# SILVERBERG GOLDMAN, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Georgetown Place · Suite 300 · 1101 30th Street, NW · Washington, D.C. 20007 Voice Direct (202) 944-3300 · Facsimile (202) 944-3306 January 5, 2015
VL4FEDEX 

### Jt\N 

## 06

## 20!5 Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building 

## HEAFill\lG DOCKET Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 (Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) Re: In the Matter ofAirborne Maintenance and Engineering Services Docket: FAA-2013-0291 FAA CaseNo.: 2011 S0290032 Dear Sir orMadrun: Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case please find an original and one copy of Respondent's Reply to Complainant's Response to Renewed Motion for Sanctions and Answer to Complainant's Motion to Compel and Exclude. Also enclosed is an additional copy ofthe document and a pre-addressed, postage paid envelope. Please date-stamp the additional copy andreturn itto our office in the enclosed envelope. Thank you for your assistance. Please call me at the telephone number listed above ifyou have any questions regarding this matter. Verytruly yours, SILVERBERG GOLDMAN, L.L.P. Attorneys for AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND

# ::r;:;~ Robert P.

# Silverb~~

# R 

# IVED
BEFORE THE 

### JAN 0

## 62015 u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

## G DOCKET OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

## HEARIN

WASHINGTON, D.C.
Inthe matter of AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Respondent DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 FAA Case No. 2011S0290032

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan
RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RENEWED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ANSWERTO

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND EXCLUDE Respondent, Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services, Inc. ("AMES"), herebyresponds to Complainant's Response to Respondent's Renewed Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Compel and Exclude, dated December 19, 2014. This response includes a reply to certain arguments that Complainant made in its December 191 h 

### Response in connection with Respondent's Rule 37 Declaration and Renewal ofMotion for Sanctions, dated December 16, 2014, 1 

### and answers the Complainant's motion to compel and exclude (the "FAAMotion"). 

### I. Respondent's Reply To Complainant's Response To Renewed Motion For Sanctions The FAA claims that Respondent renewed its motion for sanctions "solely onthe basis that [FAA counsel] did not properly communicate with opposing counsel and the court withregards to the untimeliness" ofits initial expert disclosures. FAA Motion at 1. This is a mischaracterization ofRespondent's position. As Your Honor is aware, the

1 

### To the extent necessary, Respondent hereby moves for leave to file a reply to the Complainant's Response to Respondent's Renewed Motion for Sanctions.

### FAA served its initial expert disclosures onRespondent onDecember I, 2014 --13 days after the deadline for doing so set by the Court's September 30,2014 scheduling order. While FAAcounsel may have had good cause for failing to serve Complainant's initial expert disclosures by the November 191 h 

### deadline, the FAA has not provided a good
cause explanationfor never having asked the undersigned to accept the out ofdate disclosures and, ifhe refused, for not filing amotion withthe Court seeking to modify the litigation schedule to extendthe expert disclosure deadline. Instead, FAAcounsel simply served Complainant's initial expert disclosures onthe undersigned counsel13 days after they were due without even explaining to Respondent's counsel the reason for the delay,2 

### asking ifthe undersigned would agree to accept the disclosures after well after the deadline, or filing a motion with the Court seeking an extension ofthe deadline. The FAA's position seems to be that these or other similar actions were "neitherreasonable
nor necessary." FAA Motion at 2. The FAA should not be permitted to be so cavalier with the standing litigation schedule. AMES chose to renew its motion for sanctions only withrespect to Specialist Christensen (and notthe FAA'sthree otherproposed expert witnesses) since it is particularly prejudicedbythe FAA's late disclosure ofthis potential expert witness. The FAA claims,however, that Respondent renewed its motionto preclude Specialist Christensen's testimony "without any connectionbetweenthe FAA's supposed misconduct and the sanctions sought" (FAA Motion at 3-4) and that Respondent's notice to depose Specialist Christensen was merely an attemptto "generate an argument of

2 

### As previously noted, FAAcounsel had mentioned to the undersigned thathe hadbeen out ofthe office due to a family emergency, butthis statement was made in the context of attempting to reschedule the deposition ofInspector Lipinski and was notrelated to the late service ofthe FAA's initial expert disclosures. 

### 2prejudice for Respondent's renewed motion for sanctions." FAAMotion at 6. This is simply incorrect. The FAA's late initial expert disclosures wasthe first time that Respondent was advisedthatthe FAA would have Specialist Christensen testify. Priorto the FAA's disclosure on December 1 '', Specialist Christensenhadnever evenbeen mentionedto Respondent's counsel as a potential witness. After Your Honor issued the Order onDecember gthreserving Respondent's motionfor sanctions to preclude Specialist Christensen's testimony, it was notunreasonable for Respondent to seekto depose this witness, and it certainly was not done to "generate" a basis for prejudice.3 The undersigned counsel was preparedto depose Specialist Christensen at the FAA offices in Atlanta on December 19'\the day after Inspector Lipinski's deposition inthe
same location, had the FAAbeenwilling to make him available.4

3 Respondent served its Notice ofDepositionfor Specialist Christensen on December 9, 2014, one day after Your Honor's December 8th Order. See Exhibit 3 to Respondent's Ru1e 37 Declarationand Renewal ofMotion for Sanctions, dated December 16, 2014.
4 Complainant argues that "Respondent fails to indicate what otherpossible response there could be inthe situation, giventhe undersigned's previously scheduled flights and out-of-state holiday family travel[.]" FAA Motion at 5. Respondentunderstands thatthe assigned FAA counsel was scheduled to travel on December 19, 2014 for a holiday vacation. Nevertheless, ifthe assigned FAA counsel was unableto reschedule his travel plans, he couldhave asked another attorney inthe FAA's Southern Region to attend the deposition inhis place. This would have been a reasonable offerto make giventhat (1) the FAA had notrevealed Specialist Christensen as a potential witness until December 1'', (2) Respondent's counsel (and an AMES corporate representative) had agreed to travel a second time to take Inspector Lipinski's depositionthe day before in Atlanta after already having traveled to Orlando to take his depositionbut were unable to do so, and (3) Your Honor had suggested in a prior order that substitute FAA counsel could be assigned when inthe beginning ofNovember Complainant's counsel was suggesting that the rescheduling ofinspectorLipinski's deposition would be delayed until sometime in 2015. See OrderDenying Motion for Suspension ofLitigation, Re-Extending Deposition Deadline, and Reconfirming Remaining Litigation Dates, servedNovember 21, 2014, at 

### 5.
3

### Complainant also states that "opposing counsel made no effortto schedule the Christensen deposition when, during the week ofDecember 1, 2014, the parties engaged indiscussions about howto depose Inspector Lipinski" andthat [ d]espite havingreceived the FAA's expert disclosures, Respondent made no mention ofwanting to depose Christensen." FAA Motion at 6. However, these discussions, which were reallyjustemail exchanges, eithertook place earlier in the day onDecember 1st

### before the undersigned had received the FAA's expert disclosures that afternoon, or after receiving the FAA's expert disclosure when Respondent was requesting that Your Honorpreclude his testimony. Surely Complainant's counsel would have beenheardto argue that Respondent was being inconsistentto request that Your Honorpreclude Specialist Christensen's testimony and at the same time seekto take his deposition. As noted above, as soon as Your Honor reserved Respondent's motion for sanctions to preclude Christensen's testimony onDecember

## s'h, Respondent consideredthe need to issue a deposition notice for Specialist Christensen, who hadjustbeenrevealed to Respondent a few days earlier, and then did so the next day (on December 91 h). 

### The FAA argues withrespect to the deposition ofSpecialist Christensen that "Respondentprovides no explanation ofwhy it would be appropriate ornecessary for the parties to continue depositions after the close ofdiscovery." FAA Motion at4-5. Again, the FAA is simply incorrect. First, as Respondent noted onDecember 16, 2014 inits Rule 37 Declaration and Renewal ofMotion for Sanctions (page 4, footnote 5), FRCP 26(b)(4) specifically grants parties the right to depose any person who has been identified
as an expert witness. Further, while it is true that the proposedDecember 19th 

### date for Specialist Christensen's deposition was after the December 12'h 

### close ofgeneral



### 4

### discovery in this case, Respondent explained in its Rule 3 7 Declaration and Renewal of Motion for Sanctions (page 1, footnote 1) that this was a function ofthe FAA'slate disclosure ofSpecialist Christensen as apotential expert witness.5 

### Hadthe FAA disclosed Specialist Christensen in a timely manner, Respondent wouldhave had time to consider whether ornot to take his depositionbefore the close ofgeneral discovery. Complainant argues that"[ e]ven ifSpecialist Christensen hadbeen disclosed on November 19, 2014, there would have beenno opportunity for Respondent to depose him in the few weeks betweenthat date and the close ofdiscovery" onDecember 12th. 

