# IVED

Todd C. Emerson, #8175 444 South River Road 

## JAN l 2 2015 HEAFI! G DOCKET St. George, Utah, 84790 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 InterrogatoryNo. 1: Identify by name, address and telephone number all persons whom Sky West Airlines, Inc. knows to have personal knowledge ofthe matters alleged inthe Complaint. Response: Individuals known to Sky West that have knowledge ofthe matters alleged in the Complaint are:Casey Madsen- Director HumanResources Francine Cox- Manager Employment Standards Jaime Sorenson

- Manager ofHiringThe above-listed individuals are current Sky West employees and canbe contacted through SkyWest's counsel. InterrogatoryNo.2: Identity bytitle, date, author, present custodian, and content, all documents, including correspondence, obtainedby you or inyour possession, relating to the assertions inthe Complaint, your appeal, your answer, and any affirmative defenses which you anticipate raising in tills matter. See Request for ProductionNo. 

### 1. Response: All documents contained in FAA EIRfile 2014 WP910006 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 atthe hearing in tills matter, and for factual witnesses, provide a detailed summary ofeach 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. InterrogatoryNo. 4: Identity by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all documents whichyou anticipate offering into evidence or using at the hearing in tills matter, andthrough which witness or witnesses the document will be offered. See Request for ProductionNo.2. Response: All documents contained in FAA EIR file 2014WP910006.
Interrogatory No. 5: With respect to each expert witness identified inresponse to Interrogatory No. 3, specify their specific area ofexpertise, and provide a synopsis oftheir credentials, background, training and experience. Response: N/A InterrogatoryNo. 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 ofthe facts and opinions

2to which the expert is expectedto testify, and provide a summary ofthe grounds for each such opinion. Response: N/A Interrogatorv No. 7: Describe with specificity all ofthe facts which you intend to rely upon in support ofany affirmative defenses raised in any Answer to the Complaint. See Request for ProductionNo.3. Response: See response to Interrogatory #8. InterrogatoryNo. 8: Describe with specificity all ofthe facts which you anticipate presenting in the course ofthe hearing inthis matter pertaining to the avoidance or mitigation ofthe sanction sought bythe FAAinthis case. See Request for ProductionNo. 4. Response: Starting inFebruary 2012, Sky West's manager ofdrug and alcohol testing, Francine Cox, noted a few occasions where an employee hadbeeninadvertently 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 eventhoughthese 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 Augustto ensure that every emploJee who was inadvertently dropped out ofthe 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 ofall newly createdjob codes are sent to the drug testing group for review. Francine Cox and Jaime Sorensen (Manager ofHRAdministration) have devised a newprocess to ensure all newjob codes and transfer requests are identified, reviewed and approved

-- subject to completion ofany additional regulatory requirements

-- by a designated individual assigned oversight ofthe 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.

3InterrogatoryNo. 9: For each allegation inthe Complaint that is denied- whether outright or as a result ofhaving insufficient information or knowledge from which to form a beliefas to the truth ofthe allegation, in whole, orinpart- state with specificity the facts that are the basis for that denial as well as the inquiries taken to determine that the allegation inthe Complaint is not correct. See Request for ProductionNo. 5. Response: In Paragraph 11 ofthe 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.
InterrogatoryNo. 10: For any Requests for Admission that are denied- whether outright or as a result ofhaving insufficient information or knowledge from whichto form a beliefas to the truth ofthe allegation, in whole, or inpart- 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 ProductionNo. 

### 6. Respondent's Response: N/A
REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION
Reguest for ProductionNo. 1: Provide a copy ofall documents referred to in your answer to InterrogatoryNo.2. Response: The FAAhas copies ofall referenced documents. Reguest for ProductionNo.2: Provide a copy ofall documents referred to in your answer to InterrogatoryNo.4. Response: The FAAhas copies ofall referenced documents.
Reguest for Production No.3: Provide a copy ofall documents that support your answer to InterrogatoryNo. 7.

4Response: The FAAhas copies ofall referenced documents. Reguest for Production No. 4: Provide a copy ofall documents that support your answer to Interrogatory No. 8. Response: The FAAhas copies ofall referenced documents. Reguest for ProductionNo. 5: Provide a copy ofall documents that support your answer to Interrogatory No. 9. Response: The FAAhas copies ofall referenced documents. Request for ProductionNo. 6: Provide a copy ofall documents that support your answer to Interrogatory No. 10. Response: The FAAhas copies ofall referenced documents. Request for ProductionNo.7: Provide a copy ofall exhibits that Sky West intends to offer as evidence or will use during any hearing inthis matter. Response: The FAAhas copies ofall referenced documents.
REQUEST FORADMISSIONS Request for AdmissionNo. 1: Admit that, for the 12 month period ending June 2014, SkyWest Airlines had operating revenues in excess of$1 00 million, as shownbythe 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 AdmissionNo.2: Admit that, as ofDecember 31, 2013, SkyWest Airlines employs more than 1,500 employees, as shownby SkyWest Airlines' 2013 Annual Report. Respondent's Response: Admit. Reguest for AdmissionNo. 3: Admit that SkyWest Airlines has the financial ability to pay the $280,375 requested civil penalty inFAA Case No. 2014WP910006, FDMS No. FAA-2014- 0686.



### 5Response: Admit. Request for AdmissionNo.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 ofJanuary, 2015. 

# /\

# ~c,L Todd C. Emerson 

### Attorney for SkyWestAirlines

6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that onthis 9th day ofJanuary, 2015, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST was served as follows:
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, 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 2Wl000 {Federal Express} Jeffrey M. Harper Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 {E-mail andFederal Express}



### 7