UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO'N ) E (f ^ f P fl^#£ ^ T% 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ET^IG^EI ] V? fcLdS^ 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ^^ , oQfl 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

V. 

DEAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

/ 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0069 

(Judge J. E. Sullivan) 

r- : 

i y ^ 

:-n 

- t J 

INJ) 

>^ 

CD 

l:)~i.^... 

r-^n-^r: 1 

f'l\'-T'"Z I 

:^r^^ j 

••^^^s : 

R'l-Hn-i 

^>^^ , 

goo 

RESPONDENTS REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RESPONSE^ 

TO AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION ^ 

This is in response, and opposition to, the Administrator's Response To Amended 

Notice Of Taking Depositions. 

By his Response, the Administrator (1) has canceled his scheduled deposition of 

Respondent's most knowledgeable witness on August 29, 2011 (next fVlonday); and (2) 

unilaterally stated he will not produce his witnesses for deposition as scheduled on 

August 30-31 (next Tuesday and V\/ednesday). 

If the Administrator desires to cancel his deposition of Respondent's most 

knowledgeable witness, he certainly has the right to do so. However, the Administrator 

has no right to unilaterally refuse to have his witnesses appear at their scheduled 

deposition. As we show below, the bases for the Administrator's actions are not well 

taken. 

The Administrator states he requested the parties "work to stipulate to certain 

seemingly uncontested facts, so as to narrow the scope of discovery, and possibly 

STUARIA GOLDSTEIN. P. A. 

&350 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY. IQTH FLOOR. MIAMI FL 33156 

T (3051670-1222 F. (305)670-7065 
obviate the need for Respondent to comply with some of the FAA's discovery requests." 

However, the Administrator never proposed a single stipulation of fact to Respondent's 

counsel. Moreover, as pointed out to Administrator's counsel, while he may beiieve 

certain facts are uncontested, the time to enter into such a stipulation would more 

appropriately be after completion of discovery. 

The Administrator makes reference to his July 29 letter to Respondent's counsel 

which he asserts contains a "list of numerous deficiencies in Respondent's discovery 

responses." The Administrator should have, but did not, provide the Court a copy of his 

letter and Respondent's reply. Accordingly, there are attached hereto as Exhibits A 

and B, respectively, the Administrator's letter of July 29 and Respondent's reply of 

August 25.1 As the Court will see from these letters, Respondent's discovery responses 

were full and complete and the Administrator's "list of deficiencies" is mistaken. 

The procedural rules governing these proceedings do not allow for a party to 

unilaterally refuse to produce a witness for a properly scheduled deposition, as the 

Administrator has stated he intends to do. To the contrary, the rules permit the 

following: 

Ruie 13.220(f) authorizes the Administrative Law Judge to limit discovery in 

certain very narrow circumstances, as follows, if the requesting party shows: 

The information requested is cumulative or repetitious. \ 

The information requested can be obtained from another less burdensome 

and more convenient source; 

The requesting party has had ample opportunity to obtain the information 

through other discovery methods; or 

' The delay in Respondent's reply was due to its owner's pre-planned vacation and undersigned 

counsel's inability to communicate with him during that time. 

STUART A GOLDSTEIN PA 

9350 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY. rOTH FLOOR MIAMI FL 33156 

T (305)670-1222 F; (305)670-7065 
The proposed discovery method or scope is unduly burdensome or 

expensive. 

The Administrator has not, and cannot, make a showing that any of these criteria 

are applicableRule 13.220(h) authorizes the filing of a motion for protective order for, again, 

very narrow reasons, if the requesting party makes a showing that a protective order is 

necessarv. as follows: 

To protect the party of person from annoyance, embarrassment, 

oppression, or undue burden or expense. 

The Administrator has not, and cannot, make a showing that any of these criteria 

are applicable. 

Accordingly, Respondent intends to appear at the designated location for the 

properly scheduled depositions of the Administrator's witnesses, unless the Court 

orders otherwise.^ 

Respectfully submitted, 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 10th Floor 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305)670-1222 

Fax: (305)670-7076 

Email: sgoldst219@aol.com 

By An^f^JLd\d?. 