### FAA Motion at 6. Putting aside the fact that ifSpecialist Christensenhad been disclosed to RespondentbyNovember 19th as was required, this would have provided Respondent three and one-halfweeks to schedule his deposition, the FAA neglects to mentionthat 11 months ago Respondent asked the FAAto identify all experts it expects to testify onits behalfat the hearing and to describe the substance ofthe experts' expected testimony and the opinions and facts upon whichthe testimony will be based. Exhibit 1 (Interrogatory No.3 included in Respondent's First Set oflnterrogatories and Document Requests to Complainant, dated February 6, 2014.) The FAA answered onMarch 24,2014by stating

5 

### Complainant also argues that the deposition period in this case came beforethe expert disclosures were due "andno provision was ever sought or made for conducting expert depositions." FAA Motion at 5-6. However, November 7, 2014 is specificallyreferred to in Your Honor's litigation schedule order as the "Deadline for Fact Witness Depositions." See 

### Order Granting/Denying Relief, and Modifying the LitigationDates and Procedures, served September 30,2014 (Emphasis added.) Moreover, Your Honor's prior litigation schedules in this case included deadlines for completing fact witness depositions and subsequent dates for completing general discovery, which specifically referenced "thetaking ofdepositions." See 

### Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, served November 7, 2013, and Order Setting NewLitigation Dates and Procedures, served June 23,2014. Since the deadline for taking fact witness depositions expiredbefore the deadline for completing general discovery, what depositions would have been taken beforethe close ofgeneral discovery ifnot expert depositions? 

### 5that it hadnot "identified which experts itwill use at hearing, althoughthe Aviation Safety Inspectors involved (including FrankLipinski, Bobby Evans, Jack Gasche, Richard D'Arcy, and Billie Steffey) maybe calleduponto provide experttestimony
.... When experts are identified, the informationrequested will beprovided inthe FAA's expert disclosures pursuantto Rule 26." Exhibit 2 (FAA's Second Response to Respondent's First DiscoveryRequests, dated March24, 2014). The FAA never mentioned in its interrogatory response that Specialist Christensenmay be called inthis
case as an expert witness and did not reveal this to Respondent's counseluntil the FAA's December l st expert disclosure

-- I0 months after Respondent requested this



### . fi
. 6 m ormatwn. As discussed in more detail below, the FAA attempts to make much ofthe fact thatRespondent did not more promptly disclose its witnesses inresponse to the FAA's discovery requests (FAA Motion at 8-13) all the while ignoringthe fact thatthe FAAhas acted in a similarmarmer. FAA counsel seems to think that Respondent should be sanctioned for not supplementing its interrogatoryresponses sooner, although Complainant's counsel does not wishto be held to the same standard. The irony ofthe

6 

### Itis also noteworthy thatthe deadline for exchanging initial expert disclosures hadbeen May 2, 2014 and that the FAA did notprovide Respondent with an expert disclosure statementbythis date. 

### See Order Setting LitigationDates and Procedures, served November 7, 2013. Although the litigation schedule was subsequently suspended on May 15, 2014 

### (see Order Granting Joint Motion to Suspend Litigation Dates) and new deadlines set for the exchange ofexpert disclosures, because Complainant did not disclose Specialist Christensen by the priorMay 

### 2"d deadline, and subsequentlybythe modified date for expert disclosures, Respondent's counsel had even less reason to think thatthe FAA would attempt to add a new expert witness who had not even been previously mentioned by Complainant as a possible expert in this case. Onthe other hand, Respondent met the May 

### 2"d deadline by serving the report ofits expert witness by the deadline.
6

### FAA'spositionis palpable given Complainant's "unclean hands" argument. FAA Motion at 7-8. The FAA claims inthe "Unclean Hands" section ofits Motionthat "Respondent's
own expert disclosures were themselves untimely" since JeffBecker and Jim Savastano
were not included in Respondent's initial expert disclosures and therefore AMES "cannot seek equitable relieffrom the Judge concerning the FAA's expert disclosures." FAA Motion at 7. While the disclosure ofJeffBecker and Jim Savastano as expert witnesses is addressed 

### inmore detail below, what is importantto note here is that Respondent is onlyproposingto offer Messrs. Becker and Savastano as expert witnesses to rebut any experttestimony offered by the FAA's late-disclosed expert witnesses. As to the FAA's argument that the proposedtestimony ofMessrs. Becker and Savastano is "nottied to the FAA's expert disclosures[,]" (id) 

### as the undersigned explained inhis December 17°' email to FAA counsel (Exhibit D to FAAMotion), FRCP 26(a)(2)(C) requires only a statement of"the subject matter on whichthe witness is expectedto present evidence
... [and] a summary ofthe facts and opinions to whichthe witness is expected to testifY." Giventhe summary nature ofthe FAA's own out-of-date initial disclosures it was not possible to provide (and the Rules do not require) a more detailed rebuttal. 

### II. Answer in Opposition to FAA Motion to Compel and Exclude Unlikethe situation when Complainant's counsel disclosed the existence ofits expert witnesses 13 days after the deadline for doing so, suggesting it had no cause to make any affirmative case for its late service, thereby presenting a flagrant violation of the litigation scheduling order, Complainant nowis seekingto exclude certaintestimony ofwitnesses for the Respondent onthe flimsiest ofpretexts-- namely the alleged failure

7to more promptly identify Respondent's witnesses eventhoughthe deadline for doing so is notuntil April9, 2015. Complainant's position seemsto be that it can ignore deadlines and even suggest doing so is ofno moment. 7 Onthe otherhand, based on Complainant's reading ofthe scheduling order, witness lists mustbe exchanged months in advance of the deadline for doing so and evenbefore Respondenthas made a firm determination regarding the witnesses it intends to call. Further, Complainant ignores the fact that supplementation ofdiscoveryresponses is not subjectto discovery deadlines, butis a continuing obligation. 

### Itis hard to comprehend the logic being usedby Complainantto support its motion to Motionto Compel andExclude. First, based onthis faulty logic, the Complainant seeks to have YourHonor exclude the testimony ofMr. Savastano as a potential non-expert witness, even though the Complainant concedes the disclosure ofthis possible witness was made before the end ofgeneral discovery8 FAA Motion at 9 and 12. Respondent's ExpertRebuttal Disclosures, served on Complainant on December 12, 2014, described the expert rebuttal testimonyto beprovided by Mr. Savastano and specifically noted that Mr. Savastano and

7 InYour Honor's Order dated December 8, 2014 (Order Reservingthe Respondent's Motion for Sanctions, and Directingthe Parties to Engage inRule 37 Discussion) you indicated in footnote 1thatyou were notthen addressing the contention ofComplainant's counsel that it can unilaterally adjust the litigation scheduling dates without consequence or otherwise seeking leave for filing beyondthe established deadline thereby forcing the opposing side to spend time and money to file a motionto force compliance. 

### It is assumedthatthe issues nowbeing raisedby Complainant's motionto compel and exclude will result ina ruling onthe Complainant's contentionthat deadlines are free to be ignored without consequence. 8 Complainant also moves to compel Respondent to complete its discovery responses regardingMr. Becker as a non-expert witness. As noted, however, Respondent served on Complainant a supplemental discoveryresponse on December23, 2014 that included informationregarding Mr. Becker as a fact and expert witness, among otherpotential witnesses. Exhibit4. 

