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 0 6 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 of Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services 

Docket: FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No.: 2011 S0290032 

Dear Sir or Madrun: 

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 of the document and a pre-addressed, postage paid envelope. 

Please date-stamp the additional copy and return it to our office in the enclosed envelope. 

Thank you for your assistance. Please call me at the telephone number listed above if you have 

any questions regarding this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

SILVERBERG GOLDMAN, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

::r;:;~ Robert P. Silverb~~ 
R IV ED 

BEFORE THE JAN 0 6 2015 

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION G DOCKET 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS HEAR IN 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the matter of 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

Docket No. 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 ANSWER TO 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND EXCLUDE 

Respondent, Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services, Inc. ("AMES"), 

hereby responds 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 of Motion 

for Sanctions, dated December 16, 2014, 1 and answers the Complainant's motion to 

compel and exclude (the "FAA Motion"). 

I. Respondent's Reply To Complainant's Response To Renewed Motion 

For Sanctions 

The FAA claims that Respondent renewed its motion for sanctions "solely on the 

basis that [FAA counsel] did not properly communicate with opposing counsel and the 

court with regards to the untimeliness" of its initial expert disclosures. FAA Motion at 1. 

This is a mischaracterization of Respondent'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 on Respondent on December I, 2014 --13 days 

after the deadline for doing so set by the Court's September 30,2014 scheduling order. 

While FAA counsel 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 explanation for never having asked the undersigned to accept the out of date 

disclosures and, if he refused, for not filing a motion with the Court seeking to modify the 

litigation schedule to extend the expert disclosure deadline. Instead, FAA counsel simply 

served Complainant's initial expert disclosures on the undersigned counsel13 days after 

they were due without even explaining to Respondent's counsel the reason for the delay,2 

asking if the undersigned would agree to accept the disclosures after well after the 

deadline, or filing a motion with the Court seeking an extension of the deadline. The 

FAA's position seems to be that these or other similar actions were "neither reasonable 

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 with respect to Specialist 

Christensen (and not the FAA's three other proposed expert witnesses) since it is 

particularly prejudiced by the FAA's late disclosure of this potential expert witness. The 

FAA claims, however, that Respondent renewed its motion to preclude Specialist 

Christensen's testimony "without any connection between the 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 attempt to "generate an argument of 

2 As previously noted, FAA counsel had mentioned to the undersigned that he had been 

out of the office due to a family emergency, but this statement was made in the context of 

attempting to reschedule the deposition of Inspector Lipinski and was not related to the 

late service of the FAA's initial expert disclosures. 

2 
prejudice for Respondent's renewed motion for sanctions." FAA Motion at 6. This is 

simply incorrect. The FAA's late initial expert disclosures was the first time that 

Respondent was advised that the FAA would have Specialist Christensen testify. Prior to 

the FAA's disclosure on December 1 '', Specialist Christensen had never even been 

mentioned to Respondent's counsel as a potential witness. After Your Honor issued the 

Order on December gth reserving Respondent's motion for sanctions to preclude 

Specialist Christensen's testimony, it was not unreasonable for Respondent to seek to 

depose this witness, and it certainly was not done to "generate" a basis for prejudice.3 

The undersigned counsel was prepared to depose Specialist Christensen at the FAA 

offices in Atlanta on December 19'\ the day after Inspector Lipinski's deposition in the 

same location, had the FAA been willing to make him available.4 

3 Respondent served its Notice of Deposition for Specialist Christensen on December 9, 

2014, one day after Your Honor's December 8th Order. See Exhibit 3 to Respondent's 

Ru1e 37 Declaration and Renewal of Motion for Sanctions, dated December 16, 2014. 

4 Complainant argues that "Respondent fails to indicate what other possible response 

there could be in the situation, given the undersigned's previously scheduled flights and 

out-of-state holiday family travel[.]" FAA Motion at 5. Respondent understands that the 

assigned FAA counsel was scheduled to travel on December 19, 2014 for a holiday 

vacation. Nevertheless, if the assigned FAA counsel was unable to reschedule his travel 

plans, he could have asked another attorney in the FAA's Southern Region to attend the 

deposition in his place. This would have been a reasonable offer to make given that (1) 

the FAA had not revealed 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 deposition the day before in Atlanta after 

already having traveled to Orlando to take his deposition but were unable to do so, and 

(3) Your Honor had suggested in a prior order that substitute FAA counsel could be 

assigned when in the beginning of November Complainant's counsel was suggesting that 

the rescheduling ofinspector Lipinski's deposition would be delayed until sometime in 

2015. See Order Denying Motion for Suspension of Litigation, Re-Extending Deposition 

Deadline, and Reconfirming Remaining Litigation Dates, served November 21, 2014, at 

5. 

