!UB_ Chapter 8
.. Paragraph h.(3l- Otherlnfonnation., indicates !hat "[iJfFAA irwcsligative personnel

**han~** 

### any opinions or f(:dings about the case, 

### they statethem in section B and 

### label them 

### as opinions:· 

### The ElR includes a 

### heading for "Opinions". A

### plainreading of

### the E1R headings. in light ofthe regulatory guidance. would indicate that opinions reside in the 

### Opinions section. not in any other heading. certainly not under headings that are historical or liKtual in nature. Redactions 

### of inionnation under factual headings 

### are inappropriate. 

### The Respondent is entitled to 

### discover d1c facts under the factual headings and to either· t'tgtee 

### with those tl:tcts ordispute them. 

### "lost importantly. the Privilege Log contains live blanket 

### en.tries for 26 individual redactions. The purpose of 

### a Privilege Log is to provide sufficient information to enable opposing parties and the Court to detennine whether each element ofthe asserted privilege is satisfied;·a blanket claim ofthe asserted privilege does not satistY the burden ofproof. These blanket assertions .of privileged pre-decisional and deliberative opinions 

### are inappropriate, especially when considering thatthe FAA is applyingthese 

### tL"ertions to primafacie factual sections ofthe E!R. Considering redaction 

### 2. Exhibit C-l page 3_ 

### Nature of the Violation, Including How 

### Safety Was Affected: we believe this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 7., Paragraph 4.a. Nature of Violation.. 

### identities three elements: operational versus non-operational, carelessness_ or 

### recklessness. and special aggravating or mitigating factors. \Ve requestthat-the FAA disclose the characteriwtion of the violation: 

### whether 

### it was operational or 

### non-operational careless or reckless. and v.:hether there arc aggravating or rnitigating circumstances. An

**invCStigator~s** 

### obsen·;:l!ions as to the Respondent's actions regarding these elements are t"ilcts. These facts afkct the sanction and the Respondent is entitled to 

### discover on what 

### basis the :f;-'\/\ 

### is

**det~:m1ining** 

### the sanction. 

### f.urther. with the inclusion 

### of"lncludingHow Safety Was Affected'', itappears thattl)e FAA has deviated !rom the prescril:x:d !(mnm of an E!R. We believe the redaction ofthese facts is inappropriate. What did 

### the investigator observe that anected safety?

**The~** 

### factors appear to affect the sm1ction and 

### the Respondent is entitled lO 

### discover 

### on what 

### basis the FAA is de1enniningthe sanction. ('onsidering redaction 3. Exhibit C-1

**~** 

### page 4. there arc 

### tOur redactions onthis

**page:~** 

### but onlyone entry to 

### the Privilege Log. This is inappropriate. Each redaction. is signific;;tnt and merits·an 

### independent entr:y on the Privilege. Considering each heading

### specifically:

• Considering W1tether the Violation was Inadvertent and Not J:)eliherate; we believe this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter L Paragraph 4.b. Whether .the Violation was Inadvertent and Not Deliberate._ indicates that 

### "[i]f a 

### violation is deliberate 

### or not inadvertent, a sanction at the upper end ofthe range orexceedingthe range for tha!type of violation generaHy is appropriate.·· An investigator"s observations as to the- 

### Respendcnrs actions indicating deliberateness or inad\'ertcn..:c are facts, not 

### opinions or impressions. 

### These facts affect the sanction and the Respondent is entitled to discOver on what basisthe FAA is 

### determining the sanction. The FAA's assertion that redaction 3 contains "theories 

### ofthe case'" is inappropriate to the prescribed subject iorthisheading.

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. 

### Docket No. F AA-20I5-3307 Case No. 

### 2015\VP910090 Exhibit C: Page 

### 2of6 Pag.;: 2of6 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

### 421 \V_ Riverside Ave., Ste 91 I Spokane, WA 

### 99201 (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBITC
• Considering Attitude ofthe Violator: v.·e believe this redactionis·inappropriate. Chapter 7
.. Paragraph -+.d. Attitude of the Violawr.. indicates that "[a] prior violation history may :;uggest that a person has a poor compliance**disposition~** which ·is an agb,rravating 

### i'actoL Furthcnnore. a person who cornrnils an act or omission contrary to statutory orregulatory requirements after recdving notice through a prior

### administrathre actionor counselingthat such conduct is in violation ofthose requirements might well be regarded

### as having a poor compliance disposition
... An investigator·s observation
.. -> ofviolationhistory and! ornotice through prior adrninistrative 

### aLtion or counseling are facts, not opinions or impressions. These facts affect the sanction and the Respondent is entitled to discover on whatbasisthe FAA 

### is determining the sanction. 

### ·n1c FAA's assertion that 

### redaction 3 

### contaiils**~"theories** ofthe**ca~e--** is inappropriatetothe prescribed subject for this heading. • Considering Degree of Hazard; we believe this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter Paragraph 4.e. Degree ofHazard
.. indicates that ''[tjhe degree ofhazard may be increased as a result ofthe interplay ofthe op¢rational 

### envirom11ent (for**example~** weather**conditions~** congested wrsus sparsely populated areas) and the nature ofthethreat to safety (to thelife or property ofanother, including those in the aircraft being**operate~** to other**aircraft~** orto persons or property on the surface) that the misconduct**presents.~'** An**investigator~s** observations ofthe operational environment arc facts, not opinions or impressions. These tacts a1Tcct the sanction and the Respondent is entitled to discoveron whatbasis the FAA is determining the san<ction. The FAA's assertion that redaction 3 contains "theories ofthe case"is inappropriateto the prescribed subject for thisheading. • ConsideringAction Taken by the Employer orOtherAuthority; webelievethisrcdai.1.ion is inappropriate. Chapter 7
.. Paragraph 4.f Action Taken by Employer or Other Authority., indicates two dements "whether the alleged violator's employer has taken disciplinary action and whether cri1ninal prosecution is 

### invo1ved. 1' An investigator's observations of disciplinary actions or criminal prosecution are facts, not opinions or impressions. These facts 

### atTect the sanction and the Respondent is entitled 

### to discover on what basis 

### the FAA is detennining

### the sanction. 

### The FAA's assertion that redaction 

### 3contains "theoriesof.the case" is inappropriatetothe prescribed subject t{lrthis heading. Considering redaction 4, Exhibit C-1, page 5, there <rre nineredactions onthis**pag~~** butonlyone entry to the Privilege Log. This is inappropriate. Each reda<.,'1:ion is significant ·and merits.

## an independententry. Consideringeach heading specifically:

• Considering Lse of a Certificate; vw believe this redaction is inappropriate, Chapter 7., Paragraph 4.g. Use 

### ofa Certificate
.. indicates that

## "ltjhis factor relates

### to thenature 

### orkind of activity or operation involved at the time the violation was committed. Whether the certificate holder was engaged in student.**private~ commercial~**  orairline activity bears on 

### the severity of the sanction:· An investigator's observations of. the ResPondent's operations 

### are tflcts. not opinions or impressions. These facts 

### anect the sanction and 

### the Respondent is entitled to discover on what basis the FAA is determiningthe sanction. The 

### FAA·s assertion that redaction 4 

### contains ·•theories ofthe case" is iP,appropriate· to the prescribed subject for thisheading.
e 

### Considering Decisional 

### Law: \Ve**beli~ve** 

### this redaction is inappropriate. .Chapter 7., Paragraph 4.\. Decisional Law
.. indica1es that priority ofguidance for FAA decisionmaker Jecis!ons. An investigator's identific-ation of these decisions are facts,**Further~** ·'FAA**F~·lts** held Aviation NTSB Dm:J...d No: fAA-20!5-3307, FAA Ca:;e No: 20!5WPI1!0090 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-20I5-3307 Case No. 20 I5WP910090 Exhibit C: Page 3 of6 Page3of6 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 42I W. 

### Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920l (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBITC dccisionmaker decisionspublished after the issuance ofthisdocumentthatconflictwiththe policy in this order supersede this documem and 

### arc controlling." The Respondent 

### is entitled to 

### discover on what basis the FAA is determining the sanction, and whether the 

### basis ofthe sanction has been superseded. The FAA's 

### asserti<:m thatredaction

### 4 contains "theories of

### the case'· is inappropriate to the prescribed subject forthisheading. • Considering Multiple Violations/Acts: we 

### believe this redaction is inappropriate. The cun·cnt Order 21503B does not seem to address this heading, however, whether there are .\1ultiple Violations or ;\cts arc facts. Certainly, an investigator's observations of 

### the Rcspnndcnrs actions regarding Multiple Violations orActs are facts. Thesefacts appearto 

### al1ect the sanction and the Respondent is entitled to discover on what basis the FAA is determining the sanction. The F/\A's assertion that redaction 4 contains "theories ofthe case" is inapprnpriateto theprescribed subject lorthis heading. • CoiLsidering Ability to 

### Absorb Sanction: 

### we believe this redaction is 

### inappropriate. Chapter7
.. Paragraph 4j. Ability to Absorb Sanction., indicatesthat "(w]hilethe FAA, 

### does not allow financial circumstances to excuse any violation, 

### it does 

### coa"'ider a carrier's size and linancial strength in choosing the appropriate sanction amount The difference in the 

### penalties t1xcd in the law ior large and small business concerns recognizes this fact
.. , Thcrefclfe, the 

### FAA 

### uses air carrier 

### size as one means 

### ofensuring 

### a relatively equivalent**dc~crrem** 

### effect on each air carrier that violates the same FAA regulation.
. . For all entities and individuals, the Fl'u\ 

### considers ability to pay a civil penalty and the effect a ci\·il penalty will have on a person's ability to 

### continue in business_

## to the extent 

### it knows such infon11ation." Facts that the FAA is using to detenninethe size 

### ofthe Respondentand consequently, the amount of the sanction arc discoverable. These facts are not an investigator's opinion. These lacts affect the sanction and the RespondenUs entitled to discover on what basis the FAA is determining the sanction. The FAA's assertion that redaction 4 contains "theories ofthe case" is inappropriate to theprescribed subject forthis heading. further, reviewing our teleconference on Thursday, August 4, 2016, 

### this is one of the topics we discussed.: whether the Respondent"s financial documents where accup;te and 

### current. Considering this concern. the Respondent is entitledto discover whatinformation the FAA is using to ensure 

### it

### is correct and 

### current • Considering Consistency ofSanction: we believe this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 7
.. Pamgraph 4.k. Consistency ofSanction
.. indicates that one ofthe FAA's goals is "to 

### achieve relative consistency in imposing similar sanctions for similar**violations.~·** 

### An investigator's identification of consistent cases are facts. The Respondent isentitled to disco,·er which cases are identitied as consistent These**fact~** 

### .affect the sanction and. 

### the Respondentis entitled to discover on what basisthe FAA isdetenniningthe sanction. The FAA's assertion that redaction 4 contains "theories ofthe case" is inappropriate to the prescribed subjectfor this heading. • Considering Was the Violation Voluntarily Reported; we believe this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 

### L Paragraph 4.L Whether the Violation wasReportedVoluntarily., indicates that an entity may "report voluntarily apparent violations fmd 

### receive Jesser enforcement action provided certain criteria are met." V./hether or not 

### a. violation is \oluntarily reported is a 

### tact. not an opinion. This fact affects the sanction and the
FdbField A\iation \iTSB Docket No: FAA-2015-3307. FAA Case No: 20l5\VP9lOD90 

### MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. 

### DocketNo. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 20 15WP910090 Exhibit C: Page 4of6 Page 4 of6 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 

### 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBITC Respondent is entitled to discover on what basis the 

### FAA ls determiningthe sanction. The FAA·s assenion that redaction 4 contains 

### '1heories of the case" is inappropriate to the prescribed subject i(lr

### this heading.
e 

### Considering \Vhat Corrective Acth.m Has Been Taken; we believe this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 

### 7., Paragraph -l.m. 

### Corrective Action., indicates that 

### "[t]he FAA e-onsiders corrective action a mitigating factor in determining sanction provided the corrective action exceeds the minimum regulatory or statutory requirements. The amount of credit given in setting a sanction depends on the extent and timing ·ofthe _corrective action. that is, how extensiw 

### was the corrective action and how quicldy was it taken. Implementing

### new proceduresthat are above 

### those requiredundertheFAA's

### regulations to 

### prcwnt future violations ordinarily is considered a mitigating 

### !actor in detem1ining an 

### appropriate sanction:· An investigator's 

### observations of'. the Respondent's actions regarding corrective ru:tions are facts, not opinions. These facts affect the.sanctiOn and.the 

### Respondent is entitled 

### to discover on 

### what basis 

### the FAA isdeterminingthe sanction, The IAXs assertion that redaction 4 contains "theories of the case" is inappropriate to the prescribed subject 

### !<Jrthis heading. Further. reviewing our**telc~onfcrencc** 

### on**Thursday~** 

### August 4. 2016, this is exactly the inlimnalion that Ms. Killingham requested. Specifically, she wanted to know what COITcctive 

### actions 

### had Felts 

### Field Aviation taken to cure the violation. 111at Ms. Killingham would request the ini(Jrmation indicates that she suspectstheinfurmation in the E!R is either 

### inaccurate or outdated. Considering this concem, the Respondentis entitled tl) 

### discnver this inhmnationto ensure lr 

### is correct and current • Con:;idering Rcllabilit:y of**Evidence~** 

### we believe this redaction is inappropriate,. .Chapter**8.~** 

### Paragraph 3.h.(3) Other 

### inl(mnation
.. indicates that ·'FAA investigative personnel set forth 

### in section 

### B any other mitigating, extenuating. or aggravating factors a!Jput the apparent violations:· A factor is "'[a]ny cin::umstance orinllccencc which brings aboutorcontributes to a result.
.." (Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.) An investigator's observations of circumstances or influences that mitigate,**extenuate~** 

### or aggravate the violation 

### are-fUcts. 

### rhesc li\Cts affect the sanction and may even go to rebuttingthe relevanceormaterialityof evidence. The Respondent is entitled to discoveronwhatbasistheFAA

### is detem1iningthe 

### sanction. The FAA"s assertion that redaction 4 contains**~'theories** 

### of the**case'~** 

### is inappropriateto the prescribed subject tor 

### tltis heading. Furiher. \vhilc acknov-·:fedging that this is an administrative lawcase7 

### hot a criminal**case~** 

### it is still an administrative prosecution in the pursuit ofan administrativesanction. [ndeed, 

### !'AA Order 

### 2150
.

### .1B is riddled with

### rderences to ''prosecution'' ufthe enforcement action. As a prosecutorial agency. 

### ifthe FAA. a State Actor, has eXculpatory· dvidence} 

### it has a dutyto disclose 

### it To**\~v·ithhold** 

### exculpatoryeYidence violates dueprocess. • Considering Conflicting Evidence; we believe the 

### redaction is 

### inappropriate. Chapter 8., Paragraph 3.b.(3) Other infonnation
.. does no\ specifically address conflicting evidence. However. an investigator's observaLions of conflicting eVidence are.facts. 

### These facts appear to 

### anect the sanction and may even go to rebutting the relevance or materiality of evidence. The Respondent is entitled to discover on what basisthe FAA is determiningthe sanction. The FAA's assertion that redaction 4 contains**~•theories** 

### of 

### the·**caSe·~** 

### inappropriatelo 

### the 

### prescribed subject f(lr 

### this heading.
Felts Fii..'ld Aviation NTSB Docket No:**FA.-\-::?:015~3307,** FAA Case N(): 20ISWP9l0090 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation. Inc. Docket No. FAA·20I5-3307 Case No. 20I5WP910090 Exhibit C: Page 5 of6 Page 5of6 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 9I I Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT C Again. while ae:knov.-ledglng that this is an 

### ad1ninistrative lavv**case~** 

### nota criminal 

### easel it is still an administrative prosecution in the pursuit of an administf'ative sanction" As a prosecutorial agency" 

### ifthe FAA" a State Actor" has exculpatory evidence" 

### it has a duty 10 disclose it. To withhold exculpatory evidenceviolates due process. Considering redaction 5, Exhibit C-1. page 6, there are six redactions onthis page,

### but onlyone entry to 

### the Privilege Log. This is inappropriate. Each redaction is significantand merits 

### an independent entry. Considering each heading specifically:

• Con;.;idcring Other/Mitigating, Extenuating, or /\.ggravating Factors, we beljeve the redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 8., Paragraph 3.b.t3) Other infmmation., does not specitically address Other/Mitigating. Extenuating, or Aggravating Factors, 