### 8Mr. Becker, another ofRespondent's rebuttal experts, will also testifY as fact witnesses. 

### See Respondent's Expert Rebuttal Disclosures, datedJanuary 12,2014 at 1, footnote 1. Exhibit 3. Second, Complainant moves to exclude as a non-expert witness (otherthan Mr. Becker) any other Respondent witness, claiming that "Respondenthas refusedto identity any otherperson as a possible witness." FAA Motion at 12. Complainantmakes this argument eventhough, as noted, Mr. Savastano had also previouslybeendisclosed as a non-expert witness onDecember 121h (Exhibit 3) andthe FAAhadbeen advised that Respondent wouldbeproviding a supplemental response to Complainant's Interrogatory number 13 by December 23, 2014 

### (see ExhibitD to FAAMotion at page I) and which
was served on Complainant's counsel onthatdate consistent with §13.220(i) and Federal Rule 26(e)(i)(A). Exhibit 4. Complainant's request is therefore moot. Third, Complainantmoves to exclude Mr. Becker orMr. Savastano as being calledto rebutthe experttestimony ofComplainant's witnesses, because theirtestimony
as described inRespondent's December 12, 2014 expert rebuttal disclosure does not, in the FAA's view, rebutthe expectedtestimony ofComplainant's witnesses. Inthe alternative, Complainant asks that Respondentbe compelledto provide additional responses. Complainant also asks that Respondentberequiredto supplement the expert report ofDaniel J. Hancher, whichwas provided to Complainant over seven months ago onMay 2, 2014 and which he did nottake issue withuntiljustlast month.9 Respondent urges the Complainant's Motionto Compel andExclude be denied.

9 Despite the FAAraising issues withMr. Hancher's expertreport more than seven months after the FAAreceived it, Respondent's counsel advised Complainant beforethe FAA filed its Motionto Compel that Respondent would supplementthe expertreport 9

### Putting aside the fact that the FAAMotiondoes not indicate how Complainant hasreally beenprejudiced by the timing ofRespondent's interrogatory answers, Respondent submits the following. First, at the time ofthe deposition ofMr. Becker takenby Complainant's counsel, counsel for Respondent noted that while Mr. Becker would be testifying atthe hearing the determination ofothers who may be calledto testifY had notyet beenmade. See 

### Exhibit G to FAA Motion, Tr. page 187. Not being privy to counsel's consultations withthe Respondent, Complainant cannot seriously challenge that statement. Further, Complainanttakes exceptionto the fact that Respondent took the positionthat the witness listis notyet required to be exchanged. However, the current litigation scheduling order is clear on whenthe witness lists are to be exchanged. OnDecember 23,2014, Respondent listed additional witnesses thatcould appear for Respondent. Exhibit 4. This step was taken consistent withthe obligation of each partyto seasonably supplement its prior initial disclosures and discoveryresponses pursuantto§13.220(i) andFederal Rule 26(e)(l)(A). Moreover, the FAAfiled its Motionto Compel and Exclude despite having been advised that Respondent would be supplementing the relevant discovery responses onDecember 23, 2014. See 

### Exhibit D to FAA Motion at page 1. The requirementto updateprior discovery responses does not end when general discovery is over, but is a continuing requirement. See F. 

### T

### C. v. AMG Services, Inc., 

### 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10240, at *6 (D. Nev. Jan. 28, 2014); Star Direct Telecom. v. Global CrossingBandwidth, Inc., 

### 272 F.R.D. 350, 357 (W.D.N.Y. 2011).
with information onMr. Hancher's prior experttestimony and his compensation arrangements with AMES. See 

### Exhibit D to FAA Motion at page 2. The FAAnever consulted with Respondent's counsel about supplementingthe expertreport with information on Mr. Hancher's prior publications before filing its Motionto Compel seeking this information. FAA Motion at 8 (stating that Mr. Hancher's expertreport is incompletebecause it does not address his priorpublications). 10

### Nor does the rule require that as each newpiece ofinformation comes to the attention of
a party that a supplemental response is innnediatelyrequired. Neworupdatedresponses
canbe hatched and submitted seasonably thereafter. 

### Star Direct, Supra. As additional witnesses are identified, Respondent will update its interrogatory
answer. In fact, Respondent onlyreceived the depositiontranscript ofthe much delayed Lipinski deposition onDecember 30, 2014 and uponreview ofthe transcript Respondent may update again its response tothe Complainant's interrogatoryto supplythe names of otherpossible witnesses. As Your Honorknows, Respondent is in no way responsible for the delay in the scheduling ofthe Lipinski deposition and the resulting delay in obtaining the depositiontranscript even though the transcript was ordered onan expedited basis. In 

### short, there is absolutely nothing improper inthe manner inwhich Respondent has advised Complainant as to the identity ofits witnesses. 1 0 

### Much ofthe angst exhibitedby Complainant is based onthe incorrect assumption thatprior to the time any finn decision was made by Respondent as to which individuals would testifY onits behalf, that Respondent be compelledto make such a disclosure prior to the general discovery cutoffdate. There is no such obligation onRespondentto do so and to suggest lateness ofwitness disclosures whenwitness lists are not due to be exchanged until April 9, 2015 is obviously anincorrect reading by Complainant ofthe litigation scheduling order. In fact, a lengthy list ofindividuals knowledgeable about the

1

# ° Complainant's counsel even goes so far to assert that Respondent knew for a significantperiod oftime that Mr. Becker and Mr. Savastano would appear as witnesses but failed to update its interrogatory answers as ifhe couldpossiblyknow what and when Respondent's counsel had previously decided about those who would testifY. FAA Motion at II. Further, and somewhat recklessly counsel for Complainant argues that Respondent's counsel chose to rely on a "false" interrogatory when advising Complainantthat those who will testify for Respondent had not yet been determined. 

### !d. This kind offlamboyant charge comes very close to pleading in bad faith. 

### 11circumstances ofthis matter who could be usedto supportAMES's defenses was disclosed to Complainant onJanuary 14, 2014 when Respondent served its initial disclosures on Complainant. Exhibit 5 (Initial Disclosures, dated Jan. 14, 2014). AMES also supplementedthis information onMach 6, 2014 in its answerto Complainant's interrogatory no. 1. Exhibit 6. Despite having this list ofknowledgeable individuals for
over 11 months, Complainant only sought to take the deposition ofa single AMES witness

-- Mr. Becker. Complainant argues that the purported late identification of potential witnesses denies Complainantthe ability to submit supplemental discovery requests. FAAMotion at 13. This FAA claim rings hollow given (1) Complainanthad informationprovided by AMES over 11 months ago identifying the knowledgeable individuals inthis case, (2) Respondent disclosed the identity ofits expert witness bythe thenpending deadline and along with a copy ofthe expert's report, (3) the FAArevealed its possible expert witnesses 13 days 

### after the deadline for doing so, (4) Complainant refused to make Specialist Christensen available for deposition even when the notice was served within the discovery deadline 

### (see Exhibits 2 and 3 to Respondent's Rule 37 Declaration and Renewal ofMotion for Sanctions, dated December 16, 2014) and (5) otherwise claimed, without any supportwhatsoever, thatthe litigation schedule order did not contemplate takingthe depositions ofexpert witnesses. 

### See footnote 5 above. As to the timing ofthe identification ofRespondent's expert rebuttal witnesses, which disclosure was served on Complainant's counsel bythe December 12, 2014 deadline, the timing ofthis disclosure was based onthe lateness ofComplainant's disclosure ofSpecialist Christensen as one ofits expert witnesses, along with Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Evans and Mr. Gasche. This submission was a full 13 days late. Further,

12as to the substance ofthe experttestimonythat they may give, Complainant complains that the expertrebuttal testimony shouldhave been included inthe initial expert report as ifthe late-filed submissionofComplainant's expert witnesses was ofno consequence. Without concecling the timing ofRespondent's disclosure was untimely, Respondent surely was entitled to reactto the unexcused and late disclosure ofComplainant's experts byproposingto use expert rebuttal witnesses. FAA's fanciful argument that Respondent shouldbe precluded from calling any non-expert witness eventhough on December23, 2014 Respondent supplemented its response to interrogatory nos. 13 and 14 mustbe rejected. As noted, the requirement to seasonably supplement interrogatory responses is not subjectto any discovery deadline and under no reading of§13.220(i) or Federal Rule 26(e)(l)(A) canthe FAA'sproposed form ofreliefbe considered appropriate. In any event, Complainant has failed to make any compelling argumentthat ithas been prejudiced since it had the names ofall ofthe AMES knowledgeable officials when Respondent's initial disclosures were served on January 14, 2014 and supplemented on March 6, 2014. Exhibits 5 and 6. Taking a step backfrom the specifics ofthe FAA Motion, it might reasonably be suggestedthatthe high-octane procedural arguments beingpresented by counsel for the Complainant are being made to distract from the fact that Complainant's case is without any support infact or law. The deposition ofthe investigating inspector, Mr. Lipinski,
nowhaving finally beentaken, lays completelybare the FAA'stheory ofits case. Despite the fact that Complainanthas the burden ofproof(§13.224) --meaning itmust prove that AMES failed to performpropermaintenance on each ofthe three aircraft in question based onthe standard ofproof(§l3.233) ofreliable, probative, and substantial

