IV ED 

Todd C. Emerson, #8175 

444 South River Road 

JAN l 2 2015 

HEAFI! G DOCKET 

St. George, Utah, 84 790 

Telephone: (435) 634-3530 

Facsimile: (435) 634-3505 

Attorney for Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIDNGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2014WP910006 

DMS No. FAA-2014-0686 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY 

REQUEST 

INTERROGATORIES 

Interrogatory No. 1: Identify by name, address and telephone number all persons whom 

Sky West Airlines, Inc. knows to have personal knowledge of the matters alleged in the 

Complaint. 

Response: Individuals known to Sky West that have knowledge of the matters alleged in the 

Complaint are: 

Casey Madsen- Director Human Resources 

Francine Cox- Manager Employment Standards 

Jaime Sorenson - Manager of Hiring 
The above-listed individuals are current Sky West employees and can be contacted through 

SkyWest's counsel. 

Interrogatory No.2: Identity by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all documents, 

including correspondence, obtained by you or in your possession, relating to the assertions in the 

Complaint, your appeal, your answer, and any affirmative defenses which you anticipate raising 

in tills matter. See Request for Production No. 1. 

Response: 

All documents contained in FAA EIR file 2014 WP91 0006 

Interrogatory No. 3: Identity by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom you 

intend to have testifY as a factual or expert witness in your defense at the hearing in tills matter, 

and for factual witnesses, provide a detailed summary of each person's anticipated testimony. 

Response: 

Francine Cox will testifY about discovering the discrepancies, SkyWest's efforts to mitigate the 

violations and the decision to self-disclose the violations. She will also testifY about the 

probability ofF AA auditors finding the discrepancies during a standard audit. 

Interrogatory No. 4: Identity by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all documents 

which you anticipate offering into evidence or using at the hearing in tills matter, and through 

which witness or witnesses the document will be offered. See Request for Production No.2. 

Response: 

All documents contained in FAA EIR file 2014WP910006. 

Interrogatory No. 5: With respect to each expert witness identified in response to Interrogatory 

No. 3, specify their specific area of expertise, and provide a synopsis of their credentials, 

background, training and experience. 

Response: 

N/A 

Interrogatory No. 6: With respect to each expert you expect to call as a witness, state the subject 

matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and state the substance of the facts and opinions 

2 
to which the expert is expected to testify, and provide a summary of the grounds for each such 

opinion. 

Response: 

N/A 

Interrogatorv No. 7: Describe with specificity all of the facts which you intend to rely upon in 

support of any affirmative defenses raised in any Answer to the Complaint. See Request for 

Production No.3. 

Response: 

See response to Interrogatory #8. 

Interrogatory No. 8: Describe with specificity all of the facts which you anticipate presenting in 

the course of the hearing in this matter pertaining to the avoidance or mitigation of the sanction 

sought by the FAA in this case. See Request for Production No. 4. 

Response: 

Starting in February 2012, Sky West's manager of drug and alcohol testing, Francine Cox, noted 

a few occasions where an employee had been inadvertently excluded from the random testing 

pool. Viewing these as one-offs, she corrected the individual errors and moved forward. By 

April2012 she perceived a pattern, investigated, and determined the root cause was a 2011 

reorganization where new codes for some existing employees were created and entered into the 

payroll system. The problem was that our drug testing department was not informed about the 

new codes, so even though these employees remained in safety-sensitive positions, their new 

codes were not placed in the computer run that generated the random testing pool. 

Ms. Cox conducted a full audit from April to August to ensure that every emploJee who was 

inadvertently dropped out of the pool was identified and placed into the 3'd or 4 quarter run. 

Simultaneously, Ms. Cox met with several directors and managers to devise a comprehensive fix 

for the problem. As a result, notification of all newly created job codes are sent to the drug 

testing group for review. Francine Cox and Jaime Sorensen (Manager ofHR Administration) 

have devised a new process to ensure all new job codes and transfer requests are identified, 

reviewed and approved -- subject to completion of any additional regulatory requirements -- by a 

designated individual assigned oversight of the transfer process. 

