X 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ATI 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PRECISION DISPLAYS AND TOOLS 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09AL0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2009-0733 

•^^i - 8 2010 

WEARING DOCKE T 

r.a 

FAA'S MOTION ON PRECISION DISPLAYS^ FAILURE - '^ 

TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY 

I. Introduction. 

Respondent Precision Displays and Tools ("Precision Displays") has not responded to the 

interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admissions that Complainant Federal 

Aviation Administration ("FAA") duly served on Precision Displays on May 12, 2010. As a 

consequence of that failure, the FAA, through counsel, hereby moves this court for an order 

containing two elements. 

First, the FAA moves this court under 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(m) to compel Precision 

Displays to answer the interrogatories and produce the documents that the FAA requested, and to 

do so so that the responses are received by the FAA no later than July 9, 2010. 

Second, the FAA moves this court under 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(1)(1) to confirm that, as a 

consequence of Precision Displays' failure to respond, to the FAA's requests for admissions, 

each is now deemed admitted. 

// 

// 
II. Background. 

On May 12, 2010, the FAA served its lone discovery request on Precision Displays. Ex. 

A. The discovery request consisted often requests for admission, five interrogatories, and a 

request for production, jd. Because Precision Displays is unrepresented, as a courtesy the FAA 

included with its discovery both a letter explaining the company's obligation to respond in 30 

days and the risks it faced should it fail to respond (Ex. B), and a response form that Precision 

Displays could use if it so chose (Ex. C). The FAA served these items by U.S. certified mail, 

postage prepaid, using the same address that Precision Displays has used throughout this 

proceeding.' Ex. A at 4. Therefore, by operation of 14 C.F.R. § 13.211(e) and .220(d), Precision 

Displays' responses were due on June 16. 

On June 10, the FAA's package of May 12 was returned by the postal service marked 

"unclaimed". Ex. D. Therefore, the following day, the FAA wrote to Precision Displays and 

explained again Precision Displays' obligation to respond to discovery by June 16 as well as the 

consequences it faced should it fail to do so. Ex. E. With that letter, the FAA included another 

copy of the discovery request, the response form, and the FAA's letter of May 12. Id. at 2. The 

FAA sent the request, the letters, and the response form to Precision Displays on June 11 by both 

U.S. mail and U.S. certified mail, both postage-prepaid. Id. at 1. 

As of this date, now 19 days later and 14 days after Precision Displays' deadline to 

serve its responses, the FAA has received nothing back. The green certified mail receipt has 

not been returned, suggesting that Precision Displays continues to refuse to claim properlyserved certified mail. However, the simultaneously-served uncertified mailing also has not 

' 1555 Alum Rock Avenue, Suite 20, San Jose, CA 95116. 

Precision Displays and Tools DMS No. FAA-2009-()976 

FAA 5 Motion on Precision Displays' Page 2 

Failure to Respond to Discovery 
returned, suggesting that Precision Displays received that copy, knows of its obligation to 

respond, and has purposefully declined to respond. 

This is not the first time that Precision Displays has frustrated this court's procedures. 

As the FAA explained to the court last fall while moving to deem the allegations of its complaint 

admitted," Precision Displays did not file a fimely answer to the FAA's complaint within its 

allotted 30 days. On November 6, 2009, well after its deadline to oppose the FAA's motion. 

Precision Displays postmarked a letter to the FAA explaining its failure to file an answer but 

promising to do so. Ex. F. However, to date, Precision Tools has not filed a formal answer 

beyond the statement by Mr. Persekian in his letter of November 6 that 

I have not 'knowingly committ[ed] an act in violafion of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 . . . 

.' (Section 13.16(c)) because I did not know that the packages contained 

flammable and/or hazardous material.'^^ 

Discovery closes in this matter on August 1, 2010,'' with the hearing set to commence on 

August 17,2010.' 

III. Argument. 

The rules that apply to discovery are plain and unavoidable. First, the rules do not allow 

parties to ignore properly-served discovery requests; parties must respond to discovery, either by 

serving a response or raising objections with the court: 

^ Agency's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted, filed October 13, 2009. 

^ After the FAA forwarded Precision Displays' letter to the court (Ex. G), the court determined to 

treat the letter as an answer. Order Granting Motion to Postpone Hearing, served November 23, 

2009. 