13

### evidence

-- the Inspector admits he never saw any ofthe three aircraft when the main landing gear changes were frrst accomplished in August 2009, October 2009 and March 2010, respectively, as stated in the complaint. 11 

### The Inspector did not view any ofthe three aircraft until months later on May 25, 20!0. Inspector Lipinski is unable to provide any testimony about the actual condition ofthe aircraft onthe days whenthe FAA's Complaint alleges the maintenance was improperlyperformed. In addition, Inspector Lipinski admits thathe did not see the aircraft until two to nine months after the gear changes were performed, concedes that he did not see the condition ofthe aircraft whenthey were returned to the AMES facility to address the inspector's findings, admits thathe did not observe any operational check of the landing gear doors at any time, and denies that alternative factors such as wear and tear or any intervening maintenance, such as routine tire, wheel and brake changes, could have had any 

### impact onthe condition ofthe flying doors even after months ofoperation and thousands ofgear actuations. Exhibit 7 (Lipinski Tr, pages 202-205). 12 

### This is so
eventhough the landing gears were exercised (meaning havingbeen raised and lowered)
a total of784 times on aircraftN899AA, 628 times on aircraftN898AA, and 172 times

11 

### Specifically, the main landing gear replacements were signed offonJuly 31, 2009, September 29,2009 and March 22,2010. 12 

### Complainant's March 18,2014Motionto Compel to respond the FAA's Interrogatory No. 12 asking Respondent to "Describe in detail the physical condition ofthe landing gear and flying door assemblies at issue in this matter..." was denied ruling that Respondent was correct inrelying upon the dates set forth inthe Complaint as guidance in answering the interrogatoryposedbyComplainant. (Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the FAA's Motionto Compel the Respondent to AnswerFAA Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 12, dated April17, 2014). While Complainant sought a response for the entire timeperiod from August 2009 to May 2010, the ruling was that the physical condition ofthe three aircraft on dates otherthanthose specified inthe Complaint are simply not at issue. 14

### on aircraft N287SC. Further, the inspector admitted that the Boeing maintenance manual directed the maintenance providerto section 32-12-11 step 501 and not step 401 that the FAA incorrectly alleges was the proper sectionto have been referencedby AMES in completing the landing gear change. Exhibit 7 (Lipinski Tr. pages 28-29). In 

### short, the FAA's case was suspect from day one becausethe FAA did not come upon the aircraft in question until months after the fact, andbecause the FAAcannot prove AMES failed to follow the steps called out in the maintenance manual, raising a question ofwhythe case was evenpursuedby the agency. The Complainanthas obviously determined that its best hope at this time is to attemptto raise procedural issues to detract from the inherent weakness ofits affirmative case. 13

13 

### Respondent will not be distracted by Complainant's tactics and will avail itselfofthe opportunityto file a dispositive motion at the appropriate time and will demonstrate clearly and objectivelythat the FAA cannotprove the allegations made regarding the maintenance services provided by the Respondent. 15AMES has met its obligations to engage in good faith discovery during the protracted discoveryperiod, and nothingpresented by Complainant suggests otherwise. Complainant is way out ona procedural limb withits Motionto Compel andExclude, claiming ithas beenprejudiced by Respondent's discovery disclosures, includingtheir timing, when itwas Complainantthat acted without regard to the deadlines inthe scheduling order. Onthe otherhand, Complainanthas been dilatory by any objective
measure. Accordingly, Complainant's Motion to Compel and Exclude should be denied and Respondent's pending motion to preclude the testimony ofSpecialist Christensen should be granted.

Dated: January 5, 2015 Respectful!y submitted, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN, L.L.P. Attorneys for 

### AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENG EERING SERVICES By:

# __:,~~~'---L....~.L:IL'~"4-­ Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306 Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

16

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythat onthis 5th day ofJanuary 2015, I caused the foregoing Respondent's Reply to Complainant's Response to Renewed Motion for Sanctions and Answerto Complainant's Motionto Compel and Exclude to be serveduponthe following: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 (Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) Tel: (202) 385-8227 (original and one copy by FedEx overnight delivery) The Hon. J.E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Tel: (202) 366-2132 Fax: (202) 366-7536 (one copy by facsimile and First Class Mail) Christopher 

### R. Stevenson, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7 SouthernRegion Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 Tel: (404) 305-5200 Fax: (404) 305-5223 (one copy by facsimile and First Class Mail) 

# ).tctiU.:t**~,_** Robert P. Silverberg 

# 7'In the matter of BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 CaseNo. 2011S0290032 AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan Respondent
RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO COMPLAINANT Pursuant to Rule 220 ofthe Federal AviationAdministration's Rules ofPractice, 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220, and Rules 26 and 33 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, Respondent Airborne Maintenance andEngineering Services ("AMES") hereby requests that Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") respond, under oath, to the following interrogatories within 30 days ofservice in the mannerprovided in 14 C.P.R. § 13.220(k). Pursuant to Rule 220 ofthe FAA's Rules ofPractice, 14 C.P.R. § 13.220, and Rules 26 and 34 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent AMES further requests that Complainant FAA produce for inspection and copyingthe documents requested below. Production should bemadewithin 30 days ofserviceto the office ofSilverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P., 1101 30tl1 Street, N.W., Suite 120, Washington, D.C. 20007, or such otherplace as maybemutually agreed upon. These discovery requests are continuing in nature, andthe FAAis required to supplement or amend its responses hereto in accordance with 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220(i) and Rule 26(e) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Exhibit 12. To the extent not included in the FAA's Initial Disclosures, identity all persons known bythe FAA to have knowledge ofthe facts and matters at issue in the Complaint. ANSWER:

3. Identify any and all experts the FAA expects to testify on its behalfat the hearing
onthis matter. For each such expert:
a. Describe the substance ofthe expert's expected testimony and the opinions and the facts upon which that testimony and those opinions will be based; and b. Provide the expert's occupation, title, telephone number, business address, educational background and current curriculum vitae. ANSWER:

4. Identify all other witnesses the FAA expects to testify on its behalfat the hearing
onthis matter. To the extent notincluded in the FAA's Initial Disclosures:
a. Describe the substance ofeach witness's expected testimony and the facts upon which that testimony will bebased; and b. Provide each witness's occupation, title, telephone number and business address. ANSWER:



### 6employees or agents, concerning the performancebyAMES ofaircraft repair and maintenance services for CCIA, includingthe decision byCCIA to use AMES for such services.

Dated: February 6, 2014 Respectfully submitted, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. Attorneys for AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

# ::CR:/ZES

RobertP.

# Silverberg~

14 II01 30th Street, N.W. Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306 Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

# c



# c



# c ( 

# c

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION



### FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant,
vs. DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, Respondent. Judge Sullivan

SECOND RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS



### Not waiving and not withstanding its prior objection to the untimeliness ofRespondent's discoveryrequests, the FAA hereby responds as follows: Interrogatories 

### Interrogatory #1: Aviation Safety Inspectors Evans, Lipinski, Gasche, and D'Arcy each assisted in answering the interrogatory concerning his own experience and qualifications. Inspector Lipinski assisted in answering Interrogatories #3, 4, and #13. The undersigned participated in answering all responses.


### Interrogatory #2: FAA Aviation Safety Inspector Billie Steffey, 8800 Beck Rd., Belleville, MI 48111. All other persons knownto have information onthis subject were disclosed inthe FAA's initial disclosures, or inthe Respondent's discovery responses.



