UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

******************************************* 

In the Matter of: 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

* FAA Case No. 2010NM010105 

* FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

* Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

* 

******************************************* 

RESPONDENT AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

COMES NOW Respondent Aviation Technical Services, Inc. ("Respondent" or 

"ATS"), through counsel, and respectfully makes this Motion to Compel Discovery 

pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220(m). 

BACKGROUND 

On January 13, 2012, Respondent served its First Set of Interrogatories (see 

Exhibit A) and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (see Exhibit B) on 

Complainant. On February 14, 2012, Complainant served its Responses to Respondent's 

First Set of Interrogatories (see Exhibit C) and Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Requests for Production. See Exhibit D. On February 17, 2012, counsel for ATS sent an 

email to counsel for the FAA seeking supplementation of a number of the FAA's 

responses to these discovery requests. See Exhibit E. On February 29, 2012, the FAA 

served its Supplemental Responses to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories and 

Requests for Production. See Exhibit F. These supplemental responses were received 

by Respondent on March 1, 2012. 
,-i 

. 

ARGUMENT 

ATS submits that several of Complainant's discovery responses are incomplete 

and require further supplementation. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 1 

Interrogatory No. 1 asked Complainant to "(i]dentify each person whom you 

claim possesses any knowledge of the Incident, and describe what each person knows 

about the Incident." Among the individuals identified in the Complainant's initial answer 

to Interrogatory No. 1 are FAA Engineers Nancy Marsh and Tammy Anderson of the 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, who "possess knowledge of the purposes for and 

requirements of the Airworthiness Directive applicable in this case." Also identified is 

FAA Senior Engineer Steve Fox of the Seattle ACO, who "possesses knowledge of the 

applicability of FAA Order 8110.103 regarding requests for approval of Alternate 

Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) for FAA Airworthiness Directives and of information 

he provided/explained to ATS representativ~s regarding the AMOC process on May 20, 

2009." 

stated: 

In its February 17, 2012, request for supplementation, ATS, through its counsel, 

In response to interrogatory number 1, you listed topics for 

individuals, but did not describe what they know. Please 

provide details on what Nancy Marsh and Tammy 

Anderson know about the purposes for and requirements of 

the AD at issue in this case. Please also describe what 

Steve Fox knows about information he provided/explained 

to ATS representatives regarding the AMOC processs on 

May 20,2009. 

2 
. . ' 

The FAA's Supplemented Answer to this interrogatory fails to respond adequately to the 

request for supplementation. With regard to Engineers Nancy Marsh and Tammy 

Anderson, the Supplemented Answer states: 

FAA Engineer Nancy Marsh drafted the final rule and 

preambles of AD 2009-09-07. She possesses knowledge of 

its requirements. Her supervisor FAA Engineer Tammy 

Anderson also possesses knowledge of the final rule and 

preambles and requirements of AD 2009-09-07. 

The only additional information provided by this answer is that Nancy Marsh 

drafted the final rule and preambles, and that both she and Tammy Anderson possess 

knowledge of the final rule and preambles and knowledge of the requirements of AD 

2009-09-07. No information is provided regarding what, specifically, these individuals 

know about the purposes for, and requirements of, the AD. As no objection to this 

interrogatory was lodged, Complainant should be required to provide a detailed 

description of the specific content of their "knowledge of the final rule and preambles and 

requirements of AD 2009-09-07" as it relates to the incident at issue. Without this 

information, Respondent will be unable adequately to prepare for the hearing in this 

matter. 

With regard to FAA Senior Engineer Steve Fox, Complainant's Supplemented 

Answer to Interrogatory No. 1 stated: 

FAA Senior Engineer Steve Fox of the Seattle ACO 

possesses knowledge of the applicability of FAA Order 

811 0.103 regarding requests for approval of the Alternate 

Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) for FAA Airworthiness 

Directives and of information he provided/explained to 

ATS representatives regarding the AMOC process on May 

20,2009, specifically, that he advised them they must apply 

for an AMOC when unable to follow the requirements of 

an Airworthiness Directive. 

3 
As set forth above, Respondent's request for supplementation sought a description of 

"what Mr. Fox knows about information he provided/explained to ATS representatives 

regarding the AMOC process on May 20, 2009." Complainant should be required to 

identify the ATS representatives to whom he provided advice regarding the need to 

"apply for an AMOC when unable to follow the requirements of an Airworthiness 

Directive", and should provide specific factual details concerning the content of that 

advice. Mr. Fox should also be required to provide a detailed description of his 

knowledge of the applicability of FAA Order 8110.103 to requests for approval of 

AMOCs. 