### but Reliability of Evidence does. An investigator's observations of circumstances or influences that mitigate.**extenuate~** 

### oraggravate the violation are facts. These facts affect

### t11e sanction and may even go to rebutting the relevance or materiality of evidence. The. Resporident is 

### entitled to discover on what basis the FAA is determining the sanction. The**FM~s** 

### assertion that redaction 5 contains**-~theories** 

### ofthe**case~·** 

### is inappropriate to

### the prescribed subject for this heading.

m 

### (\msidering Opinions. \Ve 

### do not chaHenge the redaction ofopinionsofthe author**prop~rly** 

### labeled and located in Opinions section. • Cnnsidering Recommendation About the Type of Sanction, we do not challenge the redaction of recommendations of the author properly labeled and located in the Recommendation About the TypeofSanction section. • Considering Reasons Justifying Recommendations for the Enforcement Action and (Type) Sanction. we do not challenge the redaction ofjustification ofrecommendations that are properly labeled and located in the appropriate section. • Considering the unlabeled redaction. we believe this redaction is inappropriate. There is nothing indicating what infi:lflnation is redacted ortheappropriateness ofthe redaction. • Considering Regional Sanction Recommendations. we do not challenge the redaction of regional sanction recommendations that are properly labeled

### end locatedinthe "ppropriate section. We strongly object to the redaction ofthe above indicated items and requesta copy ofthe EIR withthe indicated redaclions removed. Ifnecessary, pur:;uantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(m), we 

### will pursue a Mj,_)tion to Compel. 

### rryou ha\·e 

### nn_y questions. please do not hesitate 10

### contaetme. Cordiallyyours. Conlin. Maloney & 

### Miller

Ben W;home) cc: Respondent. Fells FieldAviation
Fdb Fidd Aviation NTSB Dockt:t No:**Fi\i\~2015~3307.** FAA Case No: 20!5WP9l0090 

### MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. 

### Docket No. F

### AA-2015-3307 Case No. 2015WP910090 Exhibit C: Page 6 of6 Page 6of6 

### Conlin, Maloney & 

### Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ihereby certifythatthe foregoing Motion to Compel Discovery has been served via facsimile (where indicated), email (where indicated), and RegularMail on September 16, 2016 to the following: JudgeJ. E. Sullivan US. AdministrativeLawJudge Otlice ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200New Jersey Ave, SE (E1l-310) Washington, DC 20590 Phone: 202-366-6941 Fax: 202-366-7536 Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Fatimah Stokley, Attomey Federal AviationAdministration Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division, WesternTeam P.O. Box 920007 LosAngeles, CA 90009-2007 Fax: (310) 725-6816 Fatimah.Stokley@faa.gov DATED this 16th day ofSeptember, 2016

Mark J. Conlin Attorneyfor Respondent 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 911 Spokane. WA 99201 (509) 624-3020

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINTON, DC In the Matterof: FELTS FIELD AVIATION Respondent ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### DocketNo: FAA-20I5-3307 CaseNo: 2015WP910090



# ___________ ) RESPONDENT'S MOTIONTO COMPEL The Respondent, by and through its attorneys, BENJAMIN L. 

### WYBORNEY and MARK J. CONLIN, move the Court for an Order to Compel Discovery in the above referenced matter. 

## GROUNDS The Complainant is withholding "'facts known, or opinions held, by an expert who any otherparty expects to call to testify atthe hearing." 14 C.F.R. 

## § 13.220(e). BASIS On October 13, 2015, the Respondent's attorney sent Interrogatories and Requests for Production by Certified Mail to the FAA. On October 16, 2015, the FAA received these requests. OnJuly 11, 2016,justpriorto a July 12, 2016 inforn1al conference onthe matter, the Respondent's attorneys received the Complainant's response to the Respondent's Interrogatories and Requests for Production. The Respondent's Interrogatory No. 3 was; '"[f]or each expert Complainant intends to call at the Hearing, provide a Curriculum Vitae or other documents reflecting the expert's professional qualifications."' The Complainant's response was; "[t]he Complainant intends to call Eric Wells as an expert witness. A copy ofMr. Well's [sic]

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation. Inc. Docket No. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 2015WP910090 Page 1of4 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave
.. Ste 91 I Spokane, W A 99201 (509) 624-3020

### expert report and curriculum vitae is included in Exhibit C-2." Further, Exhibit C-1, of the Complainant's Responseto the Respondent's Interrogatories, the Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR), was very heavilyredacted. Due to the unreasonable level of redaction, at the July 12, 2016 informal conference, the Respondent's attorneys moved for more complete production and the production of a privilege log. On July 14, 2016, this Court issued an order, ordering, inter alias, that the Complainant serve a modified redacted copy of Exhibit C-1 or a privilege logjustifying the redactions to the current Exhibit C-1 by .July 22, 2016, and that General Discovery is extended by two weeks from August 30,2016to September 16, 2016. On July 21, 2016, the Respondent's attorneys received a privilege log and a supplemented Exhibit C-1. The supplemented Exhibit C-1 contained an additional four pages ofdocuments. some additional disclosure ofredacted information, and a privilege log. The four additional pages ofdocuments contained the first page ofthe EIR, a (FAA) FORM 2150-5 EA and three pages ofvery heavily redacted supplemental information. The first eight pages ofthe supplemented Exhibit C-1, which includes the privilege log and the additional four pages ofdocuments, are found at Exhibit A to this Motion. The FORM 2150-5 indicates that, while Ms. Simone Clinton is the reporting inspector, Mr. Eric Wells, the Complainant's expert witness, is the signatory of the Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) as the Team Coordinator. Exhibit A, page 3. Further Mr. Eric Wells, the expert witness, is also the signatory ofthe EIR's Regional Division Review as the Approving Official. Exhibit A, page 3. The EIR is essentially

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation. Inc. DocketNo. FAA-20 15-3307 CaseNo. 2015WP910090 Page 2 of4 Conlin. Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 91 I Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

### the research product of the FAA's expert witness. containing his ··facts known, or opinions held." On September 13. 2016. based on the fact that the EIR is the research and investigative product ofthe expert witness. and that pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(e) Scope ofdiscovery
.. ··... [a] party may discover facts known, or opinions held, by an expert who any other party expects to call to testify at the Hearing.", the Respondent's attorneys requested an unredacted copy ofthe E!R. The Respondent's attorneys' request to the Complainant is found at Exhibit Bto this Motion. As of 12:00 pm, PDT (3:00pm. EDT) on September 16, 2016, the Respondent's request for documents containing •·facts known, or opinions held" by the Complainant's expert witness has met with silence. Consequently, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

### 13.220(m) Motion to compel discovery, the Respondent's attorneys respectfully move that the Complainantbe compelled to produce documents that are properly discoverable. In the alternative, in accordance with the Due Process spirit ofthe Brady Rule, the Complainant, a state actor, acting in aprosecutorial capacity to affect an administratively imposed civil penalty should be required to disclose exculpatory evidence. The redacted portions of the EIR apparently contain such exculpatory evidence; the paragraph headings indicate there is redacted information on ''Reliability ofEvidence," "Cont1icting Evidence," and "Other/Mitigating, Extenuating, or Aggravating Factors." Exhibit A. page 3, 4. More specifically, in Brady. the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause ofthe Fifth Amendment requires disclosure ofexculpatory evidence "material to guilt or punishment'' knoVvn to the government but unknown to the defendant in criminal cases. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. 

### F AA-20I5-3307 Case No. 20I5WP9I0090 Page 3 of4 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

### See 

### Brady v. Marvland, 373 U.S. 83, 88 (1963). While acknowledging that this is not a criminal case; Due Process is still required since it is an administrative adjudication with the possibility of the deprivation of property interests. See 

### Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). Because Due Process is required, and the Complainant, by its own characterization (FAA Order 2150.3B. FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program, is littered with the term), is "prosecuting" an enforcement action that could deprive the Respondent ofa property interest, then the government should be compelled to disclose its exculpatory evidence. Based on this analysis, the Respondent's attorneys requested an unredacted copy of the EIR. Exhibit C. 