Although Ms. Cox believed it would be highly unlikely that FAA auditors would ever discover 

the lapses in a future audit, Sky West decided to risk sanction and disclose the discrepancies in 

order to involve the FAA in the mitigation efforts. 

3 
Interrogatory No. 9: For each allegation in the Complaint that is denied- whether outright or as 

a result of having insufficient information or knowledge from which to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegation, in whole, or in part- state with specificity the facts that are the basis for 

that denial as well as the inquiries taken to determine that the allegation in the Complaint is not 

correct. See Request for Production No. 5. 

Response: 

In Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, the FAA alleges that employees Nexus Geronimo J. Galermo, 

Yue Zhao and Ryan Quintanilla "were not involved in any accidents on or about the day they 

were subjected to post-accident drug testing." All three employees were involved in an accident 

involving a ground equipment striking and damaging an aircraft. 

Interrogatory No. 10: For any Requests for Admission that are denied- whether outright or as a 

result of having insufficient information or knowledge from which to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegation, in whole, or in part- state with specificity the facts and evidence which are the 

basis for that denial as well as the inquiries taken to determine that the facts in the request for 

admission are not correct. See Request for Production No. 6. 

Respondent's Response: 

N/A 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Reguest for Production No. 1: Provide a copy of all documents referred to in your answer to 

Interrogatory No.2. 

Response: The FAA has copies of all referenced documents. 

Reguest for Production No.2: Provide a copy of all documents referred to in your answer to 

Interrogatory No.4. 

Response: The FAA has copies of all referenced documents. 

Reguest for Production No.3: Provide a copy of all documents that support your answer to 

Interrogatory No. 7. 

4 
Response: The FAA has copies of all referenced documents. 

Reguest for Production No. 4: Provide a copy of all documents that support your answer to 

Interrogatory No. 8. 

Response: The FAA has copies of all referenced documents. 

Reguest for Production No. 5: Provide a copy of all documents that support your answer to 

Interrogatory No. 9. 

Response: The FAA has copies of all referenced documents. 

Request for Production No. 6: Provide a copy of all documents that support your answer to 

Interrogatory No. 10. 

Response: The FAA has copies of all referenced documents. 

Request for Production No.7: Provide a copy of all exhibits that Sky West intends to offer as 

evidence or will use during any hearing in this matter. 

Response: The FAA has copies of all referenced documents. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

Request for Admission No. 1: Admit that, for the 12 month period ending June 2014, Sky West 

Airlines had operating revenues in excess of $1 00 million, as shown by the Airline Quarterly 

Financial Review (2"d Quarter 2014) published by the Department of Transportation, Office of 

Aviation Analysis, Competition and Policy Analysis Division. 

Respondent's Response: Admit. 

Request for Admission No.2: Admit that, as of December 31, 2013, Sky West Airlines employs 

more than 1,500 employees, as shown by Sky West Airlines' 2013 Annual Report. 

Respondent's Response: Admit. 

Reguest for Admission No. 3: Admit that Sky West Airlines has the financial ability to pay the 

$280,375 requested civil penalty in FAA Case No. 2014WP910006, FDMS No. FAA-2014-

0686. 

5 
Response: Admit. 

Request for Admission No.4: Admit the accidents referred to in SkyWest's Answer were not 

"accidents" as that term is defined in 14 C.P.R.§ 120.7(a). 

Response: Deny. 

DATED this 9th day of January, 2015. 

/\ 

Todd 

~c,L C. Emerson 

Attorney for Sky West Airlines 

6 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 9th day of January, 2015, a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL 

DISCOVERY REQUEST was served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm Ell-310 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

{Federal Express} 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wrigbt Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

{Federal Express} 

Jeffrey M. Harper 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

{E-mail and Federal Express} 

7