Stuart A. Goldstein 

? Respondent would note that earlier this week, the parties submitted an amended agreed proposed ^ 

procedural schedule pushing back the previously agreed upon dates by a week to several weeks. If ^ 

these properly scheduled depositions are postponed, it is likely even the revised proposed schedule will ^ 

need to be amended. 

STUARrA GOLDSTEIN PA 

9350 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAy. iOTH FLOOR. MWWJ FL 33155 

T. (305) 67a 1222 F. (305)670-7065 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3iL day of August, 2011, an original and one 

copy of the foregoing was filed in accordance with 14 C.F.R. §13.210 upon the Hearing 

Docket Clerk at FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000, Wilbur Wright Building, 600 

Independence Avenue, S. W., Washington, D. C, 20591, and that a true and accurate 

copy was served upon Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq., by facsimile (404) 305-5223 

and regular U. S. Mail at R O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320, and the Honorable J. ESullivan by facsimile at (202) 366-7536. 

LAW OFFICES OF GOLDSTEIN & SORDO 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 10th Floor 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305)670-1222 

Fax: (305)670-7065 

By:. /w3/./Mi^ 

Stuart A. Goldstein 

\ 

\ 

STUART A GOLDSTEIN PA 

9350 SOUTH OWE HIGHWAY. lOTH FLOOR MIAMI FL 3315" 

T. (305)670.1222 F (305)670-7065 

y.' 
.^uHJUJU^^ j l-AA KtfjiUMA L UUUITOI^L , 

& 

U.S. Department Southern Region P.O. Box 20636 

of Transportatiorr Office of the Regional Counsel Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Federal Aviation (^01) 305-5200 

Administration C'104) 3U5-&223 FAX 

JUL 2 9 2U\l 

VIA CERTIFIED MA^ L & FACSIMILE 

Stuart A. Goldstein, £sq. 

93.^0 South Dixie Highway, 1 0th Floor 

Miami, FL 33156 

Facsimile; (305)670-7065 

Re; FAA v. Dean International, Docket No. FAA-2011-0069 

Dear Mr. Goldstein; 

I am ^^Titing with regards apparent deficiencies in the Respondent's discovery responses 

in the above-rcferertced case. 1 have spoken with yoii in an effort to narrow \hc scope of 

discovery in ligiit ofthe undispoted nature of the central facts in this case, but you have decliiieri. 

Accordingly, I must ask that "Respondent fully comply with its discover^' obligations. 

- With regarxls to fnterrogatory #5, and Requests for Production #-9 and #10, Dean International 

asserts that the purpose and nature ofthe fliglits are irrelevant. Dean International maintains that 

these flights were for a purpose other than flight instruction. Where the puipose and nature of 

the night is in dispute, it is not irrelevant what the purpose and nature ofthe flight were. The 

(disputed) assertion that there were no fligjit instnictors on the flight does not relieve Dean 

Inlcmationars obligation to respond to the interrogatory. It also does not relieve Dean 

International of the obligation to produce documents relevant to the nature and purpose of the 

ni^ts. 

- With regards to Interrogatory #8, which asked about inspections and a "10-hour overfly," and 

which required De£tn International to "slate with specificity" the facts relied upon, Dean 

Intendiinnnl's only response was to cite generally to AD 87-20-03 R2. AD S7-20-03 says 

nothing about a 10-hour overfly, and says nothing about the 100-hour inspections that arc also at 

issue in this case. Th^ answer given to Interrogatory #8 is non-responsive. 

- With regards to Iiit^n-ogalor>-^J3, Dean International's response failed to provide the requested 

basis for the dc minitfi^fs civil penalty that is suggested. This was not ftilly responsive. 