### The Complainant refused to provide the information. Consequently, the Respondent's attorneys respectfully move that the Complainant be compelled to produce documents that contain exculpatory evidence. CONCLUSION Forthe foregoing reasons. this Court should grant the Respondent's Motion to Compel. In the alternative. this Court should order an in camerareview ofthe redacted material to determine whether it contains exculpatory evidence. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTEDthis 16th day ofSeptember2016.

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 20 15WP910090 

### CONLIN, MALONEY & 

### MILLER



### -..

# - /**,----~,**

# "/S~?-~~7 Benjamin L. Wybofne/WSBA

### # 50070 Attorney for Respondent 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 911 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 624-3020

Page 4 of4 Conlin. Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 9\\ Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT A

!.'
..'i. llfl'.·\Rl:IIE:\! OF TR.\.\SPORTATlO:\ OFFICE OF Hf.ARl'i(;<; 

## RECtJ MJC

WASlllW;TO:\. D.C. Ci

**J~LI>I,** ?.1.\i:Jl'· 'IY
i'"',f·lFl.i; \\L\!!11\

( (i>lPLAl:\A:\T'S SlTPLnlE'iTAL RESPO'i',l·: TORESPONDEl\T'S FIRST SET Ol !.VrETmm;,\TOR!ES .\'ill REOl'ESTS fOR PRODliCTION OFDOCUMENTS

S1d.k; 'i n\\n.:crrj(;l)\ Dt\ !o.'!Ui!

**v:~'<ern** --;!'1"1

.\ l_ B;'\ 'l2qn·" f.,_,;:

**.\n~:.·L::'>-** ( ·_·'. 'fi\U_!(_<?JH)i ··ruii:

**:;!1tnl:lh.;;;,;.JKi~·:·•l** it:·l:rhrn·,c 1:::!(;;'::::':' 1Ji2 !';:<:·-i

**n~ii** · : ·;:: 1'7:'

**:;~(-,;\** 1r•

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 2015WP910090 Exhibit A: Page I of8 !og for Fxhil•it C-l is included

Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020f)!lL'Ulilellt f;/pC

Rl'PC·rl 

### EXHIBITA PRIVILEGELOG ,\uthor Matter



### : Clinton opmltm regarding 

### regulations violated and

**~a.nction**. ; Privilege


### and 

### Dtlihcrmivc

. 

### ;·;~-->)-_:Ill:-_:; j l'inl'll-''

..\u·t-"llr-,-,.c.·,, ---+,) A ·

- - - - -- -- ..).".

**~...** • _ 1

### rc--ul.':CJ:.;ional 

### Clinton i 

### oplnion anJ :regarding Deliberative

sanction. Ciinwn ' opinion

!. regarding 

# ipnssihlc

theories of 

### : the cast: and 1 sanction. 

### Delibenuivc

----, 

### Fni{Jrcemem

**05<~h-.20**

### l.'-

!11\'c:-;ti

### g.a1:'.·c l{cpn:-r



### MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the MatterofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 

### ;_ Simont: · Amhor1S 

### ('linton : opinion
: t\";\Jardini} !

**~** C; 

### ' pnssiblc

theories of ' the

**cas~.:** and



### .snnctiun. {'linton · opinion regarding 

### possible 1 theories of

the case and

### sanctron

### and Deliberative



### ; and

De!jbcrntive

Case 1\o. 20 I5WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 2 of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020:1\i:::r-Ji·

**~--EMf>1T** lNVESTlGATi F:C ·<Y:?:-1 

### EXHIBIT A

f \C. 2

-

**"~-·---- --~**  

### 00

0) 725-3782

<'}.0' C

**~-:CC.~.'** ' '""

**,~** '''

**~!ti**

MOTION TOCOMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field !\viation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-20 I5-3307 Case No. :2015WP91 0090 Exhibit A: Page 3 of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 42I W. Riverside Ave., Ste 9I I Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT A (:"'. Drug Abatement**n;,,;~:A,,** SINGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION SECHON 8 Case Numt)er: 2015V1 1P9-'10090 Statement of Case

Feits F-ieid Aviat1on. !nc iS a '135 certificate holder tGFVA247E) Operations**~r~c,,r,fi:c** A449**(_~ert!fiE:S** that the operat8·· wili 

### with the requirements of 14 CFR part 120 and 49 CFR part 40 for 1rs a1d A.lcohoi Testing Program. {lOP 1). On 20"r5. an inspection of f-elts F1elci !\viat1on. !nc.·s Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program was conducted_ As a result ofthe inspection 

### letter of Investigation {fiie number 2CJ15VVP91009Cl'l was Jssueci on Aprli 16,2015 (lOP 2), and Response dated Aprti 27 20·1S was recetved {lOP 3} According to 14CFR 120,105: Each ernp!oyee including any assistant or mdiv1duai m a trairung status. who perfums .::t function l1sted rn tilis section directly or

### by contract 1including by subcontract at any for an ernp!oyer as defined in this subpart must be :;ubJect to drug testtng under a testing program 1mp!emented in accordance with this S1!0part. 'This dlc!udes full-time part,time. temporaPJ. and intermittent employees of the degree of The safety-sensitive functions are· (a) Flight crewmember duties According to 14 CFR 120.215\a): Each employee. including any assistant he!per or individual in a training status, who a safety-sensitive funct1on listed in thts section directly or 

### by contract 1inciud!ng by subcontract at any tier) to" an employer as defined in thls mustbe subjectto alcohol testing under a program 1rnplemented in accordance with this subpati This includes tul!-iwne temporar:/. and intermittentemployees regardless of the of suoeriJJsJon fhe satety-sensltive functions are: (a) Flight -::::revvmernber dLJt!es Violation Description: On ,Ju!y 2. 2007. R:ch<lro VVebber cornp1e1ed tne Ground Traming Program for aircrafts, CPssna T-2.10 and Cessna C182RG (lOP 4) Mr Webber submitted to a Department of I' ransportat1on (DOT)**pre~ernp!oyment** test and was venfied negative on May28. 2008 (!OP 5) A rev1ew of Fe!ts Fietd Aviation. inc:s and r:1ight Time Records from April 9. 2013 

### to March 20. 20·1 5 shows Mr \Nebber performed a**safety~sensltive** function as a Piiot {lOP 6) Mr VVebber was never added to the random drug and alcohol testing ooo! until Apri16. 

### 2015 (lOP 7 & 8) As a result. Mr Webber missed random seleciions**si~ce** May 2008 but more recently on quarterly selections conducted on April5, 2013 {lOP 9 & July 5 2CLi (lOP 10 & 17) October 4. 2013 (lOP 11 & 17), January 3, 2014 {lOP 12 & 17). Apnl 4 2014 (lOP 13 & 17) July 4 2014 (lOP 14& 17), October 3. 2014 (lOP 15 & 17L and January 2. 2015 {lOP 16 & Mr. Webberwas not in the**ra;~,dcm** pool for these selsct!ons .so he haci no chance of being selected_ {fOP 7) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public availabiiity to be determined under 5 USC 552 1 MOTIO'J TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket 'Jo. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 2015WP910090 Exhibit!\: Page 4 of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave,, Stc 911 Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT A .4baternent Ul\nsron SINGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION Supporting**Evid-en~e: ~**  Richard V\lebbe:'s**cra1n\~·~g** r·ecorcl dated 2, 2007 for aircrafts, Cessna T 210 Nand Cessoa C182RG (!OP4)
o F\rst Advantage**pre-ernployrnet~t** venfi.eci negat1ve test result dated May 28
.. 2005_ specirnen !0#**04460~** 1565 (lOP 5) Felts Fielcl Aviatlon inc.'s Outy and FlightTime Records for Richard V'lebber from April 

### 9. 2013 through March 20. 2015 !lOP 6)
v F-e::lts Fieid Aviation. inc's active !ist from First Advantage dated May 14. 2015. (lOP 7) • Letter from DER/Larry Schmeddrng dated Aprrl7. 2015. (lOP!!)
0 f'irst Advantage enrollment .sumrnary report tor Felts Field Aviation. lnc. 'or the second quarterof 2013. dated Apnl 5. 2013. (lOP 9) First Advantage enroilrneni**histor:~** surnrnary report for Felts Field Aviation, Inc for the third quarter of 2013. dated Ju!y 5, 2013 {lOP 10) l=:rst Advantage**en~oHment** histo1·y summory report for Felts Field Aviation, !nc :n1 the fuurih quarter of20 12,, daled October 4. 2013_ (lOP 11} "' Fus! Ac5vamage en:-ollrnent 