3 
Complainant also states that "opposing counsel made no effort to schedule the 

Christensen deposition when, during the week of December 1, 2014, the parties engaged 

in discussions about how to depose Inspector Lipinski" and that [ d]espite having received 

the FAA's expert disclosures, Respondent made no mention of wanting to depose 

Christensen." FAA Motion at 6. However, these discussions, which were really just email exchanges, either took place earlier in the day on December 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 Honor preclude 

his testimony. Surely Complainant's counsel would have been heard to argue that 

Respondent was being inconsistent to request that Your Honor preclude Specialist 

Christensen's testimony and at the same time seek to take his deposition. As noted 

above, as soon as Your Honor reserved Respondent's motion for sanctions to preclude 

Christensen's testimony on December s'h, Respondent considered the need to issue a 

deposition notice for Specialist Christensen, who had just been revealed to Respondent a 

few days earlier, and then did so the next day (on December 91

h). 

The FAA argues with respect to the deposition of Specialist Christensen that 

"Respondent provides no explanation of why it would be appropriate or necessary for the 

parties to continue depositions after the close of discovery." FAA Motion at 4-5. Again, 

the FAA is simply incorrect. First, as Respondent noted on December 16, 2014 in its 

Rule 37 Declaration and Renewal of Motion 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 proposed December 19th date for 

Specialist Christensen's deposition was after the December 12'h close of general 

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 of the FAA's late 

disclosure of Specialist Christensen as a potential expert witness. 5 Had the FAA 

disclosed Specialist Christensen in a timely manner, Respondent would have had time to 

consider whether or not to take his deposition before the close of general discovery. 

Complainant argues that"[ e ]ven if Specialist Christensen had been disclosed on 

November 19, 2014, there would have been no opportunity for Respondent to depose him 

in the few weeks between that date and the close of discovery" on December 12th. FAA 

Motion at 6. Putting aside the fact that if Specialist Christensen had been disclosed to 

Respondent by November 19th as was required, this would have provided Respondent 

three and one-half weeks to schedule his deposition, the FAA neglects to mention that 11 

months ago Respondent asked the FAA to identify all experts it expects to testify on its 

behalf at the hearing and to describe the substance of the experts' expected testimony and 

the opinions and facts upon which the 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 on March 24,2014 by stating 

5 Complainant also argues that the deposition period in this case came before the expert 

disclosures were due "and no provision was ever sought or made for conducting expert 

depositions." FAA Motion at 5-6. However, November 7, 2014 is specifically referred 

to in Your Honor's litigation schedule order as the "Deadline for Fact Witness 

Depositions." See Order Granting/Denying Relief, and Modifying the Litigation Dates 

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 "the taking of depositions." See Order Setting Litigation Dates and 

Procedures, served November 7, 2013, and Order Setting New Litigation Dates and 

Procedures, served June 23,2014. Since the deadline for taking fact witness depositions 

expired before the deadline for completing general discovery, what depositions would 

have been taken before the close of general discovery if not expert depositions? 

5 
that it had 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 .... 

When experts are identified, the information requested will be provided in the FAA's 

expert disclosures pursuant to Rule 26." Exhibit 2 (FAA's Second Response to 

Respondent's First Discovery Requests, dated March 24, 2014). The FAA never 

mentioned in its interrogatory response that Specialist Christensen may be called in this 

case as an expert witness and did not reveal this to Respondent's counsel until the FAA's 

December l st expert disclosure -- I 0 months after Respondent requested this 

. fi . 6 m ormatwn. 

As discussed in more detail below, the FAA attempts to make much of the fact 

that Respondent did not more promptly disclose its witnesses in response to the FAA's 

discovery requests (FAA Motion at 8-13) all the while ignoring the fact that the FAA has 

acted in a similar marmer. FAA counsel seems to think that Respondent should be 

sanctioned for not supplementing its interrogatory responses sooner, although 

Complainant's counsel does not wish to be held to the same standard. The irony of the 

6 It is also noteworthy that the deadline for exchanging initial expert disclosures had been 

May 2, 2014 and that the FAA did not provide Respondent with an expert disclosure 

statement by this date. See Order Setting Litigation Dates 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 of expert disclosures, because Complainant did not 

disclose Specialist Christensen by the prior May 2"d deadline, and subsequently by the 

modified date for expert disclosures, Respondent's counsel had even less reason to think 

that the 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. On the other 

hand, Respondent met the May 2"d deadline by serving the report of its expert witness by 

the deadline. 

6 
FAA's position is palpable given Complainant's "unclean hands" argument. FAA 

Motion at 7-8. 