### Exhibit 2

# c ( 

# ( Interrogatory 

### #3: The FAA has not identified which experts it will use at hearing, although the Aviation Safety Inspectors involved (including Frank Lipinski, Bobby Evans, Jack Gasche, Richard D'arcy, and Billie Steffey) may be called upon to provide expert testimony concerning their personal observations ofthe aircraft at issue. When experts are identified, the information requested will be providedin the FAA's expert disclosures pursuantto Rule 26.
Interrogatory #4: 

### The only witnesses the FAA has identified atthis point are the Aviation Safety Inspectors involved (noted above), who are expected to testify as described in the FAA's initial disclosures, as described in statements inthe EIR, and as noted below. Inspector D'Arcy has the
same location information as Inspectors Lipinski and Gasche. Inspector Steffey personally observed the condition of the aircraft in question, and spoke with Respondent's personnel 

# c (including its DQC and DOM) about the situation, including their oral admissions that Respondent had not done the rigging properly.
Interrogatory 

### #5: Inspector Evans received atwo-year Electronics/Communications Certification from Ashland TechnicalNocational School in Ashland, KY, in 1987. He received an FCC general license in 1990. Inspector Evans served as an Avionics/Electronics Technician with the Ashland, Inc. Flight Department from 1988 through 2008. Inspector Evans held a repairman certificate from 1990 through 2008. He no longer holds the repairman certificate because repairman certificates are repair station specific and he no longer works for that repair station. Since 2001 Inspector Evans has held a Mechanic Certificate with Airframe and Powerplant ratings. Inspector Evans has been employed by the FAA as an Aviation Safety Inspector since 

# c 2008.BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.


### Inthe matter of DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Respondent Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan
RESPONDENT'S EXPERT REBUTTAL DISCLOSURES 

### Pursuantto the Order Granting/Denying Relief, and Modifying the LitigationDates and Procedures, served September 30,2014, and Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (a)(2)(C), Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Service ("AMES") hereby provides the following expertrebuttal disclosures: 1) Jeffrey Beckerand James Savastano: Mr. Becker, the AMES Director, Quality Assurance & 

### Training, and Mr. Savastano, the AMES Vice President ofTechnical Operations and former Vice President ofMaintenance at Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc., will provide expert testimony as necessary to rebut any expert and opiniontestimony provided by Complainant's witnesses.' Mr. Becker's and Mr. Savastano's expertrebuttal testimony may include testimonyregarding the minor nature ofthe discrepancies claimed by the FAA, the extent ofthe corrective actiontaken and the cause ofthe discrepancies, namely wear and tear and intervening third-party maintenance and not the result ofthe alleged improper installation or rigging ofthe flying doors by AMES. Messrs. Becker and Savastano may also testify that the likely cause ofthe N287SC air return was vibration caused by the aircraft's rudder assembly

1 

### Messrs. Becker and Savastano will also testify as a fact witnesses and mayprovide opinion testimony under Rule 701 ofthe Federal Rules ofEvidence. 

### Exhibit 3bushings and not AMES's installation or rigging ofthe aircraft's flying doors. Messrs. Becker and Savastano may further testify thatthe flying doors were initially installed and rigged by Respondentin accordance with the applicable AircraftMaintenance Manuel provisions. 2) Daniel J. Hancher: Respondent incorporates byreference the expertreport of Daniel J. Hancher, dated April30, 2014. Mr. Hancher maytestify as described inhis expert report as necessary to rebut expert and opiniontestimony provided by Complainant's witness.

Dated: December 12, 2014 Respectfully submitted, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. Attorneys for 

### AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SER CES

# By:____!,}_~~""**~lf~m~~-** Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306 Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that onthis 12'h day ofDecember 2014, I causedthe foregoing Respondent's Expert Rebuttal Disclosures to be served uponthe following: Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region Federal AviationAdministration P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 Tel: (404) 305-5200 Fax: (404) 305-5223 (one copy byfacsimile andFirst Class Mail)In the matter of BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 Case No. 2011S0290032 AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative LawJudge I.E. Sullivan Respondent
RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FAA'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS Pursuant to Rule 220 ofthe Federal Aviation Administration's Rules ofPractice, 14 C.F.R. § 13.220, Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby supplements its responses to Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Interrogatory nos. 13 and 14. Respondent reserves the right to further supplement or amend these responses. 13. Identify each person you may call as a witness at hearing inthis matter, identify the subject oftheir testimony, and summarize the substance oftheir expected testimony. You do not need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but you must expand onthose answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory. ANSWER: In AMES's initial disclosures, dated January 14,2014,the names of individuals knowledgeable aboutthe circumstances ofthis matter who could be used to support AMES's defenses were disclosed to Complainant. AMES also supplemented this information in its answer to Complainant's interrogatory no. 1. See Respondent's Responses to FAA's First Discovery Requests, dated Marcb 6, 2014. Further, the date for the exchange ofwitness lists by the parties is notuntil April 9, 2015. However, consistent with the obligation ofeachparty to seasonally supplement its prior initial disclosures and discovery responses pursuantto Rule of Practice 220(i) and Federal Rule 26(e)(l)(A), AMES has now determined that the following individuals will be called as witnesses byAMES. Jeffr-ey Becker, the AMES Director, Quality Assurance & Training, and James Savastano, the AMES Vice President ofTechnical Operations and former Vice President of Maintenance at Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc. ("CCIA"), are expectedto provide testimony as fact witnesses, including providing opiniontestimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, or as expe1t witnesses as necessary to rebut any expert or opinion testimony provided by Complainant's witnesses, regarding the minor nature ofthe discrepancies claimed by the FAA, the extent ofthe corrective action taken and the cause ofthe discrepancies, namely wear and tear and intervening third-party maintenance and not the result ofthe alleged improper
Exhibit 4installation or rigging ofthe flying doors by AMES. Messrs. Becker and Savastano may also testify thatthe likely cause ofthe N287SC air return was vibration caused by the aircraft's rudder assembly bushings and not AMES's installation or rigging ofthe aircraft's flying doors. Messrs. Becker and Savastano may further testify that the flying doors were initially installed and rigged by Respondent in accordance with the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual provisions. James Savastano will also provide testimony regarding the inappropriate and inflammatory statements Inspector Frank Lipinski made evidencing his bias against AMES and that Inspector Lipinski told him that CCIA should use another repair stationby name, specifically Flightstar Aircraft Services, LLP, for its aircraft repair and maintenance services instead ofAMES. Mr. Savastano will also testify that he filed a complaint against Mr. Lipinski and that he was interviewedby the FAAregarding the allegations inhis complaint. Steven Santangelo, the former Director ofQuality Control and ChiefInspector ofCCIA, will provide testimony regarding the inappropriate and inflammatory statements Inspector Frank Lipinski made evidencing his bias against AMES. Mr. Santangelo will also provide testimony that Inspectors Lipinski and Richard D'Arcy suggestingthat ifCCIA removed AMES from its D-091 Operations Specifications (essential maintenance provided list) that it would benefit CCIA in another potential enforcement action. Dennis Manibusan, the former President ofCCIA, will provide testimony regarding a meeting he attended with Robert Talmadge, Manager ofthe FAA's South Florida Certificate Management Office, to express concerns that Inspector Lipinski had been and was continuing to abuse his discretion and act inappropriately in overseeing the operations ofCCIA, including providing examples ofintimidating, harassing, abusive and inappropriate behavior onthe part of Inspector Lipinski, and Inspector Lipinski's insistence that CCIA cease its business relationship with AMES andinstead use Flightstar Aircraft Services, LLP for aircraft repair and maintenance services. AMES may also call FAA Inspectors Jack Gasche and Billie Steffey as rebuttal witnesses for Respondent. 14. Identify each person you may call as an expert witness inthis matter, identify the subject oftheir testimony, summarize the substance oftheir expected testimony, and describe in detail your basis for believing that the witness is an expert. ANSWER: The individuals Respondent may call as expert witnesses in this matter are Daniel J. Hancher and the other individuals identified in Respondent's Expert Rebuttal Disclosures, served December 12,2014. The substance ofMr. Hancher's expectedtestimony is provided inhis expert report, dated April30, 2014, which report was sent to you on May I, 2014. A smnmary ofthe expert rebuttal testimony expected to be providedby Messrs. Becker and Savastano was provided in Respondent's Expert Rebuttal Disclosures.' The qualifications of Mr. Hancher to serve as an expert are described in paragraphs 1 and 2 ofhis expertreport and in

1As noted, Messrs. Becker and Savastano will also testify as fact witnesses and mayprovide opinion testimony under Rule 701 ofthe Federal Rules ofEvidence. 2Exhibit 1thereto. Mr. Beckerholds a Bachelor ofScience Aeronautical Engineering Degree from Embry-Ridd1e Aeronautical University and a Masters ofBusiness Administration from Xavier University and has beenlicensed by the State ofCalifornia as a professional engineer. Mr. Beckerhas 28 years ofexperience in the aeronautical field. Mr. Savastano is a licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic and a graduate ofBarry University. Since 1980 Mr. Savastano has held ofnumber ofmanager, department head, and vice presidentpositions at firms holding Parts 135, 121 and 145 authority. At AMES, Mr. Savastano is responsible for all Part 145 MRO activities in connection with four major product lines, namely, heavy maintenance, line maintenance, componentrepair and overhaul, and engineering. Priorto joining AMES, Mr. Savastano was the Vice President ofAirline Maintenance and CCIA.