"* Amended Procedural Order, served February 24, 2010. 

" Notice of Hearing Dates, served May 4, 2010. 

Precision Displays and Tools DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 

FAA 's Motion on Precision Displays ' Page 3 

Failure to Respond to Discovery 
Unless otherwise directed by this subpart or agreed by the parties, a party shall 

respond to a request for discovery, including filing objections to a request for 

discovery, not later than 30 days of service of the request. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.220(d) (emphasis added). 

Second, if a party objects to discovery, it must assert those objections, not merely ignore 

them in hopes the discovery will go away: 

If a party objects to an interrogatory, the party shall state the objecUon and the 

reasons for the objection. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.220(k) (emphasis added). 

Third, there are mandatory consequences for failing to respond to discovery. For 

interrogatories and requests for production, the party seeking discovery can obtain an order 

compelling the party to whom the discovery is directed to respond: 

A party may make a motion to compel discovery if... a party fails or refuses to 

answer an interrogatory. . . or a party fails or refuses to produce documents 

or tangible items. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.220(m) (emphasis added). And, if the order compelling responses to the 

interrogatories and requests for production is violated, potentially case-deciding sanctions await: 

If a party fails to comply with a discovery order or an order to compel, the 

administrative law judge, limited to the extent of the party's failure to comply 

with the discovery order or mofion to compel, may: 

(1) Strike that portion of a party's pleadings; 

(2) Preclude prehearing or discovery motions by that party; 

(3) Preclude admission of that portion of a party's evidence at the hearing; or 

(4) Preclude that portion of the testimony of that party's witnesses at the hearing. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.220(n). More immediate sanctions attend failures to respond to requests for 

admissions: 

A party's failure to respond to a request for admission, in writing and signed 

by the attorney or the party, not later than 30 days after service of the request, is 

deemed an admission of the truth of the statement or statements contained in the 

request for admission. 

Precision Displays and Tools DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 

FAA 's Motion on Precision Displays ' Page 4 

Failure to Respond to Discovery 
14 C.F.R. § 13.220(1)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, for requests for admission, the party that 

posed the discovery need not obtain an order compelling responses to a request for admission: 

the failure to respond "is deemed", absent an affirmative demonstration of good cause, an 

admission. 

Here, Precision Displays has refiised to respond to the FAA's discovery despite having 

been served that discovery, a letter explaining how discovery works, and a convenient discovery 

response form on May 12, and having been served those items plus an additional letter 

explaining the process by both first class and certified mail on June 11. To date, Precision 

Displays has not responded to the discovery, has not sought relief from the request, and has not 

contacted the FAA to make alternate arrangements. Precision Displays is simply ignoring its 

obligations. 

By all appearances. Precision Displays is purposefially fhastrating the procedures that 

allow this court to render a fair decision based on the evidence and the law. Precision Displays 

must bear the consequences of its behavior. Therefore, the FAA proposes as follows: 

• For the requests for admission, the court should confirm the operation of 14 C.F.R. § 

13.220(1)( 1) and enter an order confirming that, by rule, each request has been deemed 

admitted. 

• For the interrogatories and the requests for production, the court should apply 14 C.F.R. § 

13.220(m) and order Precision Displays to answer the interrogatories and produce the 

documents. And, because the hearing is fast approaching, the court should order 

Precision Displays to serve its answers and produce its documents so that they are 

Precision Displays and Tools DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 

FAA 's Motion on Precision Displays' Page 5 

Failure to Respond to Discovery 
received by the FAA no later than July 9, 2010 or risk the consequences set by 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.220(n). 

IV. Conclusion. 

For the reasons set forth above, the court should grant the FAA's motion and enter the 

order requested herein. 

DATED this '^ Q day of June, 2010 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. 

Regional Cour 

ig Wm Black^ 

iff Attorney 

Precision Displays and Tools 

FAA 's Motion on Precision Displays ' 

Failure to Respond to Discovery 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 

Page 6 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PRECISION DISPLAYS AND TOOLS 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09AL0008 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA-2009-0733 

COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, 

INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

To: Robert Persekian, Owner 

Precision Displays and Tools 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220, the Complainant, by and through its Regional Counsel, 

requests that you, by June 14, 2010, make the requested admissions, answer the following 

interrogatories under oath, and identify and produce the requested documents for inspection and 

copying at the Office of the Regional Counsel, Alaskan Region FAA, 222 W. 7* Avenue, Box 

14, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587. 