INTERROGATORY NO.2 

Interrogatory No. 2 asked Complainant to "[i]dentify each person with whom you 

have participated in any discussion or conversations regarding the incident, and state the 

substance of each such discussion or conversation." In its initial answer, Complainant, 

after objecting, stated in part: 

stated: 

Notwithstanding said objection, FAA Inspectors Hicks and 

Shinn discussed the violations and the existence of 

supporting documents with employees of Respondent; with 

employees of ASKO; with employees of Hytek Finishes 

Company as reflected in the previously provided EIR and 

items of proof; with Principal Maintenance Inspector Rod 

Ziegler; and with their supervisor, Kenneth Snyder. 

Inspector Maloney communicated information 

requirements with Dave Powell and Eric Paul of the SWA 

Certificate Management Office. 

In its February 17, 2012, request for supplementation, ATS, through its counsel, 

In response to interrogatory number 2, you listed topics for 

the individuals, but did not describe what they know. 

4 
• 

. . 

Please provide the substance of the discussions described in 

this answer. 

The FAA's Supplemented Answer repeats the original answer, adding only the following 

sentence at the end: "Inspector Hicks discussed the violations and the requirements of the 

applicable AD and Service Bulletin with FAA Engineer Marsh." Despite Respondent's 

renewed request, Complainant has still not provided the substance of the discussions 

described in its answer to Interrogatory No. 2, including, but not limited to, discussions 

FAA personnel had with Respondent, employees of ASKO, and employees of Hytek 

Finishes Company, none of which are privileged. Complainant should be required to 

provide the requested information, without which Respondent will be unable adequately 

to prepare for the hearing in this matter. 

DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION WITHHELD UNDER CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE 

Complainant has withheld certain documents and information under the attorneyclient privilege, attorney work product privilege, and deliberative process privilege. See 

Responses to Request Nos. 1 and 10 and Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 18. Pursuant to the 

instructions contained in its Interrogatories (instruction No. 5) and Requests for 

Production (instruction No. 4), ATS requested, in its February 17 email, the following: 

To the extent that you are withholding any documents or 

information based on attorney-client privilege, work 

product protection, deliberative process privilege - or on 

the basis of any other privilege, rule, doctrine, or protection 

- please provide us with a privilege log, as requested in the 

instructions contained in the Requests for Production and 

Interrogatories, so that we may assess the applicability of 

the privilege or protection asserted. 

In its Supplemental Response to ATS' s Requests for Production, Complainant 

states that "no such log exists and none is required to be kept under the Rules of Practice 

5 
in FAA Civil Penalty Actions." Without such a log, Respondent has no basis for 

evaluating and possibly challenging the FAA's assertion of privilege as to particular 

documents or information. See,~' FAA v. Mesa Air Group, Inc., 1996 FAA LEXIS 

1414 (1996) at *6 (requiring that a "party asserting a privilege as a ground for refusing to 

produce a document must identify the document by title, author(s), addressee(s), and 

subject matter, and describe why the document, in whole or in part, is protected by the 

privilege", giving the other party "the opportunity to object to the assertion of privilege"). 

For this reason, Complainant should be required to provide ATS with a log or similar 

statement regarding the information and documents as to which it is asserting protection, 

as requested in the instructions contained in Respondent's discovery requests. In the 

alternative, and in the absence of providing Respondent with the requested log or similar 

statement, Complainant should be compelled to produce all documents as to which 

privilege or protection has been asserted. 

CONCLUSION 

THEREFORE, Respondent requests that: 

1. The Administrative Law Judge issue an Order to Compel 

Discovery, directing Complainant to fully answer and respond to 

Respondent' First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests 

for Production, as set forth herein; and that 

2. Such Order require that Complainant provide Respondent with a 

log or similar statement regarding all documents as to which a 

privilege or other protection is being asserted. 