### h1storv surnmn:ry reporttor Felts F!eid Aviation. 

### lnc fcx 

### iht;: first quarter of 

### 2014. dated**Januar~1 ~\**  2014. {tOP 12} !- 1rst Advantage enrollment surnrnary reportfer Fei\s Fieid Aviation. Inc, !or the second quarter of 2014. dated Apni 4 2014. (lOP 13) F:rst Advantage enrollment 

### histoty surnrnary report for Felts**Fie~d** Aviation, !nc for t11e thrrd quarter of 2014. dated July4. 2014. (lOP 14) First Advantage enrollment history summary report for Felts Field Aviation. Inc. for the fourth quarter ol2014. dated October 3, 2014. (lOP 15) "' First Advantage enrollment history summary report for Felts Field Aviation, 

### Inc. for the first quarter of 2015. dated .January 

### 2. 2015 (lOP 16}
c Random Selection dates for Felts FiBid Aviation from January 2013- April 2015 from F1rst Advantage (lOP 17} Factors Affecting Sanction

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public availability to be determined under5 USC 552 2 MOTIO"J TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

### In the Matter offelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 Case "Jo. 20 15WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 5 of8 

### Conlin, Maloney & 

### Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBITA Drug Abatement**Divisiof~** ,· 't:' ,, SINGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION



### Whetherthe Violation Was Inadvertentand Not Deliberate

Certificate Holder's 

### level of Experience and Responsibility Feits F1e!d Avlat1on. lnc. rs a ')35 certificated ai1 carrier based in Spokane, WA underthe parent company of Empire Lurnber They are also associated with Idaho Chip & Flber and Park Ranch Land & Cattle Company This was the company's fourth inspection. the 

### last botng on Aprd 9. 2013 They have two 81Ccralt, N2AK and N616EL. on their

### 0085. h;!ts Field Aviation, lnc. also has a Pari 145 r.:;ertificate and has two Forest Service 

## J c.:rJntr·acts \vith the State ofVVashington 

### Attitude oftheViolator

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public availability to be determined under5 USC 552 3 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the MatterofFelts Field Aviation, Inc, Docket No. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 20 15WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 6 of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBITA D1 ug .Abatemem lJrJts:on ;r:!L,' SiNGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION

Violation History Felts Field Aviation. lnc .joes not have a history ofviolations mvolving its Drug and A!coho! Testmg Prograrn

WhatCorrectiveAction Has Been Taken?

Other Information

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public availability to be determined under 5 USC 552 4 MOTIONTOCOMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-20I5-3307 Case No. 20 ISWP91 0090 Exhibit A: Page 7of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT A :.:.\··,b:t**;~.** i :-.i-V>->'·-' N•, :-/->..;\**:~** ;**>~\i·'** Drug Abatement Division SiNGLE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION Other/Mittgating, Extenuating, orAggravating Factors

Reasons Justifying Recommendations for EnforcementAction and (Type ol) 

### Sanction

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public availability to be determined under5 USC 552 5 \!lOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the MatterofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-20 15-3307 Case >Jo. 2015WP910090 Exhibit A: Page 8 of8 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 91 I Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020Mark J. C,..rili.!l Thomas B.

**~i;lloucy** (1996)

**Tlulm.MiJ.Mill~r** Th;lnjamin L. WyOOmey 

### September D.

**~016** 

## EXHIBIT B CONLIN, MALoNEY

### &MILLER ATT(lJL">'EYS AT LAW 421 W. RIVERSIDEAVE!'.'1!E, SUITE911 SPDKAt'<C, WAS!llNGTON 99201



### r:atin1ah Stokley.

**/\Uornt.~_y** 

### t--.:nforcem12nt 

### Division. Wcsh.:rn ']'cam P.O. Bn;.,_ 92007 l.o:-. Angeles. CA 90009-2007 RL: Felts Field ;\\iatitm NTSB

**Do~:ket ~o:**  FAA-2015-3307 FAA Case l\o: 2015WP910090 \b. Stokh:;. **T~lirphon<!"·** (W9H>24·3020 F=:cirnjk: {50$) 623·1650 NotforServieeurNDtice blw@ctnrolawfum.net

A.> \\t: lul\t: previously discussed. 'v\'C hmT received the FAA's Supplemental Response to our First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. We appreciate the Supplemental Response. hcn.Vt'\·er. \\-'C had hoped for l1h)rt. ln :our response: tcr the Respondent's lnterrog_;.1tory 

### No.3: "Foreachexpert Complainant intends h-l c3H at the 

### He-aring, provide a Curriculum Vitae or other documents reflecting the expert's prokssional qualifications."' You answere-d. --The Complainant intends to call Eric Wells as an expert \Vitncss. 

### A copy of 

### \-1r. \\-'ell's [sicj expert report 

### and curriculum vitae is induded in Fxhihit 

### C-2:· This response cstahlis:hes Mr. Wells as an expert witness that the FAA intends to c-all at the H..:-aring. 1\lr. Wells. the FAA"s expert witness. is hoth the signatory of the Enforcement 

### Investigative Report tEIRJ (Supplemental Response Exhibit C- L page I) as the Team Coordinator and the signatory 

### ofthe "f]R's Regional Division Re\'iew as the Approving Official (id.). The 

### EIR is cssenlially your r:xpcrt witnc:-Js·:.:;product. containinghis known filets andopinions. 

### Pur;;;uant to 14 CF.R. § 

### 13.220((") Scope t.Jf

### discovery
.. ··, .. Aparry may dhi.cover fitcts knO\\·n, or opinion::> held,

**b~** an expert v..ho any otherparty

**~xpects** to call to testifyatthe 

### Hearing,'' \\:'e

**rc~pectlldly** request an

**unreda~;u::d** cop_:· tht: ·r:1R v ..hich webelieve contains ''"fiacts knovm, or npininn:-; held" hy your expert witness.
CorJiall) yours. Conlin. \faloney & Miller

ct.::

**Respond~.~nL** 

### h:lts Fidd A\iation

MOTI0'\1 TO C0\1PEL DISCOVERY In the MatterofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-2015-3307 Case No.20 15WP910090 Exhibit B: Page 1of 1 Pagel ofT Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane,W A 9920I (509) 624-3020M;;;rk,J. Conlm

**Thon'l~M** B. M.alt>oey (JS%) ThomwJ. Miller &ujamm L Wybomey Augu.c:x 9_ 2016 

### EXHIBITC CONLIN, MALONEY

### & MILLER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 421 W. RIVERSIDEAV'El-<LJE, SUITE911 SPOKAl'-'E, WASHINGTON 99201

Fatlmah Sh1-kky. Attornc;. 

### f·:nt<m.:ement Division. Vv'cstern 

### ·1 cam P.O. Box 92007 fos Angeles. CA 90009-20117 RF:

**felt~** Fidd Adation 

### \iTSB Docket No: f'AA-2015-11117 L·\:\Case :--:o: 2015WP9J0090 :vb. Stokley. Telephum;.: 0509}·624-3020

**F~:** (509) 623-l$50 Notfur:ServiceorNotice

We

**han~ re~.:ived**  the 1-'AA's Supplemental Response to our First Set of Interrogatories .and Requests for Production. We appreciate the Supplemental Response. however, we hadhoped for

**mor~.;_** rirsL \dthholding ofdiscoverable materia! issues aside. 

### it appears that the FAA hali added !l)ur pages to F:->hibit C-l. fhc 0riginal Exhibit C-1 contained 37 pages. The 

### nev.-· Exhibit C-1 contains ..f 1. llowcvcr. it o.ppears that tho..: FAA has not internally differentiated the original Exhihit (·-1 

### !rom the supplemented 

### C-1 otherthan the locationofthe label "ExhibitC-1,._ 

### In the originaL the footers conlain ··Exhibit C-1·· and a page number. In the 

### supplement, theheaders all 

### indicate ··E\hibit C-1··. but the page numbers rernain in the footer. Thishas a veryhigh potential

**h"~** 

### L'ause confusion as this 

### mait(:"rprncecds. Would it be possible 

### to indicate 

### either in the 

### fo<Her (lr in the header. ·'Exhibit C-1 (Supplemented)" or 

### ir the situation requires, ·•Exhibit C-l {Suppkmt;>nl 1)""'? S.:cond. \>.-·c find the supp!t;mented redacted material and e-ntirely new pages somewhat wantL11g. i\s W{..' ar.:: dis-.:ussing the Enfnn::ement Investigativ..:- Rt:port {ElR}, l haveincltidedguidance from F:\,"'. Order 2150.3H. Change ll (Order2150JB). ,\ccmding to Order 2l50J.B. Chapter 8. Paragraph 