These requests are deemed continuing, and any information secured after answering 

and/or supplying the requested answers or documents/items is to be supplied by supplemental 

production pursuant to § 13.220(i) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions. 

BE ADVISED that 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(1)(1) states, "A party's failure to respond to a 

request for admission, in writing and signed by the attorney or the party, not later than 30 days 

after service of the request, is deemed an admission of the truth of the statement or statements 

contained in the request for admission." 

DEFINITIONS 

1. "Documents" means, regardless of origin or location, any handwriting, note, letter, 

manual, memorandum, record, report, statement, study, drawing, sketch, photograph, telegram, 

telex, or message, whether reported, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphically 

represented in any maimer, or material of any kind in the possession of subject to the control of, 

or within the knowledge of. Respondent and/or his employees, agents, consultants, or experts. 

r/•# . A 

l\^-JL3f-J £ ?38<3S 
2. "Identify" and/or "state the identity of with reference to individuals means state the 

name, current or last known address, employer, and job description or title, and telephone 

number. 

3. "Identify all documents" means state the date and author unless apparent from the 

document. 

4. As listed herein, singular pronouns also include the plural. 

5. "You," "your," and "Respondent" as used herein refer to Precision Displays and Tools, 

the Respondent in this matter. 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

Please admit the truth of each of the following statements: 

1. On or about May 9, 2008, Precision Displays and Tools used an employee, Lewis 

Lourenco, to offer a shipment to Alaska Airlines for transportation by air from 

Ketchikan, Alaska, to San Diego, California. 

2. The above shipment was offered to Alaska Airlines on Air Waybill No. 02773106434. 

3. The above shipment is described on the above air waybill as consisting of 14 pieces with 

a total weight of 748 pounds and consisting of tools, ladder, and totes. 

4. The above air waybill is marked to indicate that the shipment does not contain dangerous 

goods. 

5. The above shipment included a one-quart can of Surmyside lacquer thinner, a one-pint 

can of Minwax Polyshades stain, three 16-ounce cans of 3M Super 77 multipurpose 

adhesive, and two-12-ounce cans of Premium Decor spray paint. 

6. Sunnyside lacquer thinner, Minwax Polyshades stain, 3M Super 77 multipurpose 

adhesive, and Premium D^cor spray paint are all hazardous materials under the 

Hazardous Materials Regulations. 

7. The above shipment was not marked or labeled in any matter that would indicate that it 

contained hazardous materials. 

8. There was no shipper's declaration for dangerous goods that was submitted to Alaska 

Airlines with the above air waybill, and no dangerous goods are identified on the above 

air waybill. 

-^xAc f .^^•^' 
9. At the Ume he offered the above shipment, Lewis Lourenco had not received the training 

specified in subpart H of part 172 of the HMR within the preceding three years, and he 

was not working under the direct supervision of a properly trained and knowledgeable 

hazmat employee. 

10. At the time Lewis Lourenco offered the above shipment. Precision Displays and Tools 

did not have a record of current training for Lewis Lourenco that contained the 

information specified in Section 172.704(d) of the HMR. 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

1. For each of the above requests for admission that you do not admit, explain what specific 

facts or contentions in each statement you believe are not true, state all facts that support 

your beliefs in this regard, and produce all documents that support these beliefs. 

2. Identify each person whom you intend to call as a witness at the hearing in this matter, 

and for each such witness, provide a summary of the expected testimony. 

3. For each person identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2, produce a copy of each and 

every statement made by that person in which the facts and circumstances of matters at 

issue in this case are referenced or discussed. 

4. Do you intend to present any expert witness testimony at the hearing of this matter? If 

so, then provide a synopsis of each expert witness' testimony, state the grounds for each 

expert opinion, and produce a curriculum vitae for each expert witness. 

5. Do you contend that Precision Displays and Tools lacks the ability to pay the proposed 

civil penalty? If so, then state every fact upon which you intend to rely at the hearing in 

support of this contention, and produce a copy of each and every document you intend to 

introduce at the hearing in this matter in support of this contention. 

6. To the extent not encompassed in your response to any of the foregoing items, identify 

and produce all documents upon which you expect to rely at the hearing or introduce as 

evidence in support of your position at the hearing in this matter. 