6 
DATED: September 7, 2012 

7 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

Dombroff Gilmore Jaques & French, PC 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

(703) 336-8800 

djaques@dglitigators.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Motion to 

Compel on the following party's counsel or designated representative, at the address 

indicated, by UPS overnight delivery: 

Karen Davis Huber, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Fax: 425-227-1007 

I also certify that I have this day served the original and one copy of the foregoing 

Motion to Compel on the following, at the address indicated, by UPS overnight delivery: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2WIOOO 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Fax: 202-493-5142 

I also certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel 

on the following, at the address indicated, by UPS overnight delivery: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Dated this 7th day of September, 2012. 

~A· 

Jam s . Eastwood 

Dom r ffGilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

Tel: 703-336-8800 

Fax: 703-336-8750 

8 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

******************************************* 

RECEIVED 

SEP 1 0 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of: 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

FAA Case No. 20IONM010105 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

******************************************* 

RESPONDENT AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.'S 

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220, Respondent AVIATION 

TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ("Respondent" or "ATS"), by and through its attorneys, 

Dombroff Gilmore Jaques & French, P.C., hereby propounds and serves the following 

Interrogatories, to be answered separately and fully in writing and under oath by Complainant 

Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA" or "Complainant") within thirty (30) days of service of 

this First Set of Interrogatories. 

DEFINITIONS 

1. "Document" means any written or graphic matter or other means of preserving thought or 

expression, and all tangible things from which information can be processed or transcribed, 

including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reason 

of any notation made on such copy or otherwise, including but not limited to correspondence, 

memoranda, notes, messages, letters, facsimiles, telegrams, records of meetings or telephone 

calls, diaries, chronological data, minutes, books, reports, charts, ledgers, invoices, worksheets, 
receipts, returns, computer printouts, prospectuses, financial statements, schedules, affidavits, 

contracts, canceled checks, transcripts, statistics, surveys, magazine or newspaper articles, 

releases (and any and all drafts, alterations and modifications, changes and amendments of any 

of the foregoing), graphs or aural records or representations of any kind, including without 

limitation, photographs, charts, microfiche, microfilm, video-tape, recordings, motion pictures 

and electronic, mechanical or electric recordings or representations of any kind (including, 

without limitation, tapes, cassettes, discs and recordings), and including the file and file cover. 

"Document" shall include any electronically generated and/or stored items, including but not 

limited to electronic mail ("e-mail"), logs, drafts, and databases. 

2. The terms "you" and "your" mean the party to whom these interrogatories are addressed, 

including the party's attorneys, employees and agents and all other persons acting or purporting 

to act on the party's behalf. 

3. "Incident" refers to the alleged violations that are the subject matter of Complainant's 

Amended Complaint in this matter. 

4. "Identify" or "state the identity of' with reference to individuals means state the person's 

full name, current or last known business and home address, employer, title or job description, 

and telephone number. 

5. "Complainant" means the Federal Aviation Administration and any employee, agent, 

or attorney for Complainant, and any other person acting for or on behalf of Complainant or 

under Complainant's authority and control. 

6. The present tense includes the past and future tenses. The singular includes the plural, 

2 
and the plural includes the singular. "All" means "any and all;" "any" means "any and all." 

"Including" means "including but not limited to." "And" and "or" encompass both "and" and 

"or." Words in the masculine, feminine or neuter form shall include each of the other genders. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

1. In answering these interrogatories, you are required to furnish all information that is 

presently available to you or that can be obtained through reasonable inquiry, including 

information in the possession of your attorneys, consultants, advisors, or other persons directly or 

indirectly employed by you or otherwise subject to your control. 

2. Answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing, under oath, unless it is 

objected to, in which event the reasons for each objection must be stated. 

3. Each interrogatory is intended to, and does, request that each and every part thereof be 

answered as though it were the subject of, and were asked by, a separate interrogatory. 

4. If the interrogatories cannot be answered in full, answer to the extent possible, specify the 

reason for your inability to answer the remainder, and state whatever information and knowledge 

you have regarding the unanswered portion. 

5. If you claim that an attomey~client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine is 

applicable to any document the identification of which is sought by the interrogatories, state and 

identify as to each document: 

a. The date the document was prepared or executed; 

b. The drafter or author of the document; 

c. Each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the document; 

d. Each person to whom the document was sent or delivered, and each 

person who received the document; 

3 
e. The present location and custodian of the document; 

f. The grounds upon which you base your claim of privilege, in a manner that, 

without revealing the information claimed to be protected, will enable Respondent 

to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection asserted. 