Dated: December23, 2014 Respectfully submitted, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. Attorneys for AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

# >ONG7G SERVICES
By 

# Rotf

# !::M~

3 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306 Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

# SILVERBERG GOLDMAN& 

# BIKOFF, L.L.P. GEORGETOWN PLACE • SU!TF.J20 • 1101 30TI!STREET, NW • \1/AS!-IJ'<GTON,D.C. 20007 VorCE (202) 944-3300 • fACSIMILE (202) 944-3306 ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Via E-Mail andFirst Class Mail Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7 Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 January 14,2014

Re: Inthe Matter ofAirborne Maintenance and Engineering Services DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 Case No. 201JS0290032 Dear Mr. Stevenson: Pursuant to Ordering Paragraph I ofthe Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, served by Judge Sullivan in the above-referenced case on November 7, 2013, please find two attachments containing the initial disclosures prescribed by Rule 26(a)(J)(A) of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure ofAirborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES"). Attachment 1 contains a list of individuals likely to have discoverable information that may be used to support AMES's defenses (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l)(A)(i)). Attachment 2 contains a list of docwnents that AMES has in its possession, custody and control that may be used to support AMES's defenses (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l)(A)(ii)). Regarding the infom1ation described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l)(A)(iii) and (iv), AMES is not seeking any damages at this time, nor is AMES aware ofany insurance coverage that may satisfy all or part ofa possiblejudgment or indemnify or reimburse AMES for payments made to satisfy ajudgment.

Exhibit 5Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney January 14,2014 Page 2 Because these initial disclosures are made without the benefit ofany discovery, AMES reserves the right to amend its disclosures to add additional witnesses or documents as they may become known.

Enclosures: Attachments 1 and 2 Veq truly yours, 

### SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & 

### BIKOFF, LLP Attorneys for AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND**EN~RING** SERVICES

# By:~~ Robert P. SilverbergATTACHMENT 1Performed offmaintenance ofSituation

ofSituation

offmaintenance*Former Employee-Last Known Phone number ofSituation

off maintenanceInthe matter of BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 CaseNo. 2011 S0290032 AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan Respondent
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO FAA'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS Pursuantto Rule 220 oftheFederal Aviation Administration's Rules ofPractice, 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.220,Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby answers and objects to ComplainantFederal Aviatiou Administration ("FAA") First Discovery Requests. INTERROGATORIES 1. For each personlisted inyour initial disclosures, describe in detailthatperson's knowledge ofand involvement withthis matter, including [sic] not limited to what maintenance that personperformed, whatknowledge ofthe situationthatperson has, and any communications thatperson had with others aboutthe situation. ANSWER: The knowledge and involvement ofeachperson listed intheRespondent's Initial Disclosures, including the maintenance that eachperformed, is as showninAttachment 1 enclosed herewith. Attachment 2 also enclosed herewith includes a list ofadditional individuals who were not included in AMES's Initial Disclosures, datedJanuary 14, 2014, butwho AMES has subsequently identified as relating to the reworkperforn1ed on thethree aircraft. AMES is hereby supplementing its Initial Disclosures with this information. AMES is not aware ofany informal communications between any ofthe listed maintenance technicians concerning this matter. Those AMES employees listed as having general knowledge ofthis matterhave discussed among themselves the FAA's allegations against AMES and AMES defenses thereto. Inaddition, either individually or as a group some oftheAMES employees with generalknowledge ofthis matter havediscussed and consulted withAMES counsel regarding AMES' defense and respome to the FAA's allegations. These discussions and consultations are privileged. 2. Ifyou assertthat the inspector's statement inthis matter (inclusive ofrecords of conversation [sic], e-mails, memoranda, or other documents), as containedinthe EIR, contain any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify 1 

### Exhibit 612. Admit that AMES did not use AMM Chapter 32-12-ll whenre-installingthe flying doors onN899AA, N898AA andN287SC. ANSWER: Denied. See answer to interrogatory 18 above.

Dated: March 6, 2014 Respectfully submitted, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN &BIKOFF, L.L.P. Attomeys for 

### AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES By:

# ----'~~~cc'A~.**'o..JC_~~~---** Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 1101301 h Street, N.W. Suite 120

12Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306 Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

### ATTACHMENT 1Thefollowing is a listofpersons involved in the initial gearchanges, segregated by the respective aircraft registration numbers. The list includes the respective maintenance record entrycorrespondingto the maintenance or inspection actionsin the event. We are notaware ofany communicationsthatany ofthese persons have had with others about this situation since thetiming ofthe events in the EIR.

Name. 

## !A/C Relevant Record· W/0 900010101 non-routine 0008 RT MLG, Partial entries Aaron Kloak N899AA 6,8,9 Charles Fitzgerald N898AA CCIA logpage 67443 AWR dated 1Q-24-09 Dan Snapp N287SC Wings W/0 10840, non-routine 0003, Wings W/0 10840, non-routine 0004, Dave Hopper NS99AA W/0 900010101 non-routine 0008 RT MLG Partial entry 2 W

/0 900010101 non-routine 0007 LT MLG, Partial entries 3,4,5,6,7. W/0 900010101 non-routine 0008 RT MLG, David Johanson N899AA Partial entries 4, 8, 9 Doug Beichler N287SC W/0 900018220, partial work sheet 3, page 2 of3, entry 13 W/0 900018220, partial work sheet 3, page 2 of3, entry 15 Wings W/0 10840, non-routine 0003, partial# 2, entry 4 Fred Schatzmann N287SC Logpage 90919 AWR and General Knowledge as Supervisor Greg Miller N898AA W/0 10017 Non-Routine 0030 partial7, 9 R/R RMLG Wings W/0 10840, non-routine 0003, partial work sheet 2, Karl Morrell N287SC entry 8 W/0 10017 Non-Routine 0029 & partiall, 3,-9, R/R LMLG, W/0 10017 Non-Routine 0030, R/R RMLG & Michael Martin N898AA partiall, 3, 4, 8-10 W/0 900010101 non-routine 0008 RT MLG, Partial entries Stephen Moh\ar N899AA 11 N898AA W/0 10017 Non-Routine 0029 & partial2 R/R LMLGW/0 10017 Non-Routine 0029 & partial1, 3-8, R/R LMLG, W/0 10017 Non-Routine 0030, R/R RMLG & Steve Daulton N898AA partial1, 3, 4, 8 W/0 900010101 non-routine 0007 LT MLG, Partial entries 1, 2, W/0 900010101 non-routine 0008 RT MLG, Partial N899AA entries 5, 6, Todd Norton N287SC Partial work sheet II 3, entry 1120 W/0 900010101 non-routine 0007LT MLG, Partial entries 3-10, W/0 900010101 non-routine 0008 RT MLG, Partial entries 1,3,4,8, W/0 900010101 non-routine 2116- Gear Wendell Hughes N899AA Swing**~** W/0 10017 Non-Routine 0029 & partia12 R/R LMLG, W/0 N898AA 10017 Non-Routine 0030 partial2 R/R RMLG William "Tim" Ashford N287SC Wings W/0 10840, non-routine 0003, entry 4, R+R LMG W/0 10017,Non-Routine 0030, signed insp. Block, partial N898AA 10 R/R RMLG. W/0 10017, J/C 0029,partial9, R/R LT MLG W/0 N899AA 900010101 non-routine 0008 RT MLG Partial, entry 2,3.
Thefollowing list includes those technicians thatworked on the righthand MLG on N287SC following the airturn-back at KCVG and the subsequentvibration inspections. The listincludesthe respective maintenance record entry correspondingto the maintenance or inspection actions in the event. We are not aware ofany communications that any ofthese persons have had with others about this situation since the timing ofthe events in theEIR.