Requested this la"" day of May 2010. 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Glenn H. Brown 

Senior Attorney 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Precision Displays and Tools 

FAA Docket No. CP09AL0008 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0733 

I hereby certify that on this date I have served a copy of the COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET 

OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested 

and facsimile to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20; 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

Robert Persekian, Owner 

Precision Displays and Tools 

1555 Alum Rock Avenue, Suite 20 

San Jose, C A 95116 

FAX: (408)251-7990 

I further certify that on this date I have served the original and two copies of the 

COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, 

INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS by 

postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested and facsimile, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attenrion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

FAX: (202)493-5020 

DATED: ^/'^/a^f /JP^JJO/O 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL-7 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

/ U 
o 

U. S. Department Alaskan Region 222 W. 7th Avenue #14 

of Transportation Office of the Regional Counsel Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

Federal Aviation PH: (907) 271-5271 

Administration FAX: (907)271-2800 

glenn.browniyifaa.gov 

Case No. 2008AL700039 

Mr. Robert Persekian 

Precision Displays and Tools 

1555 Alum Rock Avenue, Suite 20 

San Jose, C A 95116 

bear Mr. Persekian: 

As you know the judge has set our matter for a hearing on August 17, 2010. In looking through 

our file, I see that you have never actually submitted an answer in which you admit or deny each 

of the paragraphs in the complaint. Thus, in order to move this process along, I have included 

Requests for Admission in the enclosed discovery request. Also included in this request are 

Interrogatories and Requests for Production. 

Please note that if you do not respond to each of the Requests for Admission within 30 days, then 

the Rules of Practice specify that they are deemed admitted. 

For your information, there is no specific format you must use in responding to this request. To 

assist you in preparing your response, I have prepared and enclosed a 4-page form that you may 

use for this purpose. As for each request for admission, you can either circle your choice of 

"Admit" or "Deny," or you can mark through the "Admit" or "Deny" you are not choosing. The 

"Explanation for Denial" after each answer to a request for admission is a reference to 

Interrogatory No, 1, which asks you to explain any denial. You are not required to use this form, 

but you must at least clearly convey your responses in writing. 

If you have any questions, I can be reached at the above number or email address. 

Sincerely, 

Glenn H, Brown 

Senior Attorney 

Enclosures 

i3._ 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PRECISION DISPLAYS AND TOOLS 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09AL0008 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA-2009-0733 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSION, INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

Respondent answers Complainant's discovery request as follows: 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

1. Admit Deny 

Explanation for Denial: 

2. Admit Deny 

Explanation for Denial: 

3. Admit Deny 

Explanation for Denial: 

L_ 
4. Admit Deny 

Explanation for Denial: 

5. Admit Deny 

Explanation for Denial: 

6. Admit Deny 

Explanation for Denial: 

7. Admit Deny 

Explanation for Denial: 

8. Admit Deny 

Explanation for Denial: 

9. Admit Deny 

Explanation for Denial: 

10. Admit Deny 

Explanation for Denial: 
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

1. Explanations for each denial are provided above. All supporting documents are enclosed. 

3. 

6. 

Submitted this day of 2010 

PRECISION DISPLAYS AND TOOLS 

By: 

Robert Persekian, Owner 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Precision Displays and Tools 

FAA Docket No. CP09AL0008 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0733 

I hereby certify that on this date I have served a copy of RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO 

COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, 

INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS by 

postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested and facsimile to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20; 

U.S. Department of transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

Glenn H. Brovm 

Senior Attorney 

222 W 7* Avenue Box 14 • 

Anchorage, AK 99513 

FAX: (907)271-2800 

I further certify that on this date I have served the original and two copies of the 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSION, INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested and facsimile, 

addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

FAX: (202)493-5020 

DATED: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL-7 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