### 3,b,(:.:} Factors affeCting Sanction; '"FAA

**invcstig::Jt!v~.;** personnel analyze \Yhcther each of the factors in chapter 7, paragraph 4 or :\ppendi\ C i:> relevant and applies to tht;

**~usc."** "fhis paragraph goes on to indicate·that '""[i]fa IJ.ctor ic-. r..:.'h:\·<mt to the

**cas~:.** FAA itn·cstigatiV(: personnel explain in section B
..ofthe EIR how the facts and dn:urnstanccs suppnn the applicability ofthat f3.ctor to the alleged violations. It is our intention to discover the "facts :mJ circumstam;es'" that the FAA investigative personnel are cons)dl':ring. Gi-ven the amount of tht: proposed civil penally. we cannot undcrstak lht..' 

### importance nr

**dnuhlc~chccking** 

### 1hcse '·facts and cin::umstances". A.n cxam.ple ln poim is the Ccnificak Iloldcf's. LeYcl ofExperience and Responsibility section, E\hiblt C-1. page -:J.. This section indicates. '·Felts Field Aviation, lnc. also has a 

### Pan 145

**Ccrlifi~;;.ne** and has two h)rcsl Service Contracts vviih the State of \Vashington:· This information is im::orn:cr. Felts 

### Fidd A;-iation Joes not maintain a Part 145 Certificate or any con1racts \\'ith tht: State tlfWashington. lfthere arc errors in this

**s~ction~** what other errors are

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the MarterofFelts Field Aviation, lnc. Docket No. FA.A-20 15-3307 CaseNo. 20 15WP910090 Exhibit C: Page 1 of6 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT C C\)no:akJ

**h~** 

### rcJactions·.) FunhcL Ihese 

### crronJ:ou::> facts are quite possihly affecting the proposed sanctitm. I'his is e:\actly the justification 

### for

**discon~ring** all 

### ofthe 

### facts on which tbe FAA is

**b~1sing** the sanction. FunheL Order2150.:iB. Chapter H
.. Paragraph b.(31. Other lnfonnation.• indicates that 

### "[i

## IfFAA im'!..:stiguti\·c personnel have any opinions or feelings about the case, they statethem in section B and 

### lnbd th(._·m as opinions.-- The EIR includes a heading for "'Opinions''. A plainreading ofthe UR

**heading~.** in light t)f the regulawr; guidanc\!. \vould indicate that opinions reside in the ()pinions section. not in any other hcdding. liertainly not under headings that are historical or factual in nature. Rcdact!ons of infom1ation under f::tc-tual headings are inappropriate. The Rc->pt.mdcnt ls entitled to disco\·er the 

### h1cts under the 

### racwal headings and to either agree \Vith

**tho~c 1~1ct;:;**  or dispute them. \1ost importantly. the Privilege Lug contains t1'c blanket entries for 26 individual redactions. 1 he 

### purp(.·lse ofa Pnvilege Log is to prn\'idc sufficient infi:.mnation to enable opposing parties and the Court t() Jetcm1ine whether each dement t1fthe asserted prh·ilcgc is satisfied; a blanket dairn ofthe asserted privilege does not satisfy the burden ofproof These blanket assertions of pri-.ileged pre-decisional and dt>libcrmive opinions are inappropriate, especially when consideringthat the FAA is applying these assertions to primafacie factual sections ofthe EJR.

**c~~nsidcring** 

### rcdacti1m 2. 

### E:.:.hibit C-

### L page :1. 

### Nature of the

**Violation~** 

### Including How Satety \Vas .-\tTec:tcd: \Vt:: believe this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 7
.. Paragraph 4.a. Nature of \'io}atinn
.. identities three elements: operational versus non-operational, carelessness or re-cklessness. and special aggravating or n1itigating J1ctor$. \Vc request that the FAAdisclose the

**~haractcrization** of the violation: \-Vhcther 

### it \\as operational or non-operationaL careless or 

### rei..:1Jc.ss. and whether there arc 

### aggra\·ating or mitigating circumstances. An investigator"s ohser\'at!ons :L<.> to the Respondent's actions regarding these elements are filets. These facts 2.rfCct the sanction and th(' Respondent is entitled to discover on what 

### ba<;is the FA.A is dctenniningthe sanction. l·urthcr. 11ith the inclusion of"lncluding How Safety Was Affected", it appearsthat the FAA has de\iatcd tforn the prescrihed format of an FIR. We believe the redaction of these

**f~ts.** is 

### inappwpriatc. \Vhar did the 

### inYestigator observe 

### that anectcd safety? These

**fa~tors** 

### appear to 

### afltcl the 

### sanction and the Respondent 

### is entitled to discover 

### on what 

### ba..qis the FAA 

### is i.ktaminingthe sanction. Con:::id-rring redaction 

### 3. Exhibit C-L page -L there are f()ur redactions on this page, but only one entry l1J the Privilege Log. This i:-; inappropriate. Each redaction is significant and merits an lndepcnd.;;;nt entry on the Privilege. Considering each heading specifically:



### • ConsidL·ring \Vhether the Violation was Inadvertent 

### and Not

**Deliberate~** 

### we believe this redaction 

### is inappropriate. Chapter 7.• Paragraph 4.b. Whether the Violation was Inadvertent and Not Deliberate
.. indicates !hat "'[

### i]f a violation is deliberate or not

**inadvertent~** a sanction at the upper end 

### qfthe range or exceeding the range for thattype of ,·Jolation generally is appropriate." An

**invesiigator~s** observations as to the Respondent's action;;; int.licming deliberateness or

**ina~..h·eJicncc** are

**facts~** not opinions or impressions. I'hcsc facts af/i:ct the sanction and the

**Rcspond~nt** is entitled to discover onwhat basis the F:\A is J.ctcm1ining the sanctitnJ. T'he FAA's assertion that redaction 3 contains ''theories 

### oflhc case.. is inappropriat..: to the prescribed

**su~jcct** fi.)r this heading.

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [n the MatterofFelts Field Aviation. Inc. Docket No. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 20 15WP910090 Exhibit C: Page 2 of6 Page 2 of6 Conlin. Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave
.. Ste 911 Spokane. WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBITC

$ ( 

### 'on:-:idering AttitudL" ofthe- Violatnr: \\C 

### believe this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter7
.. Paragraph -td. Attitude (If tht: Violator._ Indicates that '·fa'] prior violation history may :;;uggesi that a person has a poor

**complianc~** disposition, which is an aggravating factor. 

### Funhcnnorc. <1 

### pcr"'on who comrnits an act or omission

**contrar~y** 

### to statutory or regulatory requirements ul'ter rccciYing notice through aprior administrati\·e action or counseling that such condud is in violation ofthose rccluirements might well 

### be regarded

**a~** 

### having apoor compliance disposition." An investigator's·observations ofviolation history and! or notice through 

### prillf administrati\·c action 

### \lr counseling are f3cts. not opinions or impressions, ·1 hc:-;c fa..:ts affect the sanction and the Respondent is entitled to discover on 

### what basis the F.-\:\ 

### is tktermining the sanction. The FAA·:.; assertion that redaction 3 contains ··theories z•fthc case.. is inappropriatt: to the prescribed subject fi.)r thisheading.