Name A/C Relevant Record**~** Supplemental sheet 287SC+88224, page 2 of4, item 116 (actuator hushing replacement) Logpage entry regarding Christopher Herzog N287SC vibration Supplementai"Sheet 287SC+88224, page 2 of4, item#7 Kurtis Masek N287SC (vibration inspection) Logpage entry regardingvibration L/P 88224, Item 1, dated 04-12-10 Logpage entry regarding MattAngst N287SC vibrationTI1e following is a list ofpersons involved in the reworkofaircraftN287SC, Nl\99AA, N898AA in ILN following ferry flights from TOLand BDL, segregated by therespective aircraft registration numbers. The list includes the respective maintenance record entry correspondingto the maintenance or inspection actions in the event. We are not aware ofany communications that any ofthese personshave had with others aboutthis situation sincetl1e timing ofthe events inthe EIR.

·Narne A/C Relevant Record ·'. .·.·.·· ... ···.··• .. AMES Discrepancy Notice Q20294, General knowledge and Alan "Mike" Hall N287SC created non-routines A-Check- AMES Discrepancy Notice Q20287- CCIA CCIA Brady Stevens N287SC CAR QAACVG005 and QAACVG006 AMES Discrepancy Notice Q20287 - CCIA CAR QAACVG005 N898AA and QAACVG006 WO 11972 non-routine 0011, WO 11972 non-routine 0012, Brian See N898AA WO 11972 non-routine 0013, WO 11972 non-routine 0029 Dave Hopper N287SC WO 12063 non-routine0003 partial1 WO 11972 non-routine 0001, WO 11792 non-routine 0002 partial 9, WO 11972 non-routine 0011, WO 11972 nonroutine 0013, WO 11972, Non-routine 0026, 11972 nonroutine 0027, 11972 non-routine 0028, 11972 non-routine N898AA 0029 WO 12030 non-routine 0001, WO 12030 non-routine 0003, WO 12030 non-routine 0004, WO 12030 non-routine 0005, WO 12030 non-routine0006, WO 12030 non-routine 0007 WO 12030 non-routine 0008, WO 12030 non-routine 0009, WO 12030 non-routine0011, WO 12030 non-routine 0012, WO 12030 non-routine 0013, WO 12030 non-routine0014, WO 12030 non-routine 0015, WO 12030 non-routine 0016, N899AA WO 12030 non-routine0002 partial9 W/0 12030 Non-Routine 0003, W/0 12030 Non-Routine N899AA 0004

. Dave Shaw N287SC WO 12063 Non-Routine 0006 WO 12030 non-routine 0009, WO 12030 non-routine Dennis Smith N899AA 00010, N898AA WO 11792 non-routine 0028 N287SC WO 12063 non-routine 0010, WO 12063 non-routine 0009 WO 12030 non-routine 0012, WO 12030 non-routine 0013, Don Hayes N899AA WO 12030 non-routine 0015 Doug Atterson N899AA WO 12030 non-routine 0007, WO 12030 non-routine 0011 WO 11972 non-routine 0001 partial2, WO 11972 nonDoug Marine N898AA routine 0002 partial 2, 11972 non-routine 0021N287SC WO 12063 Non-Routine 0001 General Knowledge, Generated Non-Routines, WO 12063 Fred Schatzmann N287SC non-routine 0008 N899AA WO 12030 non-routine 0002 WO 12030 non-routine 0008 partial 2, 3, WO 12030 nonroutine 0004, WO 12030 non-routine 0005, WO 12030 Gary Moore N899AA non-routine 0006, WO 12030 non-routine 0008 WO 11972 non-routine 0005, WO 11972 non-routine 0006, WO 11972 non-routine 0008, WO 11972 non-routine 0014, 

# I

11972 non-routine 0016, 11972 non-routine 0017, 11972 non-routine 0018, 11972 non-routine 0019, 11972 nonN898AA routine 0020, 11972 non-routine 0023 Gary Poland N287SC WO 12063 non-routine 0003 partiall Gregory Szwec N898AA WO 11972 non-routine 0003, WO 11972non-routine 0010 WO 12063 non-routine#0002 WO 12063 non-routine #0003, WO 12063 Non-Routine N287SC 0004, WO 12063 Non-Routine 0006 Harry Boatman N899AA WO 12030 non-routine 0014

. N898AA WO 11972 non-routine0027 John carson N899AA WO 12030 non-routine 0008 John Peterson N898AA WO 11972, Non-routine 0026 WO 11972 non-routine 0003, WO 11972 non-routine 0004, WO 11972 non-routine 0008, WO 11972 non-routine 0014, John Schultz N898AA
. 11972 non-routine 0016, 11972 non-routine 0020 Karl Morrell N898AA W/0 11792 non-routine 0031 Keith Phelps N898AA WO 11792 non-routine 0006 Mark Aselage N899AA WO 12030 non-routine 0003, WO 12030 non-routine 0004 N287SC WO 12063 non-routine 0002 WO 12030 non-routine 0008 partial 2, 3, WO 12030 nonMatthew Scott Ill N899AA routine 0016 N898AA Generated WO 11792 non-routine 0031 WO 12030 non-routine 0005 partial entry 1, WO 12030 Michael Baron N899AA non-routine 0005 partial entry 1 (Management) AMES Discrepancy Notice Q20287- CCIA Mike Ebert
. N287SC CAR QAACVGOOS and QAACVG006 Mike Fahrubel N898AA General knowledge, WO 11972 non-routine 0003 Mike Martin N898AA WO 11972 non-routine 0002, partial 5, 10 Nadim Constantine N898AA WO 11972 non-routine0001 partial entry 1

. Paul Freiberger N287SC WO 12063 Non-Routine 0003, WO 12063 Non-Routine0004 WO 12030 non-routine 0005, partial entry 2, WO 12030 Rich Lanning N899AA non-routine 0006, partial entry 2 WO 12063 Non-Routine 0001, generated 12063 NonN287SC Routine 0005 11972 non-routine 0015, 11972 non-routine 0017, 11972 Rick Gauger N898AA non-routine 0018, 11972 non-routine 0019, Ryan Dailey N287SC AMES Discrepancy NoticeQ20293 N898AA General knowledge, WO 11792 non-routine 0009 

## ' Stephen Mohlar N898AA WO 11972 non-routine 0023 WO 11972 non-routine 0002, partial 8, 10, WO 11972 nonSteve Daulton N898AA routine 0009, 11972 non-routine 0015 Steve Vaughn N287SC General Knowledge and Created NRs. Tim Colonel N287SC WO 12063 non-routine 0008, 0009, 0010 AMES Discrepancy Notice Q20288, WO 12030 non-routine N899AA 0002 Tim Pahin N898AA WO 11792 non-routine 0005 Virgil Wirebaugh N899AA WO 12030 non-routine 0001, N898AA WO 11972 non-routine 0010, 11972 non-routine 0021 Wendell Hughes N898AA W/0 11792 non-routine 0031
Thefollowing is a list ofpersonsthat have general knowledge ofthe events, provided insight, management direction and have perspectives in general context on the series ofevents in part or whole,

Name Relevant Record AlanJ. Wilkinson FAA/Overall event knowledge Billie Steffey FAA/Overall event knowledge/Present atToledo Visit Brady Templeton General knowledge of situation Dan Boggs General knowledge of situation/Present at Toledo Visit Dave Hobgood General knowledge of situation Dennis Manibusan General knowledge ofsituation Ed Lippincott General knowledge ofsituation James Savastano General knowledge of situation Jeff Becker . General knowledge ofsituation/Present atToledo Visit Marlene C. Hewitt General Knowledge of Situation/Performed QA functions/CAR issues Randy Myers General Knowledge of Situation/Performed QA functions/CAR issues Robert "Chris" Brown General knowledge ofsituation Wes Ballard General knowledge ofsituation (replaced Mike Ebert) Mark Sommers KCVG onsite CCIA Tech Rep, Signed Rll for work immediately followingVibration Inspections on N287SC James Camp CCIA Onsite Tech Rep at ILN during initial Gear changesATTACHMENT 2Aaron Kloak Brian See

Dave Shaw David Johanson Smith Don

Fred Schatzmann r Farms Springs Rd. 