L 
OKt-H-scnessoi idiaoetj uin\9ti oiisaiuoa M)03 AjEruqsd ' |. |.gg lujoj Sd 

siooiuoisijud - UI19 TDBD bESB TDDD 0552 bDDi 

soA a (aoj uvQ) i/J8A|iea peppisau f 

•QOO Q l!BW pajnsui Q 

asipuBMaJBw JOI vJ|83ed uin;ea Q peu8)S|Beu • 

liSKt ssax)X3 • [fBm farnxK)pt^ 

BdAi93|A»S £ 

ON • :»0(8q ssajppB /OaAipp jejue 'saA tl 

saA • i I u«« uJtut luaiawp ssajppe AwAiisp ci a 

Aie/\||«a JO eiBO 0 

aessajppv Q 

(ewBN peiuiJd ) ^ q poAieoed a 

X 

ajinBuOis -v 

9US6 VD'>sorn«s 

OZ Jlins 'JnuJAV laoj i uin|v SSSl 

i.uox put t.(i|ds!a uoisjij j 

:o) possajppv epiyy • i 

•ooo!d|!BLU em p ^Cleq eg* o i pjBO Eim 40BHV • 

noX 0) piiEO eg) ujn;8j UEO ew lem os 

3SJSA9J am uo sssjppe pue ameu jno^ )uud • 

•pGj|sap S| ^BAiiea pepMlsBd i! P tue« 

ow^uio o osiv e PuB '3 • I suiej) e^efdiuoo • 

l l 

m z 

c m 

men 

O 

I 

O I 

o 

IS ni 

m 

z 

c 

: 

AUiAni a NO NOIIDIS SIH I 3131dtV00 NOU03S SIHI 3131dlAI00 H3QH3S 

en ^- IT3 po 

> Ln ?B O 

Z Ln tn Od 

u i n w 

O > W H 

.v>-' 

,y«d 

•j: 

) 

V 

* > . 

r -

«^ 

'••h 

r> 

s 

rr 

'e^T't 

\ 

, ^ 

A 

u ^ 

<30 

• O 

- .NJ 
Q 

U.S. Department Alaskan Region 

of Transportation Office of the Regional Counsel 

(907) 271-3570 voice 

Feder8l Aviation 222 West Seventh Avenue #14 (907)271-2800 fojc 

Administration Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 craig.black@faa.gov (?^a// 

June 11,2010 

VIA BOTH FIRST CLASS MAIL AND 

CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Robert Persekian 

Precision Displays and Tools 

1555 Alum Rock Avenue, Suite 20 

San Jose, CA 95116 

RE: Case 2008AL700039 

Dear Mr. Persekian, 

On May 12,2010, this office sent to you via certified, return-receipt requested mail at your 

address above our first discovery request in this matter. Yesterday, the Postal Service returned 

our request to us unopened and marked "Unclaimed". 

Please be advised that any failure by you to receive mail properly sent to your address of 

record inures to you, not us: put another way, you cannot avoid the consequences of our 

service by avoiding your mail. 

(g) Valid service. A document that was properly addressed, was sent in 

accordance with this subpart, and that was returned, that was not claimed, or that 

was refused, is deemed to have been served in accordance with this subpart. The 

service shall be considered valid as of the date and the time that the document was 

deposited with a contract or express messenger, the document was mailed, or 

personal delivery of the document was refused. 

(h) Presumption of service. There shall be a presumption of service where a party 

or a person, who customarily receives mail, or receives it in the ordinary course of 

business, at either the person's residence or the person's principal place of 

business, acknowledges receipt of the document. 

14 CFR § 13.211(g), (h). What this means in simple terms is that service is complete 

when we properly mail you things: any failure by you to claim those things comes at your 

peril, not ours. 

Under 14 CFR § 13.211(e) and .220(d), you must serve your discovery responses on us 

by June 16, 2010. If you fail to do so, you should expect a prompt motion by us to 

compel discovery and for sanctions, as appropriate. 

•••"* iz . 

4_ X. 
Robert Persekian June 11,2010 

Case No. 2008AL700039 

I have assumed responsibility for this case from my colleague Glenn H. Brown. If you 

have any questions or concerns, you may contact me as set forth above. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR 

Regional Counsel 

By 

^m. B 

jiff Attorney 

End: Letter from Glenn H. Brown to Robert Persekian, May 12, 2010 

Complainant's First Set of Requests for Admission, Interrogatories, and Requests for 

Production of Documents 

Respondent's Reply to Complainant's First Set of Requests for Admission, 

Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents 

(blank form for respondent to complete) 
Howard L. Martin, Jr., Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AAL-7 u-»\l4S0 "^ 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14 /B'^^ ^ ^ 

Anchorage. AL 99513-7587 / .,.., 

Re: In the Matter of Precision Displays and Tools \ ^ ^ / 

Case No. 2008AL700039 ''vfcji. ^^' 

Dear Sir: 

Pursuant to the requirement of Respondent's Answer on page 11 of the Complaint, I 

admittedly have failed to file an answer within 30 days as required by the Rules of Practice in FAA 

Civil Penalty Proceedings. However, this failure to file an answer is not without good cause. Per 

Section 13.209(0 of the Rules of Practice, "A person's failure to file an answer without good cause 

shall be deemed an admission of the truth of each allegation contained in the complaint." 