0 Con"idcring Degree of Hazard: V><..' 

### bdkvc this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 7
.. Parugraph

**~.e.** Degrt:c of Hazard
.. indicates that ··[tjhe degree ofhazard may be increased 

### as D 

### result oftbe

**!nterpla~** 

### ofthe operational environment (f()r example, 

### weather condltions, cnnt:estcd \'Crsus sparsely pnpulatcd arcasi and the nature

**ofth~** threat to safety (to lhe life or property

# oranother. including thusc in the aircraft being operated; to other aircraft; orto p....

·rsons or property on tht surldcc) that the misconduct presents.'' An investigator's observations ofthe operational

**environm~nt** are 

### racts, not opinions: or impressions. These iiJCts afkct the sanction and the Rcspondcn! is entitled to discoveron what basis the FAA is Jt:tennining the

**~unction.** The FAA's assertion that redaction 3 contains

**~~theories** ofthe 

### cc:tsc·· is inappropriate 

### to 1hc- pn:scrihcd 

### suhject for this heading.
• Considering Action Taken 

### by the Lmplnyer orOtherAuthority; we believethisredaction 

### is

**in~tppmpriate.** Chapter 7
.. Paragraph 4.f. Action Taken 

### by Employer or Other Authority., indicates l'\\O 

### dem.:nts "'vvhether the Jlleged violator's employer has taken disciplinary 

### actil\f\ and \Vhcthcr criminal proS{:cllllon 

### is irl\'olved.'' ,'\n 

### investigator's observations of disciplinary actions or criminal prosecution are tbcts, not opinions or impressions. These facts affect the sanction and the Respondent is entitled to discover on what basis the 

### FAi\

**i~** detennining: the sanction. The FAA'sassertion thatredaction 3 contains

**~"theories** ofthe 

### case·· is inappropriate 

### to the prescribed 

### suhjcct l<x this beading. ( nnsidcring redaction 4, Exhibit C-L page 

### 5" there are nineredactions on this page. but onJy one 

### entry to 

### the Privilege Log. This is inappropriate. Each redaC'lion is significant and merits an inJcpendern entry. 

### Considering each heading specifically:

• Considering Lse of a Certificate: \\\' hdieve this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 

### l)aragraph 4.g. Usc ofuCertificate
.. indicates that ··r_t.jhis 

### factor relates to the nature orkind of acti\:ity or operation in\'oheJ at rhc time the violation was committed. 

### \Vhether the certificate holder was engaged in student private, 

### commerciaL or airline activity bears on tbc severity of the sanction,.. An investigator's observations of the

**Respondent~s** op<:rati<•ns arc facts. not opinions '()f impressions. These 

### facts affect the sanction and the 

### Respondent is entitled to Jiscm·cr on whm basi;;; lhe FAA is determining the sanctidn. 

### The FA:\-:; assertion that redaction ..J. 

### C"l>ntains ''theories of the case'' is inappropriate to the presnii:H.:d suhjo.:ct f(;r this headlns, e 

### Considering Decisional L;:rw: \\c

**hdi~ve:** 

### this rcd:;Lction is inappropriate. Chapter 7,, 

### Paragmph 4.\, Decisional Law
.. indicates that 

### priority ofguidance fOr FAA decisi<mmaker deciskm:-;. /\n 

### ]n\'estigator's ldcntiiication nf these decisions are facts. Further, ··FAA
h:lt> !-it::td A\iJtilll1

**~TSB** Ducket No: FAA-20!5-3307. FAA

**Ca~e** No: 201.5\VP010090 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. DocketNo. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 2015WP910090 Exhibit C: Page 3 of6 Page3of6 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave
.. Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT C

**dcci~ionmaker** 

### decisions published afterthe issuance ofthis document that conflict with the P"licy in this order supersede this document and arc controlling:· The Respondent is entitled to discover on 

### what basis 

### the FAA is 

### determining the sanction. and 

### whether the 

### hasis ofthe sanction has 

### btcn ::;upcrscJtd. The FAA's assertion that redaction 4 contains 

### "theories of I

### he case·· is inappropriate tn 

### the- prescribed subject forthisheading.
• Considering iv1ultlplc

**\~\olations/Acts;** 

### we believe thi.-; redaction is inappropriate. The 

### cum::nt Order 2150.)Bdoes not seem h1 

### address this heading. howeveL whether there are \-1ultiple Violations or Acts arc facts. Certainly. an investigator's observations of the Rcspondcnt"s acti1.111s 

### regarding I'viu!tiplc Violations or Acts arefacts. These facts appearto 

### affect the sanction and the Rcsp()mlent ib 

### entitled to discover on what basis the FAA is determining the sanction. The FAA·s asscttion that redaction 4 contains "'theories ofthe case"" is inappropriateto the prescribed subject 

### ror this heading, 

### * Considering 

### Ability to 

### Absorh Sanction: we he!ieve this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 7
.. Paragraph 4j. ,\biliry

### to Absorb Sanction., indicates 

### that "[w]hilethe FAA does not allo\\ financml circumstanct..'s t1) 

### C\_cuse uny violation, it 

### does consider a carrier's 

### size and linanclal strength In choosing the appropriate sanction amount. The diUerence 

### in the penalties fixed in the la\'v lOr large and small business 

### concerns recognizes 

### this fact.
.. Therefore. the Fiu\ 

### uses air carrier

**sizt.~** 

### as one means of

### ensuring a 

### relatively equivalent dctcncm effect on 

### each air carrier that violates the same FAA regulation.
. For all entities and individualsj the FA"-\ considers ability to pay a civil penalty and tht: effect a 

### ci\ i! 

### penalty \'{ill 

### h;:we nn a pers-on's ability w 

### continue in business to the extent 

### it knows

**su~h** 

### information.'· Facts that the FA/\ is using to determine ihc size ofthe Respondent and

**con~equcntly.** 

### the amount of the sancrion are discoverable. 

### These facts are 

### not an itncst.igator"s 

### opinion. These bets affect the 

### sanction and the 

### Respondent is 

### entitled to disc<J\cr un what basis the FAA is dctenninlng the sanction. The FAA·s assertion that 

### redaction -l contains 

### ""theories of

### the case"" 

### is inappropriate to the prescribed subjectfor this 

### heading. FurthcL 

### rcYicwing our tcicconferc-nce on Thursday, August" 4, 2016, this is one of the topics we discussed: \vhcther the Respondent's financial documents where accurate and 

### currenL Considering this concern. the Respondent is entitled to discover what information th..:

**F.\1~** 

### is using to ensure 

### it is

**cnm~ct** Jnd 

### cuiTCnt. 

### • Considering_ Consistenc:y ofSanction: we believe this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 7
.. Paragraph 4.k. Consistency of Sanction
.. indicates that one ofthe FAA's goals is '·to achieve relative consistency in imposing similar sanctions tOr similar violations:· AJl 

### inYcstigator"s 

### identification of consistent cases

**an~** 

### facts. 

### The Respondent is entitled to 

### discover whlch cases are idcntit1cd a.;.; 

### consistent. These facts 

### aHect the sanction and the 

### Respondent is entitied to discover 

### on what basis the FAA is determining the sanction. The F,\Xs assertion that redaction 4 contains ""theories ofthe case" 

### is inappropriate 

### to the prescribed subject for this heading.
• Considering \Vas the Violation Volmnarily

**Reported~** 

### we believe 

### this redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 7
.. Paragraph ..f.l. 

### Y.ihcthcr the Violation was 

### Reponed Voluntarily., indicates that an entity may '"repnrt Yoluntarily apparent violations and receive lesser enforcement action provided certain critt:rin arc

**rnct.~·** 

### Whether or not a violation is \U!unwrll.y n:portcd is a 

### fact not an opinion. This fact affects the sanction and the F,;\b held :\\iation STSB Docket No: FAA-JOJS-3307. FAA Ca::;c No: 2015V·iP!JJO(J90 MOT!O'\ TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation. Inc. Docket No. FAA-20 I5-3307 Case '.Jo. 20I5WP9!0090 Exhibit C: Page 4 of6 Page 4of6 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 91 I Spokane, WA 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT C Respondent is entitled to discover on ''hat basis the FAA is dctcm1ining the sanction. The 

### F.'\.Ys assertion that redaction 4 contains ··theories of the case·· is inappropriate to 

### the prcscrihed suhjcct for thisheading.

e Considering \\:hat Corrective Actiun Has**B~cn** 

### raken: we believe this redaction is 

### inappropriate. Chapter 7
.. Paragraph -t_m_ Corrective Action
.. indicates that**~.lt]he** 

### FAA nmsJJers corn.:ctivc action n mitigating !'&:tor in detennining sanction provided the corn:ctivc action e:..:ceeds the rninirnum n.:gulat(lry or statutory requirements. The amount uf credit given in setting a sanct.iun depends on the extent and timing of the corrective action. that is, hm\ exten:;i\·e 