6. The following interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing, and any conclusions, 

opinions, or contentions that are different from those set forth in Complainant's answers to. these 

interrogatories, which Complainant acquires or develops subsequent to the date of answering 

these interrogatories, shall be furnished to Respondent promptly after such information is 

received. 

INTERROGATORY NO.1: 

Identify each person whom you claim possesses any knowledge of the Incident, and 

describe what each such person knows about the Incident. 

INTERROGATORY NO.2: 

Identify each person with whom you have participated in any discussions or 

conversations regarding the Incident, and state the substance of each such discussion or 

conversation. 

INTERROGATORY NO.3: 

Identify all documents that you anticipate offering into evidence at the hearing in this 

matter, and as to each such document identify the witness or witnesses through whom you 

anticipate offering such document. 

4 
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 

Identify each person whom you intend to call as a fact witness at the hearing in this 

ma,tter, and for each such witness state the subject matter and substance of the witness's expected 

testimony. 

INTERROGATORY NO.5: 

Identify each person whom you intend to call as an expert witness at the hearing in this 

matter, and for each such witness provide: 

(a) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and 

reasons for them; 

(b) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them; 

(c) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; 

(d) the witness's qualifications and background, including a list of all publications 

authored in the previous 10 years; 

(e) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as 

an expert at trial or by deposition; and 

(t) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 

Identify and describe in detail any physical evidence in your possession, custody, or 

control that relates to, concerns, or pertains to the Incident, identify the custodian of such 

physical evidence, and state the current location of such physical evidence. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 

State all facts that form the basis of the allegations in paragraph 5 of Part II of the 

Amended Complaint. 

5 
INTERROGATORY NO.8: 

State all facts that form the basis of the allegations in paragraph 6 of Part II of the 

Amended Complaint. 

INTERROGATORY NO.9: 

State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph 7 of Part II of the 

Amended Complaint that, "[i]n conducting the overhaul and repair of the listed main landing 

gear actuator beam assemblies, A TS did not conduct the maintenance in the manner required by 

AD 2009-09-07 and SB 737-32A1355." 

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 

State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph 9 of the Amended 

Complaint that, "[i]n conducting the overhaul and repair of the listed main landing gear actuator 

beam assemblies, ATS did not comply with the SW A CAMP." 

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 

State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph 10 of Part II the Amended 

Complaint that, "[i]n conducting the overhaul and repair of the listed main landing gear actuator 

beam assemblies, ATS did not use methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the 

Administrator." 

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 

State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph 11 of Part II the Amended 

Complaint that, "(i]n conducting the overhaul and repair of the listed main landing g~ar actuator 

beam assemblies, ATS did not perform the work in such a manner that the condition of the 

aircraft, airframe, engine, propeller or appliance worked on was at least equal to its original or 

properly altered condition." 

6 
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 

State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph l(a) of Part III of the 

Amended Complaint that, "when performing maintenance, alteration or preventive maintenance 

required by Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, ATS failed to use the methods, 

techniques, and practices prescribed in the current Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual or 

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its Manufacturer, or other methods, 

techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator." 

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 

State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph 1 (b) of Part III of the 

Amended Complaint that, in performing maintenance, alteration or preventive maintenance, A TS 

"did not perform the work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the 

condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on was at least 

equal to its original or properly altered condition." 

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 

State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph 1 (c) of Part III of the 

Amended Complaint that, in performing maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations for 

an air carrier or commercial operator that has a continuous airworthiness maintenance program 

under part 121 or part 135, ATS "did not follow the air carrier's or commercial operator's 

program and applicable sections of its maintenance manual." 

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 

State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph 1 (d) of Part III of the 

Amended Complaint that ATS "failed to accomplish the required actions in accordance with" 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009·09-07. 

7 
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 

As to each and every part of subpart of Respondent Aviation Technical Services, Inc.'s 

First Set of Request for Admissions that you denied, state the reasons for the denial and state and 

describe in detail all facts known by you concerning and supporting the same, and identify all 

documents containing information regarding the same. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 

For each document and piece of information you withhold on the basis of a privilege or 

otherwise, state the basis on which you are withholding the document or piece of information 

and describe each such the document or piece of information in detail sufficient to establish your 

right to withhold it. 