The FAA claims in the "Unclean Hands" section of its Motion that "Respondent's 

own expert disclosures were themselves untimely" since Jeff Becker and Jim Savastano 

were not included in Respondent's initial expert disclosures and therefore AMES "cannot 

seek equitable relief from the Judge concerning the FAA's expert disclosures." FAA 

Motion at 7. While the disclosure of Jeff Becker and Jim Savastano as expert witnesses 

is addressed in more detail below, what is important to note here is that Respondent is 

only proposing to offer Messrs. Becker and Savastano as expert witnesses to rebut any 

expert testimony offered by the FAA's late-disclosed expert witnesses. As to the FAA's 

argument that the proposed testimony of Messrs. Becker and Savastano is "not tied to the 

FAA's expert disclosures[,]" (id) as the undersigned explained in his December 17°' email to FAA counsel (Exhibit D to FAA Motion), FRCP 26(a)(2)(C) requires only a 

statement of "the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence ... 

[and] a summary ofthe facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testifY." 

Given the summary nature of the 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 

Unlike the situation when Complainant's counsel disclosed the existence of its 

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 now is seeking to exclude certain testimony 

of witnesses for the Respondent on the flimsiest of pretexts-- namely the alleged failure 

7 
to more promptly identify Respondent's witnesses even though the deadline for doing so 

is not until April9, 2015. Complainant's position seems to be that it can ignore deadlines 

and even suggest doing so is of no moment. 7 On the other hand, based on Complainant's 

reading ofthe scheduling order, witness lists must be exchanged months in advance of 

the deadline for doing so and even before Respondent has made a firm determination 

regarding the witnesses it intends to call. Further, Complainant ignores the fact that 

supplementation of discovery responses is not subject to discovery deadlines, but is a 

continuing obligation. It is hard to comprehend the logic being used by Complainant to 

support its motion to Motion to Compel and Exclude. 

First, based on this faulty logic, the Complainant seeks to have Your Honor 

exclude the testimony of Mr. Savastano as a potential non-expert witness, even though 

the Complainant concedes the disclosure of this possible witness was made before the 

end of general discovery8 FAA Motion at 9 and 12. Respondent's Expert Rebuttal 

Disclosures, served on Complainant on December 12, 2014, described the expert rebuttal 

testimony to be provided by Mr. Savastano and specifically noted that Mr. Savastano and 

7 In Your Honor's Order dated December 8, 2014 (Order Reserving the Respondent's 

Motion for Sanctions, and Directing the Parties to Engage in Rule 37 Discussion) you 

indicated in footnote 1 that you were not then addressing the contention of Complainant's 

counsel that it can unilaterally adjust the litigation scheduling dates without consequence 

or otherwise seeking leave for filing beyond the established deadline thereby forcing the 

opposing side to spend time and money to file a motion to force compliance. It is 

assumed that the issues now being raised by Complainant's motion to compel and 

exclude will result in a ruling on the Complainant's contention that deadlines are free to 

be ignored without consequence. 

8 Complainant also moves to compel Respondent to complete its discovery responses 

regarding Mr. Becker as a non-expert witness. As noted, however, Respondent served on 

Complainant a supplemental discovery response on December 23, 2014 that included 

information regarding Mr. Becker as a fact and expert witness, among other potential 

witnesses. Exhibit 4. 

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

See Respondent's Expert Rebuttal Disclosures, dated January 12,2014 at 1, footnote 1. 

Exhibit 3. 

Second, Complainant moves to exclude as a non-expert witness (other than Mr. 

Becker) any other Respondent witness, claiming that "Respondent has refused to identity 

any other person as a possible witness." FAA Motion at 12. Complainant makes this 

argument even though, as noted, Mr. Savastano had also previously been disclosed as a 

non-expert witness on December 121

h (Exhibit 3) and the FAA had been advised that 

Respondent would be providing a supplemental response to Complainant's Interrogatory 

number 13 by December 23, 2014 (see Exhibit D to FAA Motion at page I) and which 

was served on Complainant's counsel on that date consistent with §13.220(i) and Federal 

Rule 26(e)(i)(A). Exhibit 4. Complainant's request is therefore moot. 

Third, Complainant moves to exclude Mr. Becker or Mr. Savastano as being 

called to rebut the expert testimony of Complainant's witnesses, because their testimony 

as described in Respondent's December 12, 2014 expert rebuttal disclosure does not, in 

the FAA's view, rebut the expected testimony of Complainant's witnesses. 

In the alternative, Complainant asks that Respondent be compelled to provide 

additional responses. Complainant also asks that Respondent be required to supplement 

the expert report of Daniel J. Hancher, which was provided to Complainant over seven 

months ago on May 2, 2014 and which he did not take issue with until just last month. 9 

Respondent urges the Complainant's Motion to Compel and Exclude be denied. 

