SERVED: January 18, 2017 

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENT OF 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, DC lOll J c 

Q JS P 2= 01 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET OPERATIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

Respondent 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

THE RESPONDENT'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL 

On September 21, 2016, an Order Setting a Third Litigation Conference and 

Granting/Denying Other Relief ("September 21, 2016 Order") was filed. Among other things, 

this September 21, 2016 Order directed the parties to immediately initiate general discovery 

requests, so that responses to discovery requests would be served on or before December 2. 20 I 6 

(i.e., before the next scheduled Conference on December 8, 2016). (Sept. 21,2016 Order, 2-3 ~~ 

6, 9, and I 1.) 

On December 6, 2016 (i.e., four ( 4) days after the December 2, 2016 due date for service 

of discovery responses) the prose Respondent, Mr. William A. Curtright, filed the Respondents 

[sic] Motion to Compel ("Motion to Compel"). 

Two (2) days later, on December 8, 2016 ( 1 :30 p.m. ET), the parties convened for the 

scheduled Telephone Conference. During this Telephone Conference, the FAA offered an oral 

response to the Respondent's Motion to Compel. The Court noted that it would look carefully at 

both the Respondent's December 6, 2016 Motion to Compel and the FAA's December 6, 2016 

discovery responses, and then issue a written ruling. 

On January 6, 2017 the Respondent filed the Respondents [sic] Amended Motion to 

Compel ("Amended Motion"). That same day, the Respondent filed a two (2) page Letter, in 

which he partially repeated his amended motion to compel discovery. (Jan. 6, 2017 Letter, l ). 
A. Short Summary of Discovery Dispute 

On October 31, 2016 (i.e., approximately five weeks after the Court ordered immediate 

discovery to occur), the prose Respondent served the FAA with the following discovery 

requests: 1) Twenty (20) Interrogatories, 2) One (1) Request for Production, and, 3) Fourteen 

(14) Requestsfor Admission. Pursuant to the September 21,2016 Order and 14 C.F.R. § 

13.220(d), the FAA's responses to these discovery requests were due "30 days or less" after 

service (i.e., on or before November 30, 20 16), unless the parties agreed to an alternate time. 

(Sept. 21,2016 Order, 2 ~ 6.) 

It was undisputed that the FAA did not provide discovery responses to the Respondent's 

discovery requests on or before the November 30, 2016 deadline. The FAA also did not respond 

to the Respondent's October 31,2016 discovery requests prior to the Court's deadline of 

December 2, 2016. (See, Sept. 21,2016 Order, 3 ~ 9.) On December 5, 2016, the Respondent 

contacted the FAA by both email and telephone, and requested that the FAA provide responses 

within 24 hours (i.e., by December 6, 20 16), or the Respondent would file a Motion to Compel. 

(Amd. Mot., 1 ~ 2; and Mot. to Compel, 2 ~ 2) The following day, on December 6, 2016, the 

FAA provided Responses to the Respondent's Discovery Requests. These December 6, 2016 

FAA Responses contained, among other material, certain objections to various discovery 

requests. That same day, upon receipt of the FAA's Responses, the Respondent filed his Motion 

to Compel. 

Two days later, during the December 8, 2016 Telephone Conference, the FAA orally 

asserted that the Respondent's Motion to Compel was frivolous, since the FAA had served the 

Respondent with all relevant discovery on December 6, 2016 (i.e~, the same day the Respondent 

filed his Motion to Compel). In contrast, the Respondent agreed that the FAA had provided some 

answers to his discovery requests, but he asserted that the FAA had failed to provide full and 

complete discovery. The Court did not rule on the matter immediately, since pursuant to 14 

C.F.R. § 13.218(d), the FAA's written Response (if any) to the Respondent's Motion to Compel 

was not due until December 16, 2016. The record reflects that the FAA did not subsequently file 

any written Response. 

