SERVED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION 

... 1 l lj~i· "). 1. r-\ L.r ,) ,'! 

Respondent Aviation Technical Services, Inc. ("Respondent") has filed under Rule 

13.220(m)ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.P.R. §13.220(m), a 

Motion to Compel Discovery ("Motion"). Complainant Federal Aviation Administration 

("Complainant") has answered in opposition. The Motion will be denied. 

Respondent argues that certain of Complainant's responses to its First Set of 

Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents were inadequate. The 

responses, it is asserted, were not sufficiently detailed or descriptive. Respondent cannot 

properly prepare for the hearing without satisfactory responses, it states. Complainant demurs. 

I agree with Complainant. Complainant's responses adequately address Respondent's 

· requests. Respondent has been given information sufficient to enable it to properly prepare for 

the hearing. 1 

1 Respondent, of course, may (subject to a valid objection) further inquire into these areas at the hearing. A 

meritorious claim of unfair surprise at the answer, or any other claim, may be dealt with at that time. 
2 

Respondent also objects that Complainant's assertions of privilege are insufficiently 

supported. Greater detail supporting the bases of Complainant's objections is required, it is 

argued. I do not agree. The documents Respondent seeks, I find, are protected by the privileges 

asserted. Complainant's justifications for asserting the privileges are sufficient. 

Respondent, of course, is not entitled to documents reflecting pte-Complaint and other 

internal deliberations of the agency. Nor is Complainant required to produce documents for 

which the attorney-client or work-product privileges may legitimately be asserted. 

In view of the discussion above, Respondent's Motion is in its entirety DENIED. 

Attachment - Service List 

l·&vJJ c-~il< Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wi11Jur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000

1 

ONE COPY 

Dane B. Jacques, Respondent's Counsel 

Dombroff Gilmore Jacques & French, PC 

1676 International Drive, PH 

McLean, VA 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8800 

FAJ{: 703-966-6111 

Karen D. Huber, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Rentort, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2167 

FAJ{: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney~Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

F AJ{: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

. Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.