9 Despite the FAA raising issues with Mr. Hancher's expert report more than seven 

months after the FAA received it, Respondent's counsel advised Complainant before the 

FAA filed its Motion to Compel that Respondent would supplement the expert report 

9 
Putting aside the fact that the FAA Motion does not indicate how Complainant 

has really been prejudiced by the timing of Respondent's interrogatory answers, 

Respondent submits the following. First, at the time of the deposition of Mr. Becker 

taken by Complainant's counsel, counsel for Respondent noted that while Mr. Becker 

would be testifying at the hearing the determination of others who may be called to 

testifY had not yet been made. See Exhibit G to FAA Motion, Tr. page 187. Not being 

privy to counsel's consultations with the Respondent, Complainant cannot seriously 

challenge that statement. Further, Complainant takes exception to the fact that 

Respondent took the position that the witness list is not yet required to be exchanged. 

However, the current litigation scheduling order is clear on when the witness lists are to 

be exchanged. On December 23,2014, Respondent listed additional witnesses that could 

appear for Respondent. Exhibit 4. This step was taken consistent with the obligation of 

each party to seasonably supplement its prior initial disclosures and discovery responses 

pursuant to§ 13.220(i) and Federal Rule 26(e)(l)(A). Moreover, the FAA filed its 

Motion to Compel and Exclude despite having been advised that Respondent would be 

supplementing the relevant discovery responses on December 23, 2014. See Exhibit D to 

FAA Motion at page 1. The requirement to update prior 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 Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 350, 357 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). 

with information on Mr. Hancher's prior expert testimony and his compensation 

arrangements with AMES. See Exhibit D to FAA Motion at page 2. The FAA never 

consulted with Respondent's counsel about supplementing the expert report with 

information on Mr. Hancher's prior publications before filing its Motion to Compel 

seeking this information. FAA Motion at 8 (stating that Mr. Hancher's expert report is 

incomplete because it does not address his prior publications). 

10 
Nor does the rule require that as each new piece of information comes to the attention of 

a party that a supplemental response is innnediately required. New or updated responses 

can be hatched and submitted seasonably thereafter. Star Direct, Supra. 

As additional witnesses are identified, Respondent will update its interrogatory 

answer. In fact, Respondent only received the deposition transcript of the much delayed 

Lipinski deposition on December 30, 2014 and upon review of the transcript Respondent 

may update again its response to the Complainant's interrogatory to supply the names of 

other possible witnesses. As Your Honor knows, Respondent is in no way responsible 

for the delay in the scheduling of the Lipinski deposition and the resulting delay in 

obtaining the deposition transcript even though the transcript was ordered on an 

expedited basis. In short, there is absolutely nothing improper in the manner in which 

Respondent has advised Complainant as to the identity of its witnesses. 1 0 

Much of the angst exhibited by Complainant is based on the incorrect assumption 

that prior to the time any finn decision was made by Respondent as to which individuals 

would testifY on its behalf, that Respondent be compelled to make such a disclosure prior 

to the general discovery cutoff date. There is no such obligation on Respondent to do so 

and to suggest lateness of witness disclosures when witness lists are not due to be 

exchanged until April 9, 2015 is obviously an incorrect reading by Complainant of the 

litigation scheduling order. In fact, a lengthy list of individuals knowledgeable about the 

1

° Complainant's counsel even goes so far to assert that Respondent knew for a 

significant period of time that Mr. Becker and Mr. Savastano would appear as witnesses 

but failed to update its interrogatory answers as if he could possibly know 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 

Complainant that those who will testify for Respondent had not yet been determined. !d. 

This kind of flamboyant charge comes very close to pleading in bad faith. 

11 
circumstances of this matter who could be used to support AMES's defenses was 

disclosed to Complainant on January 14, 2014 when Respondent served its initial 

disclosures on Complainant. Exhibit 5 (Initial Disclosures, dated Jan. 14, 2014). AMES 

also supplemented this information on Mach 6, 2014 in its answer to Complainant's 

interrogatory no. 1. Exhibit 6. Despite having this list of knowledgeable individuals for 

over 11 months, Complainant only sought to take the deposition of a single AMES 

witness -- Mr. Becker. Complainant argues that the purported late identification of 

potential witnesses denies Complainant the ability to submit supplemental discovery 

requests. FAA Motion at 13. This FAA claim rings hollow given (1) Complainant had 

information provided by AMES over 11 months ago identifying the knowledgeable 

individuals in this case, (2) Respondent disclosed the identity of its expert witness by the 

then pending deadline and along with a copy of the expert's report, (3) the FAA revealed 

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 of Motion for Sanctions, dated December 16, 2014) and (5) 

otherwise claimed, without any support whatsoever, that the litigation schedule order did 

not contemplate taking the depositions of expert witnesses. See footnote 5 above. 