Page 2 of 8 
Thereafter, on January 6, 2017, the pro se Respondent filed the Respondents [sic] 

Amended Motion to Compel ("Amended Motion"). This Amended Motion incorporated by 

reference the factual allegations the Respondent had previously made in his December 6, 2016 

Motion to Compel (Amd. Mot., 1 ~ 1). The Amended Motion further specified that it sought to 

compel responses to the Respondent's Discovery Requests as follows: 

a) Respondent's Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, and 20; and, 

b) Respondent's Request for Admission No.7. 

· In the alternative, the Respondent requested that the FAA's pleadings be struck, and that 

the action be dismissed. (Amd. Mot., 2 ~ 3). The Respondent then repeated specific portions of 

his Amended Motion to Compel in a separate Letter, filed on January 6, 2017 (i.e., the same day 

his Amended Motion to Compel was filed). 

B. In General: Scope and I~'orm of Interrogatory Requests 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(k)(l), a party may propound up to thirty (30) 

interrogatories to the opposing side without seeking leave from the Court. In addition, "Each 

subpart of an interrogatory shall be counted as a separate interrogatory." 14 C.F.R. § 

13 .220(k)(l ). This Court has previously provided, in a different case, an overview regarding the 

both the reason for the limitation of interrogatories in FAA civil penalty proceedings, as well as 

how interrogatories should be narrowly crafted and written to be proportional to the 

interrogating party's proof of its own prima facie case. This overview, contained in In re: 

Birmingham Flight Center, Inc., 1 is incorporated and adopted by reference herein. 

C. Respondent's Interrogatory Requests 

Essentially, Interrogatories should be crafted to be pointed inquiry regarding specific 

items of proof material to the requesting party's case in chief. Interrogatories should never seek 

extensive narration, data compilation, and reports from the opposing party, on a wide variety of 

matters regarding the opposing party's fact compilations, case analysis, settlement offers, and 

potential case presentation. Submitting overbroad interrogatories to the opposing side will result 

1 In re: Birmingham Flight Center, Inc., Docket No. F AA-20 14-0867. Order Striking the Respondent's Response 

and Denying the FAA's Motion to Compel, 3-5 (February 19, 20 16). 

Page 3 of 8 
in objections, and is a misuse of the interrogatories as a discovery tool. See, e.g., In re: 

Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. (Id.at 6-7); see also, Steil v. Humana Kansas City. Inc., 197 

F.R.D. 445, 447 (D. Kan. 2000)(The scope of the interrogatories seeking ''every fact and 

document," is overly broad and unduly burdensome on plaintiff); and Kainz v. Anheuser-Busch. 

Inc., 15 F.R.D. 242 (N.D. Ill. 1954) (Interrogatories should not be used as a device to compel the 

opposing party to prepare the interrogator's case for him). 

1. Respondent's Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5 

In Interrogatory No. 4, the Respondent requested that the FAA disclose, "with 

specificity", all of the "facts and arguments" that identified why the FAA "believed" that that the 

proposed $11,000 civil penalty was "appropriate." The FAA objected on the grounds the 

question called for a "legal opinion" and also failed to seek "admissible" information. Without 

waiving objection, the FAA further referred the Respondent to "FAA Order 2150.38 Appendix 

B page 8." 

In Interrogatory No. 5, the Respondent requested that the FAA disclose, with 

specificity", all the "facts and arguments" that explained "why" the FAA was proposing an 

$11 ,000 civil penalty, and what formed the basis for why the FAA's proposal of the maximum 

penalty. The FAA objected, citing to its objection language to Interrogatory No. 4. 

The FAA's objections to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5 may only be partially sustained, and 

the Respondent's Amended Motion to Compel should be partially granted. 

It is certainly true that any legal arguments that the FAA wishes to make about its 

proposed $11,000 civil penalty would likely be protected under an attomey work product 

privilege. But facts and factual circumstances considered and/or utilized by the FAA in 

calculating the $11 ,000 proposed civil penalty are relevant and fully admissible as evidence, and 

should be disclosed. This information is critical to the Respondent's defensive case, and the 

FAA has failed to show any basis for refusing to disclose it. 