DATED: January \3 , 2012 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

Dombroff Gilmore Jaques & French, PC 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

(703) 336-8800 

djaques@dglitigators.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

8 
• .~ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Aviation Technical 

Services, Inc.'s, First Set of Interrogatories on the following party's counsel or designated 

representative, at the address indicated, by UPS overnight delivery: 

Karen Davis Huber, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind A venue S. W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Fax: 425-227-1007 

+h . Dated this Q_ day of January, 2012. 

9 
--------------------

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

******************************************* 

RECEIVED 

SEP 1 0 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of: 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

FAA Case No. 2010NM010l05 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

******************************************* 

RESPONDENT AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.'S 

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220, Respondent AVIATION 

TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ("Respondent" or "ATS"), by and through its attorneys, 

DombroffGilmore Jaques & French, P.C., hereby propounds and serves the following Requests 

for Production of Documents, to be answered separately and fully in writing by Complainant 

Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA" or "Complainant"). The documents and other items 

requested herein shall be produced to Dane B.Jaques, DombroffGilmore Jaques & French, P.C., 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse, McLean, VA 22102, within thirty (30) days of service of 

this First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. 

DEFINITIONS 

l. . "Document" means any written or graphic matter or other means of preserving thought or 

expression, and all tangible things from which information can be processed or transcribed, 

incl~drng the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reason 

of any notation made on such copy or otherwise, including but not limited to correspondence, 
memoranda, notes, messages, letters, facsimiles, telegrams, records of meetings or telephone 

calls, diaries, chronological data, minutes, books, reports, charts, ledgers, invoices, worksheets, 

receipts, returns, computer printouts, prospectuses, financial statements, schedules, affidavits, 

contracts, canceled checks, transcripts, statistics, surveys, magazine or newspaper articles, 

releases (and any and all drafts, alterations and modifications, changes and amendments of any 

of the foregoing), graphs or aural records or representations of any kind, including without 

limitation, photographs, charts, microfiche, microfilm, video-tape, recordings, motion pictures 

and electronic, mechanical or electric recordings or representations of any kind (including, 

without limitation, tapes, cassettes, discs and recordings), and including the file and file cover. 

"Document" shall include any electronically generated and/or stored items, including but not 

limited to electronic mail ("e-mail"), logs, drafts, and databases. 

2. The terms "you" and "your" mean the party to whom these interrogatories are addressed, 

including the party's attorneys, employees and agents and all other persons acting or purporting 

to act on the party's behalf. 

3. "Incident" refers to the incident or incidents that are the subject matter of Complainant's 

Amended Complaint in this matter. 

4. "Identify" or "state the identity of' with reference to individuals means state the person's 

.full name, current or last known business and home address, employer, title or job description, 

and telephone number. 

5. "Complainant" means the Federal Aviatio~ Administration and any employee, agent, 

or attorney for Complainant, and any other person acting for or on behalf of Complainant or 

under Complainant's authority and control. 

6. The present tense includes the past and future tenses. The singular includes the plural, 

2 
and the plural includes the singular. "All" means "any and all;" "any" means "any and all." 

"Including" means "including but not limited to." "And" and "or" encompass both "and" and 

"or." Words in the masculine, feminine or neuter form shall include each of the other genders. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

1. If any of the requested documents cannot be produced in full, produce the document or 

documents to the extent possible, specifying the reasons for the inability to produce the 

remainder. 

2. If any responsive document is withheld from production, on the basis of a claim of 

privilege or on any other basis, please state the specific basis on which such document is being 

withheld. 

3. If it is maintained that any document which is requested has been destroyed, set forth the 

contents of the document, the date of such destruction, and the name of the person who 

authorized or directed the destruction. 

4. If you claim that an attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine is 

applicable to any document sought by these Requests for Production of Documents, state and 

identify as to each document: 

a. The date the document was prepared or executed; 

b. The drafter or author of the document; 

c. Each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the document; 

d. Each person to whom the document was sent or delivered, and each person who 

received the document; 

e. The present location and custodian of the document; 

3 
f. The grounds upon which you base your claim of privilege, in a manner that, 

without revealing the information claimed to be protected, will enable Respondent 

to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection asserted. 

5. The following Requests for Production of Documents shall be deemed to be continuing. 

If, after producing documents, you become aware of any additional documents responsive to any 

of these Requests, you are required to produce such additional documents. 