### w:.L-: the 

### correctiYc action and how quickly \vas 

### it taken. Implementing JK'\V**proc~dures** that art' ahovc those required underthe FA.A's 

### regulations tO prevent future violations ordinarily is considered a mitigating factor in determining an appropriate sanction.'· An inH::stigator's observations of the Respondenfs actions regnrding correctiv-: actions are h1cts. not opinions. These facts affect the sanctionandthe Respondent is ;.;ntitlcd 

### w disC(n.·cr on \\·hat basis the FAA is dete1mining the sanction. 'The F.-\,·\·s assertion thm 

### rL·dac1iDn-+ contains "tht.:-ork.s 

# or the 

### case" is inappropriate to the prescribtd subject J{)r thisheading. 

### hnther. rcvie\ving our telcconf\:rcncc on Thursday. August 4. 2016, this is exactly the in!cmmnion 

### that Ms. Killingham requested. Sped!kally, she wanted 

### to know what 

### corrc-ctin: actions 

### had Felts Field Aviation taken 

### to cure the violation. 

### That Ms. Ki!lingham V\tnlld request the information indicates that she suspects the 

### in.fOnnation in the UR is eitht:r inaccurate- or outJcucJ. Considering this concern, the Res-pondent is entitled 

### to**di~;cuvcr** 

### this infixmation to ensure 11 is Ct)rrecr 

### and current. • Considering Reliability ofLviGence: we be!i(;ve rhis redaction is inapprop-riate. Chapter**~L.** 

### Paragraph**3.h.{~)** 

### Other information
.. indit:<Jtcs that ··FAA investigative personnel set forth in section B any orher mitigating, extenuating. or aggravating factors about the apparent**\·iulation~.··** 

### .:\ factor is "(ajny circumstance or influence which brings aboutor contribuks to a result. ." {Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.) An investigator's observations of circumstances or influences t.ha! mitigate, extenuate, or aggravate the violation are 

### facts. l'hese 

### thcts affect the sanction and may rven gu to rebuttingthe relevance ormateriality of evidence. The Respondent is entitled to Ji$covc-r on v-.'hat basistheFAAis detem1ining the 

### sanction. fhc FA:\'s assertion that redaction 4 contains
..theories of the case" is inappropriate

### to the prescribed**sul~iect** for this heading. hJrtht:L whik ackno\dedging that this is an administrative law**case~** not a criminal**case~** it 

### is still an admlnistra1ivc pros._:cution in the pursuit ofan administrative sanction. Indeed, 

### L\A Order 2!50.3!3 is riddled "ith 

### rctcrcnces to 

### ··prosecution" ofthe enforcement action. 

### As n prosccutorlal agency. 

### ifthe FAA. a State Actor, has exculpatory**evidence~** 

### it ha,;; a**dut~** to Uisdose 

### it 

# rn withhold excu!pawry eYidence violatesdueprocess.**~** Considering Conilicting Evidence: we 

### hdievc the redaction is inappropriate. Chapter 8. 1 

### Paragraph 3.b.(3) Other tnfi:mnntion
.. 

### docs not specitlcally address conflicting evidence. !imvcvcr. an investigator·s**obser~'aiions** of con.!licting evidence arc facts. These facts appear 

### w afltcl the sanction and ma: even go to rebuning the relevance or materiality of evidence. rhc Rcspnndem is cntiUed to 

### discover 0n what hasis the FAA is dct-em1ining the sanction. The FAA's assertion that redaction 4 contains ·•theories nf the**case·~** is inappropriate lo 

### the prescribed subject tt!rthis**h~ading.** Fcib l'idd**/\\iZ~ti\11\** \:l;';B Doch.ct No:**FAA-20L'I~3307.** FAA**Ca~e** No: 20l5\\'P9!0090 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the MatterofFelts Field Aviation, Inc. 

### Docket No. FAA-20 15-3307 Case 

### No. 20 15WP91 0090 Exhibit C: Page 5 

### of6 Page 5 of6 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### EXHIBIT C Again. whikacknov.:lcdging 

### that this is 811 

### administrative lmv

**case~** 

### not acriminal case, it 

### is still an administrative proseculion in the pursuit of an administrative sanction. As a prosecutorial agency. 

### ifthe FAA. a State Actor, has exculpatory evidence, 

### it has a duty to disclose it. 

### To withlH•lJ exculpatory evlch:ncc violates due process. (\msidcrlng redaction 5. Exhibit C-l. page 6. there are six redactions on this

### page\ but only one

**cntr~-** 

### to the Pri\'ilegc Log.

**!"hi:-~** 

### is inapproprb1c. Each redaction is significant and m·erits an independent entry. ('onsideringeach heading specifically:

@ Cnnsidcring Other/i\-1\tigating. Exwnuming. or Aggravating Factors, we believe the 

### redaction is inappropriate.

**Chapt~r** 

### 8., Paragraph 3.b.(3) Other information., does not 

### specifically address Other/l\r1itigat1ng. r:xtenuating. or Aggravating Factors, but Reliability or Lvidencc dot:s. A.n inYest!gator"s observations of circumstances or int1uences that mitigalc. extcnm:w.:. or aggravate thl' \'iolation 

### are facts. These 

### facts affect the sanetion and 

### may eve-n go to 

### rebutting tlK rc-kvunce or materiality of evidenc.e. The Respondent is entitled to disco\·c-r on \..vhat hdsis tht: F:\A is detemtining the sanction. The FAA·s 

### assertion that redaction 5 contains ··lht.:orics 

### ofthe case·· is inappropriate to the prescribed subject for 

### this heading,
s Ctmsidcring. Opinions. \Vc 

### do not challenge tht:· redaction nf

### opinions ofthe authorproperly !abdcd and 

### ]pcatcd inOpinions section. 

### • C(lnsidcring Recommendation About the 1'ypc of Sanction, we do not challenge the fL'daCtiOO 01' fi..'C0fl1n1Cild3.tiOnS of'

**lh~** 

### author properly ]abe}ed and located in 

### the 

### RccommC"ndation Ahout the Type ofSanction section.

o 

### Considering Reasons Justii}'ing Rccomrnendations for the Enforcement Action and (Type) Sanction, \Vc 

### Jo not 

### challenge the rcdactlon ofjustification ofrecommendations that arc properly labeled and located in the appropriate section. • Considering the unlabcleU redaction. we believe this redaction is inappropriate. There is nothing indicating what. inf{'Jnnation is redacted orthe appropriateness ofthe redaction. • Considering Kcgionai Sanction Recommendations. we do not challenge the redaction of regional sanction recommendations that are properly labeled

### and located inthe appropriate section. \Vc strong!y

**o~ject** to 

### the redaction nfthe abo\·c indicated items and request a copy 

### ofthe ElR \\ith thL 

### indicated redactinnsrcmovt:d. Ifnecessary. pursuant 10 J

### 4 C.F.R. 

### § 13.220(m)1 

### we 

### will pursut:

**;.~** !\.1otion to Compel. 

### !fy:ou

**ha\\~** any

### questions, pkascdn not hesitate lO 

### contactme. 

### (·ordiall::i yours. Conlin. Maloney & 

### Miller

Ben \Vyhurney cc: Rcspondt:nt. Fells Field Aviation

h·lh field A\iatiun \: rSB Dock..;t Nu: FA!\-2015--3307. FAA Case No: 2015WP9!0090 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY In the Matter ofFelts Field Aviation. Inc. Docket >-Jo. FAA-20 15-3307 Case No. 2015WP910090 Exhibit C: Page 6 of6 Page 6 of6 Conlin, Maloney & Miller 421 W. Riverside Ave., 

### Ste 911 Spokane, W A 9920I (509) 624-3020

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ihereby certify thatthe foregoing Motion to Compel Discovery has been served via facsimile (where indicated), email (where indicated), and RegularMail on September 16, 2016 to the following: Judge J. E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave. SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Phone: 202-366-6941 Fax: 202-366-7536 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Fatimah Stokley. Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Ofllce ofthe ChiefCounsel EnforcementDivision, Western Team P.O. Box 920007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 Fax: (310) 725-6816 Fatimah.Stoklcy@faa.gov DATED this 16th day ofSeptember. 2016

Mark J. 

### Conlin Attorney for Respondent 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 911 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 624-3020