- Willi regards to Intcrrogator>' ^14, no response was provided regarding Dean Iiiteniational's 

conversations with F.AA personnel concerning this matter. This is not fiilly responsive. ' 

- With regards to Rciiuest for Production #5, the request was objected to on the grounds of work 

product privilege. As the request specifically excluded any communications between Dean 

Uitemational and its attorney, there would not appear to be any privilege issues. Additionally, 

A 
1 ..1 U ^1 ^/ .1 Z J f-AA REGIOI-JAL COUNSEL PflGE 03.'OS 

the scope ofthe rt^quest would include documents produced prior to the creation of any anomeyclicnl relationship. If Deaji International is. in fact, asserting that communications beUveen it 

and third parties ;ire privileged, then the privileged documents must be identified generally, and 

the reason the privilege apphes to them must be specifically articulated. 

- Request for Production ^6, ^7, and #8 sought maintenance records on the aircraft involved in 

this matter. It is at issue in this case whether maintenance was timely performed and, as such, 

these records are relevant. Additionally, Dean International has asserted as an affirmative that it 

was unable to prevent its aircraft from being operated despite possible maintenance issues, and 

the records are relevant to test the accuracy of this assertion. 

- With regards to Interrogatories #10 and #11, Dean Intcroationars attention is directed to the 

prefatory language in the discovery request notifying it that its discovery obligations extend 

beyond documents in its personal possession. The pilots on these flights were Dean International 

students, employees, and/or independent contractors. The fact that Dean International does not 

have personal possession of these records does not relieve it of the obligation to obtain them 

where possible. Additionally, with regards to Interrogatory #11, as Dean Iniemational is a 

certificated Air Agency (Pilot School) that is required to maintain training records, yet asserts 

that it has no records of the flight instruction received by its students, it would appear that an 

Dean International has give an unreasonably restrictive meaning to the phrase "records of flight 

instruction'' (or else is in violation of its regulatory obligations). Dean International should 

provide any ;md all training records concerning the flight training, instruction, or accumulation 

of flight hours ofthe pilots involved in the flights in this case. 

- With regards to several discovery requests, including Interrogatories #2, #7, //8, and ^10 Dean 

International has maintained that it was permissible to operate an aircrafl past 100 hours before 

performing an inspection, but despite these repeated discovery requests, has failed to articulate 

the facts forming the basis for this affirmative defense. 

Additionally, you have indicated (and I agree) that it would be appropriate to schedule any 

deposition of Respondent in the same time frame as any depositions of FAA inspectors. 

However, the above-listed deficiencies in Respondent's discovery responses need to be rectified 

before a proper deposition can be conducted. Please have Respondent promptly attend to this 

matter and fiilly respond to discovery before the week of August 22, 2011, so as to avoid 

interfering with deposition scheduling. 

Further, you have requested that that the previously agreed scheduling order be modified. I have 

reviewed the changes, and having established a deposition schedule, the FAA does not object to 

these changes. 

Sinc^relv, 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel 
STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P.A. 

Stuart A. Cnidstcin, lisq. Board Certified Aviation Law Allomcy 

9350 South Dixiu Hi^hwnv, 10th Floor T: (305) 670-1222 

Miiimi, FL 33156 ' F: (305) 670-7065 

August 25. 2011 

Via Facsimile (404) 305-5223 

and regular U. S. Mail 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Re: Dean International, Inc. 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0069 

Discovery Issues 

Dear Mr. Stevenson: 

This is in response to your letter of July 29, 2011, in which you assert certain 

"apparent deficiencies" in my client's responses to the Administrator's discovery 

requests. Although I do not believe any of my client's responses were deficient in any 

way, I have carefully reviewed your letter and make the following responses: 

1. With regard to Interrogatory (Int.) No. 5 and Requests For Production 

(RFP) Nos. 9 and 10, there are no deficiencies In the responses. Respondent properly 

and completely responded to the Interrogatory by stating there was no flight Instructor 

on those flights and, therefore, no flight Instruction took place. My client knows that 

none of the persons on those flights were flight instructors. This answer is based on Mr. 

Dean^s personal knowledge as indicated above his signature. The response to the 

RFPs is likewise compliant. There Is no basis for seeking records beyond the time 

period contemplated m the Complaint/Amended Complaint. Moreover, the documents 

upon which the response was made are. and have been, in the Administrator's 

possession for quite some time. 