As to the timing of the identification of Respondent's expert rebuttal witnesses, 

which disclosure was served on Complainant's counsel by the December 12, 2014 

deadline, the timing of this disclosure was based on the lateness of Complainant's 

disclosure of Specialist Christensen as one of its expert witnesses, along with Mr. 

Lipinski, Mr. Evans and Mr. Gasche. This submission was a full 13 days late. Further, 

12 
as to the substance of the expert testimony that they may give, Complainant complains 

that the expert rebuttal testimony should have been included in the initial expert report as 

if the late-filed submission of Complainant's expert witnesses was of no consequence. 

Without concecling the timing of Respondent's disclosure was untimely, Respondent 

surely was entitled to react to the unexcused and late disclosure of Complainant's experts 

by proposing to use expert rebuttal witnesses. FAA's fanciful argument that Respondent 

should be precluded from calling any non-expert witness even though on December 23, 

2014 Respondent supplemented its response to interrogatory nos. 13 and 14 must be 

rejected. As noted, the requirement to seasonably supplement interrogatory responses is 

not subject to any discovery deadline and under no reading of §13.220(i) or Federal Rule 

26(e)(l)(A) can the FAA's proposed form of relief be considered appropriate. In any 

event, Complainant has failed to make any compelling argument that it has been 

prejudiced since it had the names of all of the 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 back from the specifics of the FAA Motion, it might reasonably be 

suggested that the high-octane procedural arguments being presented by counsel for the 

Complainant are being made to distract from the fact that Complainant's case is without 

any support in fact or law. The deposition of the investigating inspector, Mr. Lipinski, 

now having finally been taken, lays completely bare the FAA's theory of its case. 

Despite the fact that Complainant has the burden of proof (§13.224) --meaning it must 

prove that AMES failed to perform proper maintenance on each of the three aircraft in 

question based on the standard ofproof(§l3.233) of reliable, probative, and substantial 

13 
evidence -- the Inspector admits he never saw any of the 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 of the 

three aircraft until months later on May 25, 20 !0. 

Inspector Lipinski is unable to provide any testimony about the actual condition 

of the aircraft on the days when the FAA's Complaint alleges the maintenance was 

improperly performed. In addition, Inspector Lipinski admits that he did not see the 

aircraft until two to nine months after the gear changes were performed, concedes that he 

did not see the condition of the aircraft when they were returned to the AMES facility to 

address the inspector's findings, admits that he 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 on the condition of the flying doors even after months of operation 

and thousands of gear actuations. Exhibit 7 (Lipinski Tr, pages 202-205). 12 This is so 

even though the landing gears were exercised (meaning having been raised and lowered) 

a total of784 times on aircraft N899AA, 628 times on aircraft N898AA, and 172 times 

11 Specifically, the main landing gear replacements were signed off on July 31, 2009, 

September 29,2009 and March 22,2010. 

12 Complainant's March 18,2014 Motion to Compel to respond the FAA's Interrogatory 

No. 12 asking Respondent to "Describe in detail the physical condition of the landing 

gear and flying door assemblies at issue in this matter ... " was denied ruling that 

Respondent was correct in relying upon the dates set forth in the Complaint as guidance 

in answering the interrogatory posed by Complainant. (Order Granting in Part and 

Denying in Part the FAA's Motion to Compel the Respondent to Answer FAA 

Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 12, dated April17, 2014). While Complainant sought a 

response for the entire time period from August 2009 to May 2010, the ruling was that 

the physical condition of the three aircraft on dates other than those specified in the 

Complaint are simply not at issue. 

14 
on aircraft N287SC. Further, the inspector admitted that the Boeing maintenance manual 

directed the maintenance provider to section 32-12-11 step 501 and not step 401 that the 

FAA incorrectly alleges was the proper section to have been referenced by 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 because the FAA did not come 

upon the aircraft in question until months after the fact, and because the FAA cannot 

prove AMES failed to follow the steps called out in the maintenance manual, raising a 

question of why the case was even pursued by the agency. The Complainant has 

obviously determined that its best hope at this time is to attempt to raise procedural issues 

to detract from the inherent weakness of its affirmative case. 

13 

13 Respondent will not be distracted by Complainant's tactics and will avail itself of the 

opportunity to file a dispositive motion at the appropriate time and will demonstrate 

clearly and objectively that the FAA cannot prove the allegations made regarding the 

maintenance services provided by the Respondent. 

15 
AMES has met its obligations to engage in good faith discovery during the 

protracted discovery period, and nothing presented by Complainant suggests otherwise. 