For example, according to FAA Order 2150.38 Chapter 8, when the FAA investigates 

and subsequently alleges a violation, the FAA personnel "analyze whether each of the factors in 

Chapter 7, paragraph 4 or Appendix C is relevant and applies to the case." (FAA Order 2150.3 B 

Page 4 of 8 
Chap. 8, 8-2 (b)(2).) The facts that the FAA should consider include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 1) the nature of the violation (including how safety was affected); 2) whether the 

violation was inadvertent and not deliberate; 3) the certificate holder's level of experience; 4) the 

use of the certificate; 5) the violation history; 6) the action taken by the employer or other 

authority; 7) decisional law; 8) the alleged violator's ability to absorb the sanction; 9) the 

consistency of the sanction; 1 0) whether the violation was reported voluntarily; and, 11) any 

corrective action taken by the alleged violator. (!d.). In addition, the FAA is also supposed to 

utilize the guidance in Chapter 7 to determine if there are any mitigating or aggravating factors. 

(/d.) This fact information regarding the proposed $11,000 civil penalty is fully disclosable. 

Further, the FAA's general response to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5 referring the Respondent to 

"FAA Order 2150.3B Appendix B page 8" is inadequate, particularly since on "page 8" there are 

multiple penalty ranges listed for various types of offenses involving both small business and 

individuals. The FAA should specifically identify which penalty range on page 8 is applicable to 

the Respondent's case. 

2. Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9 

In Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, the Respondent requested that the FAA disclose, with 

specificity", all the "facts and arguments" that supported the FAA's multiple settlement offers to 

the Respondent in this case. In response, the FAA objected to each Interrogatory, on the grounds 

of"irrelevant, not for infonnation likely to lead to admissible evidence:" 

It is well-established that settlement offers are not admissible as evidence, either to 

"prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim." Fed. R. Civ. P. 408(a). This 

general prohibition helps promote a strong "public policy" favoring compromise of disputes 

whenever possible, as well as encouraging open and good faith settlement discussions between 

the parties. (!d., Advisory Cmtee Notes, 1972 Prop. Rules Discussion). The Respondent's 

Amended Motion to Compel the FAA to provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7. 8 

and 9 should be denied. 

Page 5 of 8 
3. Interrogatory No. 18 

In Interrogatory No. 18, the Respondent combined both an interrogatory question 

regarding FAA Inspector Conroy, 2 as well as a request regarding the Respondent's fourteen (14) 

Requests for Admission. In response, the FAA objected to Interrogatory No. 18 on "Not 

Applicable" grounds. 

First, the portion of Interrogatory No. 18 in which the Respondent seeks broad 

conversation disclosures involving FAA Inspector Conroy and FAA counsel is objectionable on 

the grounds of vagueness, relevance, and possible work product protection. It is likely that the 

FAA counsel in this case has had at least one (ifnot many) conversations with FAA Inspector 

Conroy, who is an Inspector involved in both this case, but also other FAA cases. The 

Respondent's inquiry is so bn~ad in nature it would encompass any conversation the FAA 

counsel might have had with Inspector Conroy, about any topic or about any case. at any time. 

since they first met. It also has the potential of inquiring into work product discussions in this 

case, which is privileged information. Second, the portion of Interrogatory No. 18 in which the 

Respondent seeks detailed discussion regarding any denial by the FAA to any of the 

Respondent's Request for Admission is a misuse of the interrogatory tool, especially given that 

responses to Requests for Admission are viewed under a separate standard. See, e.g., Steveri 

Baicker-McKee, et al., supra, 952 and 954 (RF As may be admitted or denied with little or no 

explanation.) The Respondent's Amended Motion to Compel the FAA to provide further 

response to Interrogatory No. 18 should be denied. 

4. Interrogatory Nos. 19. and 20 

In Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 20, the Respondent requested that the FAA disclose various 

employment and wage information regarding the FAA's counsel. In response, the FAA objected 

on the grounds of"irrelevant, not for information likely to lead to admissible evide.nce." The 

Respondent's Amended Motion to Compel the FAA to provide further responses to Interrogatory 

Nos. 19 and 20 should be denied. 

