In the Matter of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

~ECEIVED SEP 2 6 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. 2010NM010105 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0682 

) _______________________ ) 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(m), Complainant through its undersigned 

counsel respectfully opposes the Respondent's Motion to Compel Discovery in this 

matter. 

Statement of Facts 

On December 22, 2011 the Administrative Law Judge issued a Procedural Order 

setting forth a procedural schedule in this matter. The Order provided in paragraph 2: 

2. On or before March 2, 2012, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, 

but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production 

requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute 

they shall subject the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely 

manner. 

The Respondent served an initial discovery request upon the Complainant which 

was dated January 13, 2012. The Complainant responded on February 14, 2012, with 

responses to interrogatories and an extensive production of documents. On February 

17, 2012, Respondent's counsel requested additional information from the Complainant. 

Complainant served Supplemental Responses on February 29, 2012. Discovery closed 

on March 2, 2012. Counsel for Respondent did not raise the subject of discovery again 
until the filing of the instant Motion to Compel Discovery, which was received at the 

offices of Complainant's counsel on September 10, 2012 (Ex. 1 ). 

LEGAL ARGUMENT 

1. Respondent's Motion to Compel should be denied as untimely. 

The Procedural Order in this matter provided that discovery should be concluded by 

March 2, 2012. While no deadline was established for filing a motion to compel, all 

discovery related disputes were to be raised to the Administrative Law Judge for 

resolution "in a timely manner." The Respondent received Complainant's discovery 

responses on or about February 14, 2012 and its supplemental responses on or about 

February 29, 2012. If the Complainant's responses and supplemental responses were 

inadequate, Respondent should have raised that concern by March 2, 2012, and 

certainly earlier than September 2012. 

2. Respondent's counsel did not raise an issue of adequacy of the 

Complainant's February 29, 2012 supplemental responses with the 

Complainant's counsel prior to filing the instant motion. 

As alleged in Respondent's motion, counsel for the Respondent sought 

supplementation of the Complainant's discovery responses on February 17, 2012, and 

counsel for the Complainant responded promptly by supplementing the Complainant's 

responses on February 29, 2012. Respondent was also provided an extensive body of 

documents in response to its requests for production. Respondent's counsel raised no 

further concerns from the close of discovery until filing the instant motion on September 

7, 2012. 

While the December 22, 2011 Procedural Order in this matter does not expressly 

require counsel to cooperate in discovery, it provides, "if the parties cannot resolve a 

discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to 

Compel Discovery 

FAA v. Aviation Technical Services 

FAA Case No. 2010NM010105 

Page 2 of5 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
timely manner," establishing an expectation that the parties notify each other if 

responses or supplemental responses are deemed insufficient.' Respondent's counsel 

failed to raise any concerns after receiving the Complainant's supplemental responses 

dated February 29, 2012. 

3. The Complainant's responses and supplemental responses establish that 

the Complainant did not give evasive or incomplete answers in its 

responses and supplemental responses to the Respondent's 

interrogatories. 

Rule 13.220(m) permits a motion to compel "if ..... a party fails or refuses to 

answer an interrogatory, if a person gives an evasive or incomplete answer during a 

deposition or when responding to an interrogatory, or a party fails or refuses to produce 

documents or tangible items." Even if the Respondent's motion to compel were timely, it 

should be clear from examination of the discovery requests and responses appended to 

its motion (which omit the Complainant's extensive document production) that the 

Complainant fully and fairly responded to the Respondent's discovery requests, and did 

not provide evasive or incomplete answers. 

Respondent's primary complaint appears to concern the level of detail of the 

description of the "knowledge" which various persons and witnesses possessed about 

the case. Complainant's responses provided a summary of the witnesses' knowledge. 

The Respondent had an opportunity to depose these witnesses during the discovery 

period, but did not do so. 

1 While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in this matter, they may be used as guidance; 

under FRCP 37(a), a party must certifY making a good faith effort to confer with the opposing party on a 

discovery dispute in support of a motion to compel discovery. 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to 

Compel Discovery 

FAA v. Aviation Technical Services 

FAA Case No. 2010NM010105 

Page 3 of5 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER, F AAATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
For the foregoing reasons, the Complainant respectfully prays that the Respondent's 

Motion to Compel be denied. 

Karen D. Huber 

Attorney for Complainant 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to 

Compel Discovery 

FAA v. Aviation Technical Services 

FAA Case No. 2010NM010105 

Page 4 of5 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER, F AAATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date, I have served the foregoing COMPLAINANT'S 

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY by Federal 

Express and by facsimile transmission this date upon: 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

Dombroff Gilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

Mclean, VA 22102 

(FAX) (703) 336-8750 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Fax: (202) 493-5142 

Honorable Richard Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

DATED this 201

h day of September, 2012 

, 

~~~10~~> ana Stephenson 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to 

Compel Discovery 

FAA v. Aviation Technical Services 

FAA Case No. 2010NMOIOI05 

Page 5 of5 

Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Avenue SW 

Renton, WA 98055 

Ph: (425) 227-2164 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
BECKY COX 

703-336-8740 

DOMBROFF & GILMORE 

1676 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE 

MCLE.A:N VA221024P2 

SHIP TO: 

0.0 LBS LTR 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER, ESQ. 

FAA., OFF1CKOF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION, ANM-7 

1601 IJND AVENUE S.W. 

RENTON WA 98057-3356 

1 OF 1 

WA 980 9-02 

lllllllllllllllll 

UPS NEXT DAY AIR 

TRACKING#: lZ 217 E87 01 9201 7350 

BIWNG:P/P 

Client Matter Number: 40225/3-4 

Shipper Name: Becky Cox cs 1+.5.29. wxPNVSO 30. OA 07/2012 

Regional Counsel 

SEP 1 0 2012 

ANM-7 

1 

EXHIBIT 1