### sc 59483

Unknown

NPerformed and/or signed off Keith Phelps Tech TBD TBD maintenenace related tasks n 145 Hunter Drive Performed and/or signed off Kurtis Masek Tech Wilmington, OH 45177 937 302 9158 maintenenace related tasks y 4011 S. Beechgrove Rd 937 383 1605 Performed and/orsigned off Matt Angst Tech

. Wilmington, OH 45177 937 528 0267 maintenenace related tasks N 145 Hunter Drive Performed and/orsigned off MatthewScott Ill Tech Wilmington, OH 45177 937 366 2718 maintenenace related tasks y 1111 East Michigan Ave, . Appt. 57 Battlecreek, Ml Performed and/or signed off Michael Baron Tech 49014 Unknown maintenenace related tasks N 145 Hunter Drive Performed and/orsigned off Mike Fahrubel Supervisor Wilmington, OH 45177 937 366 2718 maintenenace related tasks y 145 Hunter Drive Performed and/orsigned off Nadim Constantine Tech Wilmington, OH 45177 937 366 2718 maintenenace related tasks y 10450 St. Rt 73 New Performed and/orsigned off Rich Lanning Tech Vienna, OH 45159 Unknown maintenenace related tasks n 1769 Simpson Dr. Performed and/orsigned off Rick Gauger Tech Columbus, Oh 43227 Unknown maintenenace related tasks n #2-A Wyaudot Dr. Performed and/or signed off Steve Vaughn Supervisor Lebanon, OH 45036 Unknown maintenenace related tasks n 1336 Ohryer Rd Dayton, Performed and/orsigned off Tim Pahin Tech OH 45410 Unknown rhaintenenace related tasks n 145 Hunter Drive Performed and/or signed off lfirgil Wir_ebaugh Tech Wilmington, OH 45177 937 366 2718 maintenenace related tasks y**~~**

# In The Matter Of: In the matter ofAirborneMaintenance andEngineering

FrankLipinski December 18, 2014

LYONREPORTING, INC.

Certified CourtReporters P.O. Box 81124 Atlanta, Georgia 30366 7701458-5500 800/767-2030

Original File 121814airb-jlp.txt 

### Exhibit 71 

### Q. Okay. Well, we'll get to that. 2 A. Okay. I don't know what else I can give 3 you but besides that answer. 4 

### Q. All you can give me is answers to my 5 questions. 6 A. 

### That's my honest input to you. 7 

### Q. Now, as I understand it, you have indicated 8 

### that 32-12-11 Section 401 would have been the 9 correct reference for use of those maintenance 10 steps; correct? 11 12 13 14 15 

### 16 17 

### 18 19 20 A. If you remove the doors and you have to rig the doors, the only data that give the specific other than the general statement in 32-11, the tolerances, the fittings

-- when you're rigging a door, when you're actually putting a door in, other than doing the actuator arm extension

-- it gives you the specifics of the extensions. It's 16 turns, 1 inch. I don't remember exactly what it is

-- and it also says to shim, if you need fore and aft or 

### N play or bumper play, as I remember. You have to 21 go to a specific section to get those tolerances. 22 Q. Did the Boeing AMM direct the

-- in 23 Step AL (19) to 401

-- 32-11

-- 32-12-11 401? 24 25 

### A. Q. 

### No. It didn't, did it? LYON REPORTING, INC. 281 2 3 4 

### A. 

### Q. A. 

### Q. No. Okay. No. Let's just

-- because I want to ask some 5 questions. 6 7 

### A. All right. MR. SILVERBERG: Let's mark this as 8 Exhibit 3. 9 (Defendant's Exhibit 3 was marked.) 10 BY MR. SILVERBERG: 11 

### 12 13 Q. A. 

### Q. This is your item of proof 14. All right. Now, we may have gone a little bit too 14 quickly over this. 15 A. All right. 16 17 18 

### 19 20 Q. But we've been talking about Section 401. But you agree that Step AL (19) directs the mechanic to Section 501 in 32-12-11; correct? A. Yes. Q. So did Boeing Air, in directing the 21 mechanic to 501 instead of 401, when they 22 established the logic of these two complementary 23 sections of the airplane maintenance manual? 24 A. No. They direct you to 501 appropriately. 25 All right. And we can go there. LYON REPORTING, INC. 29

### 1 different points of view on some technical issues. 2 3 4 5 6 7 

### A. Q. Wouldn't that be conflicting? No. What would be conflicting evidence? A. There was nothing submitted for us as conflicting evidence in this. Q. Well, you agreed with me that there were 8 

### statements made by AMES that contradicted what 9 

### Capital had stated in response to their LOI, and 10 11 

### 12 13 

### they made those points clear to you; right? A. Let's see. was Capital's no. This was -- this case, This is AMES. Q. This is AMES. if this

14 

### A. Right. There wasn't anything conflicting 15 

### with the findings. The findings were -- 16 17 18 19 20 

### 21 Q. No. This is conflicting evidence, not findings. Evidence. A. 

### Right. Conflicted evidence. I found no conflicting evidence. conflicting evidence. I still don't see any
Q. Even though you saw contradictory 22 statements from AMES and Capital? 23 24 25 

### A. 

### Q. with it. Statements are not evidence. Now, we started with this, so let me end

You say that you didn't see the aircraft LYON REPORTING, INC. 202

### 1 at the time the main landing gear were changed? 2 3 

### A. That's correct. MR. STEVENSON: Objection; asked and 4 answered. 5 BY MR. SILVERBERG: 6 7 8 9 10 

### 11 12 13 

### Q. You didn't see the aircraft for months after that work was first performed, anywhere from nine to two months; correct? A. (Nods head affirmatively.) MR. STEVENSON: Objection; asked and answered. BY MR. SILVERBERG: Q. 

### You didn't see the aircraft at the time 14 they were returned to the AMES facility? 15 A. (Shakes head negatively.) 16 

### Q. 17 swing? 18 19 

### A. Q. You didn't see the

-- you didn't see a gear (Shakes head negatively.) You didn't see the doors fair, being tucked 20 in underneath? 21 

### 22 23 

### A. Q.

24 question. 25 

### (Shakes head negatively.) You saw none of that? MR. STEVENSON: Objection; a compound

MR. SILVERBERG: Now, he affirmatively was LYON REPORTING, INC. 203

### 1 indicating up to a point, going along with

-- 2 THE WITNESS: I'm listening to you. 3 MR. SILVERBERG:

-- by the nodding of his 4 head

-- THE WITNESS: I'm listening to you. 5 6 7 8 9 

### BY MR. SILVERBERG: Q. A. Q. 

### Okay. Yeah. We agree that's the case?

Those are facts which are not in dispute. 10 You didn't see the aircraft at those times 11 I just indicated? 12 13 A. 

### Q. That's correct. Okay. Now, so whether or not the work 14 performed months earlier was substandard such that 15 it presented itself on May 25th when you saw the 16 aircraft, after those intervening months and hours 17 of operation, you -- your position is that, based on 18 your observation of the condition of the flying 19 doors

-- 20 21 A. Q. 

### Yeah.

-- and the rigging, that all of that, all 22 of those discrepancies you noted were all, without 23 exception, attributable to the original work that 24 was done by AMES? 25 A. I would say yes. LYON REPORTING, INC. 2041 

### Q. With no intervening event that would 2 preclude any other finding? 3 A. I would say yes. 4 

### Q. And that includes any intervening 5 maintenance? 6 7 A. 

### Q. 8 

### changes? (Nods head affirmatively.) And tire changes, wheel changes, brake

9 A. (Nods head affirmatively.) 10 

### Q. And that includes wear and tear? 11 A. 

### Yes. 12 13 14 

### 15 16 

### Q. A. 

### Okay. That's your position? As I previously stated, yes. MR. SILVERBERG: Off the record.

(Recess from 3:16p.m. to 3:21p.m.) MR. SILVERBERG: Okay. Those are our 17 questions for today. Do you have any redirect? 18 

### MR. STEVENSON: I have no follow-up. We 19 are going to request a read and sign. 20 (Deposition concluded at 3:21p.m.) 21 (Signature reserved.) 22 23 24 

### 25 LYON REPORTING, INC. 205