Complainant is way out on a procedural limb with its Motion to Compel and Exclude, 

claiming it has been prejudiced by Respondent's discovery disclosures, including their 

timing, when it was Complainant that acted without regard to the deadlines in the 

scheduling order. On the other hand, Complainant has 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 of Specialist 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 certify that on this 5th day of January 2015, I caused the foregoing Respondent's 

Reply to Complainant's Response to Renewed Motion for Sanctions and Answer to 

Complainant's Motion to Compel and Exclude to be served upon the 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 of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey 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 of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

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 

Case No. 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 of the Federal Aviation Administration's Rules of Practice, 14 

C.P.R.§ 13.220, and Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent 

Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby requests that Complainant 

Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") respond, under oath, to the following interrogatories 

within 30 days of service in the manner provided in 14 C.P.R. § 13.220(k). Pursuant to Rule 220 

of the FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.P.R. § 13.220, and Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, Respondent AMES further requests that Complainant FAA produce for 

inspection and copying the documents requested below. Production should be made within 30 

days of service to the office of Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P., 1101 30tl1 Street, N.W., 

Suite 120, Washington, D.C. 20007, or such other place as may be mutually agreed upon. These 

discovery requests are continuing in nature, and the FAA is required to supplement or amend its 

responses hereto in accordance with 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220(i) and Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

Exhibit 1 
2. To the extent not included in the FAA's Initial Disclosures, identity all persons 

known by the FAA to have knowledge of the facts and matters at issue in the Complaint. 

ANSWER: 

3. Identify any and all experts the FAA expects to testify on its behalf at the hearing 

on this matter. For each such expert: 

a. Describe the substance of the 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 behalf at the hearing 

on this matter. To the extent not included in the FAA's Initial Disclosures: 

a. Describe the substance of each witness's expected testimony and the facts 

upon which that testimony will be based; and 

b. Provide each witness's occupation, title, telephone number and business 

address. 

ANSWER: 

6 
employees or agents, concerning the performance by AMES of aircraft repair and maintenance 

services for CCIA, including the decision by CCIA 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 

II 01 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 AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

Docket No. 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 of Respondent's 

discovery requests, 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 known to have information on this subject were disclosed in the FAA's 

initial disclosures, or in the 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 of the aircraft at issue. When experts are identified, the information 

requested will be provided in the FAA's expert disclosures pursuant to Rule 26. 

Interrogatory #4: The only witnesses the FAA has identified at this 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 in the 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 a two-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. 

In the matter of Docket No. F AA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENT'S EXPERT REBUTTAL DISCLOSURES 

Pursuant to the Order Granting/Denying Relief, and Modifying the Litigation Dates and 

Procedures, served September 30,2014, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and 

(a)(2)(C), Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Service ("AMES") hereby 

provides the following expert rebuttal disclosures: 

1) Jeffrey Becker and James Savastano: Mr. Becker, the AMES Director, Quality 

Assurance & Training, and Mr. Savastano, the AMES Vice President of Technical Operations 

and former Vice President of Maintenance at Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc., will 

provide expert testimony as necessary to rebut any expert and opinion testimony provided by 

Complainant's witnesses.' Mr. Becker's and Mr. Savastano's expert rebuttal testimony may 

include testimony regarding the minor nature of the discrepancies claimed by the FAA, the 

extent of the corrective action taken and the cause of the discrepancies, namely wear and tear and 

intervening third-party maintenance and not the result of the alleged improper installation or 

rigging of the flying doors by AMES. Messrs. Becker and Savastano may also testify that the 

likely cause of the 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 may provide opinion 

testimony under Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Exhibit 3 
bushings and not AMES's installation or rigging of the 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 Manuel provisions. 

2) Daniel J. Hancher: Respondent incorporates by reference the expert report of 

Daniel J. Hancher, dated April30, 2014. Mr. Hancher may testify as described in his expert 

report as necessary to rebut expert and opinion testimony 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:____!,}_~~"" Robert ~lf~m~~- 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 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 12'h day of December 2014, I caused the foregoing 

Respondent's Expert Rebuttal Disclosures to be served upon the following: 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

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) 
In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. F AA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011 S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative Law Judge 

I.E. Sullivan 

Respondent 

RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSES TO FAA'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

Pursuant to Rule 220 of the Federal Aviation Administration's Rules of Practice, 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 in this matter, identify 

the subject of their testimony, and summarize the substance of their expected testimony. You do 

not need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but you must expand 

on those answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory. 

ANSWER: In AMES's initial disclosures, dated January 14,2014, the names of 

individuals knowledgeable about the circumstances of this 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 of witness lists by 

the parties is not until April 9, 2015. However, consistent with the obligation of each party to 

seasonally supplement its prior initial disclosures and discovery responses pursuant to 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 by AMES. 