2 In Interrogatory No. 18, the Respondent identifies the FAA lnspectora as "ASI Comoy [sic]." The CoUJt presumes, 

on behalfofthe Respondent, that this is a clerical error, and that the Respondent intended to identify Inspector 

Conroy. 

Page 6 of 8 
D. Request .for Admission No.7 

1. Purpose of Requests for Admission 

Although Requests for Admission ("RFAs") are typically listed with other "'discovery'' 

tools in litigation practice (see, 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 35), RFAs are no! used 

to discover information. 27 Cmpus Juris 2d § 164; 1 OA Federal Procedure L.Ed: §26:70 I 

(2013); Steven Baicker-McKee, et.aL supra, at 953. Instead, RFAs serve two (2) ''vital 

purposes", both of which are designed to ''reduce trial time:· Rule 36, Advisory Comm. Notes, 

1970 Amendment. RFAs allow an expedition of trial matters by "'establishing as true" certain 

undisputed "material facts of a ca~~ without the necessity of fonnal proof at trial.'" S'EC v. 

Goldstone, 300 F.R.D. 505, 523 (D. New Mex. 2014)(quoting Keen v. Detroit Diesel Allison, 

569 F.2d 547, 554 (1 01h Cir. 1978). 

/d. 

Admissions are sought, tirst to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot 

be eliminated from the case, and secondly, to narrow the issues by eliminating 

those that can be. 

Thus, RFAs are intended to help clarify the material issues and "'shorten. simplify. facilitate and 

expedite the trial" by narrowing the dispute to only those issues that are genuinely disputed. '2.7 

Corpus Juris 2d § 164 (West Publishing, 2011 ); See also, lOA Federal Procedure L.I:::d. §26:701 

(2013). 

2. Discussion 

In the instant case, the Respondent propounded fourteen (14) Requests for Admission. In 

response, the FAA admitted all RFAs except Respondent's Request for Admission No.7, which 

requested that the FAA admit to the authenticity of a document purporting to be a certain FAA 

case decision, identified in part as FAA Order No. 99-7.3 The FAA denied authenticity of the 

document on the basis of lack of knowledge. 

The FAA's response to the Respondent's Request for Admission No.7 is sufficient. See. 

Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, supra, at 952-953. The ,Respondent's Amended Motion to Compel 

3 A copy of this case decision was not submitted in either the Respondent's December 6, 2016 Motion to Compel or 

the Respondent's January 17, 2017 Amended Motion to Compel. 

Page 7 of 8 
the FAA to provide a more sufficient answer to Respondent's Request for Admission No. 7 

should be denied. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this lack of admission by the FAA does 

not preclude the Respondent from citing to FAA Order No. 99-7 as authority in this proceeding, 

if it is applicable. 

E. Conclusion 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205, 13.218, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 408(a), and after reviewing 

all relevant caselaw, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Respondent's January 6, 2017 Amended Motion to Compel is granted in part, in 

regard to the Respondent's Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5. 

2. On or before J?ebruary 21, 2016, the FAA shall specifically disclose to the Respondent 

which penalty range in FAA Order 2150.38 Appendix B page 8 is applicable in this case. 

The FAA shall also disclose to the Respondent all the facts and factual circumstances 

considered and/or utilized by the FAA in calculating the proposed $11,000 civil penalty. 

3. The Respondent's January 6, 2017 Amended Motion to Compel is denied in part. The 

Respondent's request to compel the FAA to provide additional responses to the 

Respondent's Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, and 20, and to the Respondent's 

Request for Admission No.7, is denied. 

4. The Respondent's alternative motion request to strike the FAA's pleadings and dismiss 

the action is moot. 

5. For clarifications of this order or questions with regard to the procedures to be followed 

in this case, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor at the Office of 

Hearings (202-366-6941 ). 

Jud 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 8 of 8 
. ,. Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2 W 10004 

Mr. David F. Shayne 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Dr. William Ames Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

P.O. Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

TEL: 503-209-7388 

FAX: 503-485-0812 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

• 

4 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 2\VIOOO, Washington. 

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