2. Vfilh regard to Int. No. 8, there is no deficiency in the response. My client 

was asked to state with specificity the facts upon which the affirmative defense ("10 

hour overfly") was based and you assert my client did not adequately respond. The 
response refers you to the AD in issue. You claim in your letter the AD "says nothing 

about a 10-hour overfly, and nothing about the 100-hour inspections that are also at 

issue in this case " That is not correct. See paragraph 1 (C) of the AD. 

3 With regard to Int. No. 13, there is no deficiency in the response. As you 

know, the program is to be applied in a manner that is fair and reasonable with 

evenhanded consideration of all circumstances. The Administrator's sanction fails to 

meet this requirement in that it is unfair and harsh in the circumstances. Moreover, the 

Complaint does not identify the specific statutory provision upon which the penalty is 

based. 

4 With regard to Int. No. 14, the only deficiency you assert is a failure to 

describe conversations v^ith FAA personnel. Since you have complete access to the 

FAA personnel who conducted the inspection and/or who were in any way involved in 

this matter, you have the unfettered ability to secure this information. 

5, With regard to RFP No. 5, the only such documents meeting that request 

which the Administrator does not already have, are communications between 

Respondent and me and are, therefore, attorney-client and work-product privileged. 

6 With regard to RFPs 6, 7, and 8, the information as to when the 

maintenance was performed was provided to the Administrator early in this process and 

was included in the EIR. Those records form the basis of the Administrator's Complaint. 

We do not believe any other maintenance records are relevant to the issues identified in 

the Complaint/Amended Complaint. Further, you mischaracterize and misstate our 

Affirmative Defenses. 

7. With regard to RFPs 10 and 11, the Administrator has had ample 

opportunity to obtain the information from the pilots involved. Further, as explained in 

answer to tnt. No. 15, the pilots are identified in the documents the Administrator 

produced in response to Respondent's request for production and, therefore, were in 

the Administrator's possession long before the Complaint was prepared. Further, we 

identified the ivvo flight instructors involved, and stated we do not know Mr. Ramos's 

curient address. Your letter misstates Respondent's answer to RFP No. 11. That 

request for v^as the pilots's log books, which we do not have copies of. The 

Administratov can obtain these copies as easily as, or more easily than, Respondent. 

Without v/aiving our objections, we are producing herewith the flight training records for 

Messrs Ramos and Puerto for the date in question. Nevertheless, and without waiving 

any objections, we are producing herewith copies of the Company's records of Mr. 

Ramos and Mr Puerto for March 1, 2010, and for Mr. Ramos on April 22, 2010. 

Very truly yours, 
Doan intornaltoDal Inc. 

INSTRUCTORS (Independent Contract ) March 5, 2010 

r»bfuirv 19 2010 lo M»fth «. 2010 

•.tlMV 

; i .') " 

Dein Intamatloiul Inc. 

INSTRUCTORS (Independent Contract) April 30. 2010 

*pnl 18 2010 (o April I». 2010 

01 IJ.11 

Doan Intvmatlonil Inc. 

INSTRUCTORS (Independent Contract) March 5, 2010 

IjgilliHjr 

• zo^o 

• :c\ o 

.?!)10 

?iii;j 

•:oia 

• K^O 

no'l 

Don 

110)1 

IJDJl 

isan 

ito; ] 

i«a]i 

SLr^i(,,i|;rrt ri<jm,,.„. 

Sii-jli oiiflNie.'o" , 

^"^L« «..^iiir M^lt, [.r,« 

"••fl.* infliit ijjOLiiJ.i,* 

^j' B tug mi .,.FOLrfi Hfn* 

Snllfl.l fri^ine grOLno |tfT4 

OtJVPti EJUCmif * v 

Slin^i A/aCi' Aimiu 

Stul^i .IJlU Aljl't'C 

Cu'B-ifl EOUCJll Alf. 

SlLilr 4nfhtf AAhtCf 

^IijQJ Ift M .^jl'Do 

NSKIS 

r»)*i l 

.JHI; D 

^^^J^»B 

•,JS..l 

•.'.<' ; D 

1 ! 

' i 

1 A 

92 

Q ; 

0 1 

iDIll IlOsnl •<•