Jeffr-ey Becker, the AMES Director, Quality Assurance & Training, and James 

Savastano, the AMES Vice President of Technical Operations and former Vice President of 

Maintenance at Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc. ("CCIA"), are expected to provide 

testimony as fact witnesses, including providing opinion testimony 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 of the discrepancies claimed 

by the FAA, the extent of the corrective action taken and the cause of the discrepancies, namely 

wear and tear and intervening third-party maintenance and not the result of the alleged improper 

Exhibit 4 
installation or rigging of the flying doors by AMES. Messrs. Becker and Savastano may also 

testify that the likely cause of the N287SC air return was vibration caused by the aircraft's rudder 

assembly bushings and not AMES's installation or rigging of the 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 station by name, 

specifically Flightstar Aircraft Services, LLP, for its aircraft repair and maintenance services 

instead of AMES. Mr. Savastano will also testify that he filed a complaint against Mr. Lipinski 

and that he was interviewed by the FAA regarding the allegations in his complaint. 

Steven Santangelo, the former Director of Quality Control and Chief Inspector of CCIA, 

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 suggesting that if CCIA 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 of CCIA, will provide testimony regarding a 

meeting he attended with Robert Talmadge, Manager of the 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 of CCIA, including 

providing examples of intimidating, harassing, abusive and inappropriate behavior on the part of 

Inspector Lipinski, and Inspector Lipinski's insistence that CCIA cease its business relationship 

with AMES and instead 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 in this matter, identify the 

subject of their testimony, summarize the substance of their 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 of Mr. Hancher's expected testimony is 

provided in his expert report, dated April30, 2014, which report was sent to you on May I, 

2014. A smnmary of the expert rebuttal testimony expected to be provided by 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 of his expert report and in 

1 As noted, Messrs. Becker and Savastano will also testify as fact witnesses and may provide 

opinion testimony under Rule 701 ofthe Federal Rules of Evidence. 

2 
Exhibit 1 thereto. Mr. Becker holds a Bachelor of Science Aeronautical Engineering Degree 

from Embry-Ridd1e Aeronautical University and a Masters of Business Administration from 

Xavier University and has been licensed by the State of California as a professional engineer. 

Mr. Becker has 28 years of experience in the aeronautical field. Mr. Savastano is a licensed 

airframe and powerplant mechanic and a graduate of Barry University. Since 1980 Mr. 

Savastano has held of number of manager, department head, and vice president positions 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, component repair and overhaul, and engineering. Prior to joining AMES, Mr. 

Savastano was the Vice President of Airline 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 and First Class Mail 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

January 14,2014 

Re: In the Matter of Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services 

Docket No. F AA-2013-0291 

Case No. 201JS0290032 

Dear Mr. Stevenson: 

Pursuant to Ordering Paragraph I of the 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 of Civil Procedure of Airborne 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 of any insurance coverage that may 

satisfy all or part of a possible judgment or indemnify or reimburse AMES for payments made to 

satisfy a judgment. 

Exhibit 5 
Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

January 14,2014 

Page 2 

Because these initial disclosures are made without the benefit of any 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. Silverberg 
ATTACHMENT 1 
Performed off maintenance 

of Situation 

of Situation 

off maintenance 
*Former Employee-Last 

Known Phone number 

of Situation 

off maintenance 
In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011 S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

Respondent 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO 

FAA'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

Pursuant to Rule 220 of the Federal Aviation Administration's Rules of Practice, 14 

C.F.R. § 13.220, Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby 

answers and objects to Complainant Federal A viatiou Administration ("FAA") First Discovery 

Requests. 

INTERROGATORIES 

1. For each person listed in your initial disclosures, describe in detail that person's 

knowledge of and involvement with this matter, including [sic] not limited to what maintenance 

that person performed, what knowledge of the situation that person has, and any communications 

that person had with others about the situation. 

ANSWER: The knowledge and involvement of each person listed in the Respondent's 

Initial Disclosures, including the maintenance that each performed, is as shown in Attachment 1 

enclosed herewith. Attachment 2 also enclosed herewith includes a list of additional individuals 

who were not included in AMES's Initial Disclosures, dated January 14, 2014, but who AMES 

has subsequently identified as relating to the rework perforn1ed on the three aircraft. AMES is 

hereby supplementing its Initial Disclosures with this information. 

AMES is not aware of any informal communications between any of the listed 

maintenance technicians concerning this matter. Those AMES employees listed as having 

general knowledge of this matter have discussed among themselves the FAA's allegations 

against AMES and AMES defenses thereto. In addition, either individually or as a group some 

of the AMES employees with general knowledge of this matter have discussed and consulted 

with AMES counsel regarding AMES' defense and respome to the FAA's allegations. These 

discussions and consultations are privileged. 