My failure to file an answer was due to a medical emergency in my family. On September 

29, 2009, we discovered that my daughter has a brain tumor and must undergo emergency surgery 

on November 30, 2009. I have been constantly tied up with this situation, which includes man\ 

MRIs, CTs, blood tests, spinal taps, and appointments with my daughter's neurosurgeon. Because 

my primary place of residence is in Mexico, I have been continuously coming in and out of San 

Jose, CA in order to be with her for her medical tests and appointments. 

Although I did not submit a timely answer to the complaint, this oversight is not due to 

carelessness; rather it is because of my daughter's dire situation. It would be greatly appreciated if 

you would allow me another opportunity to file my answer in response to the complaint. 

Furthermore, my daughter will still be trying to recover during the month of January, and it would 

be greatly appreciated if you would postpone the trial date set for January 5 - 8, 2010 in the U.S. 

Tax Court to a later date. 

I would be more than happy to provide you with a response in this matter. Pursuant to the 

statute, I have not "knowingly committ[ed] an act in violation of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 . . . . " 

(Section 13.16(c)) because I did not know that the packages contained flammable andyor hazardous 

material. 

Any extension in submitting this response would be greatly appreciated, as would a 

postponement of the trail date. Thank you very much for your time and for considering this request. 

Robert Persekian 

Precision Displays and Showcases 

1555 Alum Rock Avenue, Suite 20 

San Jose, CA 95116 

(408)504-2415 
o 

I). S. Uepiirtincnt Alaskan Region 222 VV. 7th Avenue »14 

of I'ransportation Office ol'the Regional Counsel .Anclioragc. Alaska 99513-"587 

Federal Aviation PH: (907) 271-5269 

.\dniinistration FAX. (907) 271-2800 

VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION AND REGULAR MAIL 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Precision Displays and Tools, FAA Docket No. CP09AL0008; DMS No. FAA-2009-

0733 

Dear Judge Goodwin: 

On October 13, 2009, the Agency submitted a Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted. During 

the week of October 19"', Mr. Persekian called me. The conversation mainly involved the 

information he would need to submit in order to show an inability to pay. During this 

conversation I did specifically advise him that his deadline for submitting a response to our 

motion was October 28, 2009, and that he needed to respond by that date in order to preserve his 

rights. 

Enclosed is a copy of a letter my office received on November 9, 2009. It is postmarked 

November 6, 2009. There is no indication it was sent to you or the hearing docket. This is the 

only thing we have received from him, so if he did specifically respond to our motion, he did not 

serve a copy on my office. 

We have no objection to the postponement of the hearing that Mr. Persekian requests. 

Glenn H. Brown 

Senior Attorney 

Enclosures 

cc: Robert Persekian 

Hearing Docket 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Precision Displays and Tools 

FAA Docket No. CP09AL0008 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0733 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date I have served a copy of the foregoing by postage-prepaid 

mail, facsimile, and email to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Email: Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov 

I HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that on this date 1 have served the original and two copies of 

the foregoing by postage-prepaid mail and facsimile to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ATTN: Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX: (202) 493-5020 

1 HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that on this date I have served one copy of the foregoing by 

postage-prepaid first-class mail to: 

Robert Persekian 

Precision Displays and Tools 

1555 Alum Rock Avenue, Suite 20 

San Jose, CA 95116 

1 

DATED: {2..^. ^30^. :2O/0 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Precision Displays and Tools DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 

FAA 's Motion on Precision Displays ' Page 7 

Failure to Respond to Discovery 
Office of Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL-7 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

Precision Displays and Tools DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 

FAA 's Motion on Precision Displays ' Page 8 

Failure to Respond to Discovery