2. If you assert that the inspector's statement in this matter (inclusive of records of 

conversation [sic], e-mails, memoranda, or other documents), as contained in the EIR, contain 

any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify 

1 Exhibit 6 
12. Admit that AMES did not use AMM Chapter 32-12-ll when re-installing the 

flying doors on N899AA, N898AA and N287SC. 

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~. Robert P. Silverberg, 'o..JC_~~~--- Esq. 

1101301

h Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

12 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
ATTACHMENT 1 
The following is a list of persons involved in the initial gear changes, segregated by the respective aircraft 

registration numbers. The list includes the respective maintenance record entry corresponding to the 

maintenance or inspection actions in the event. We are not aware of any communications that any of these 

persons have had with others about this situation since the timing of the 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 LMLG 
W /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. 

The following list includes those technicians that worked on the right hand MLG on N287SC following 

the air turn-back at KCVG and the subsequent vibration inspections. The list includes the respective 

maintenance record entry corresponding to the maintenance or inspection actions in the event. We are not 

aware of any communications that any of these persons have had with others about this situation since the 

timing of the events in the EIR. 

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 of 4, item# 7 

Kurtis Masek N287SC (vibration inspection) Logpage entry regarding vibration 

L/P 88224, Item 1, dated 04-12-10 Logpage entry regarding 

Matt Angst N287SC vibration 
TI1e following is a list of persons involved in the rework of aircraft N287SC, Nl\99AA, N898AA in ILN 

following ferry flights from TOLand BDL, segregated by the respective aircraft registration numbers. 

The list includes the respective maintenance record entry corresponding to the maintenance or inspection 

actions in the event. We are not aware of any communications that any of these persons have had with 

others about this situation since tl1e timing of the events in the 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-routine 0003 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-routine 0006, WO 12030 non-routine 0007 

WO 12030 non-routine 0008, WO 12030 non-routine 0009, 

WO 12030 non-routine 0011, WO 12030 non-routine 0012, 

WO 12030 non-routine 0013, WO 12030 non-routine 0014, 

WO 12030 non-routine 0015, WO 12030 non-routine 0016, 

N899AA WO 12030 non-routine 0002 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 0021 
N287SC 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-routine 0027 

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-routine 0001 partial entry 1 . 

Paul Freiberger N287SC WO 12063 Non-Routine 0003, WO 12063 Non-Routine 
0004 

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 Notice Q20293 

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 

The following is a list of persons that have general knowledge of the events, provided insight, 

management direction and have perspectives in general context on the series of events in part or whole, 

Name Relevant Record 

Alan J. Wilkinson FAA/Overall event knowledge 

Billie Steffey FAA/Overall event knowledge/Present at Toledo 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 of situation 

Ed Lippincott General knowledge of situation 

James Savastano General knowledge of situation 

Jeff Becker . General knowledge of situation/Present at Toledo 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 of situation 

Wes Ballard General knowledge of situation (replaced Mike Ebert) 

Mark Sommers KCVG onsite CCIA Tech Rep, Signed Rll for work immediately following 
Vibration Inspections on N287SC 

James Camp CCIA Onsite Tech Rep at ILN during initial Gear changes 
ATTACHMENT 2 
Aaron Kloak 

Brian See 

Dave Shaw 

David Johanson 

Smith 

Don 

Fred Schatzmann r 

Farms Springs Rd. 

sc 59483 

Unknown 

N 
Performed 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/or signed off 

Matt Angst Tech . Wilmington, OH 45177 937 528 0267 maintenenace related tasks N 

145 Hunter Drive Performed and/or signed off 

Matthew Scott 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/or signed off 

Mike Fahrubel Supervisor Wilmington, OH 45177 937 366 2718 maintenenace related tasks y 

145 Hunter Drive Performed and/or signed off 

Nadim Constantine Tech Wilmington, OH 45177 937 366 2718 maintenenace related tasks y 

10450 St. Rt 73 New Performed and/or signed off 

Rich Lanning Tech Vienna, OH 45159 Unknown maintenenace related tasks n 

1769 Simpson Dr. Performed and/or signed 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/or signed 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 of Airborne Maintenance and Engineering 

Frank Lipinski 

December 18, 2014 

LYON REPORTING, INC. 

Certified Court Reporters 

P.O. Box 81124 

Atlanta, Georgia 30366 

7701458-5500 800/767-2030 

Original File 121814airb-jlp.txt 

Exhibit 7 
1 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. 

28 
1 

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 --

5 THE WITNESS: I'm listening to you. 

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. 

204 
1 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