REQUEST NO. 1: 

Please provide complete copies of all documents and other materials contained in the 

FAA's case file for the enforcement investigative report for this matter, Enforcement 

Investigative Report (EIR) 2009NM010105. If any records responsive to this request are 

withheld, please identify each document or piece of information and specify the basis on which 

such record is being withheld. 

REQUEST NO. 2: 

Provide complete copies of all documents, including but not limited to reports, records, 

interviews, statements, photographs, videotapes, audiotapes, and/or any other medium of data 

compilation, supporting or relating to any the allegations contained in the FAA's Amended 

Complaint against the Respondent. 

REQUEST NO. 3: 

Provide complete copies of all statements that the FAA contends were made by 

Respondent or any of its agents, or by any other person acting for or on behalf of Respondent or 

under Respondent's authority and control, regarding the Incident. 

4 
REQUEST NO.4: 

Provide complete copies of all witness statements in your possession or control regarding 

the Incident. 

REQUEST NO. 5: 

Provide complete copies of all photographs, videotapes, or other video media in your 

possession or control regarding or resulting from the FAA's investigation ofthe Incident. 

REQUEST NO. 6: 

For any person whom Complainant may call as an expert witness, produce the following: 

a. Their current resume and/or curriculum vitae; 

b. All documents, tangible things, reports, models or data compilations that have 

been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by the expert in anticipation of the 

expert's testimony; and 

c. A copy of all written reports the expert has prepared in this case. 

REQUEST NO. 7: 

Provide complete copies of any and all documents in your possession or control that are 

identified in, or that support any of your answers to, Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories to 

the FAA, and for each such document specify the interrogatory to which the document applies. 

REQUEST NO. 8: 

Provide copies of any and all documents upon which any denials of Respondent's First 

Set of Requests for Admissions are based. 

REQUEST NO. 9: 

Provide copies of.any and all documents that you anticipate offering into evidence at the 

hearing in this matter. 

5 
REQUEST NO. 10: 

Provide copies of any and all emails, letters, memos, telephone notes, summaries and 

other documents ·that relate to communications among FAA personnel or between FAA 

personnel and other persons or entities that relate in any way to the Incident, the allegations 

contained in the FAA's Complaint or any you other matter considered during the FAA's 

investigation of this Incident. 

DATED: January~ 2012 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

DombroffGilmore Jaques & French, PC 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

(703) 336-8800 

djaques@dglitigators.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

6 
\ . 

--------------.......... 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Aviation Technical 

Services, Inc.'s, First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on the following party's 

counsel or designated representative, at the address indicated, by UPS overnight delivery: 

Karen Davis Huber, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Fax: 425-227-1007 

~ Dated this /.2_ day of January, 2012. 

A. Eastwood 

off Gilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

703-336-8800 (P) 

703-336-8650 (F) 

7 
RECEIVED 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HE.t\RINGS · 

WASIDNGTON, D.C. 

SEP 1 0 20f2 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of: 

AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. [To Be Assigned] 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0682 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

February 14,2012 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES 

Complainant has not yet received documents and information requested from the Respondent 

in this matter; accordingly, its responses below are based only on information currently 

known. Complainant reserves its right to supplement these responses. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify each person whom you claim possesses any 

knowledge of the incident, and describe what each such person knows about the incident. 

ANSWER: 

Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) Will Hicks investigated the incident. His knowledge is 

described in the previously provided Enforcement Investigation Report (EIR). 

ASI William Shinn investigated the incident. His knowledge is described in the previously 

provided EIR. 

ASI Rhonda Maloney investigated the incident. Her knowledge is described in the 

previously provided EIR. 

Nick Heminger, ATS, possesses knowledge ofthe incident. 

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Interrogatories 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No FM-2011·0682 

Page I of9 

.KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
Tim Killion of ATS Quality Assurance possesses knowledge of the incident. 

Ken Remillard and Bruce Pleake ofHytek Processing possess knowledge of the plating 

request made J:>y ATS and the work performed by Hytek. 

John Franks of ASKO possesses knowledge of the plating request made by ATS and the 

work performed by ASKO. 

FAA Engineers Nancy Marsh and Tammy Anderson ofthe Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office (SACO) possess knowledge of the purposes for and requirements of the Airworthiness 

Directive applicable iri this case. 

FAA Senior Engineer Steve Fox of the Seattle ACO possesses knowledge of the applicability 

ofFAA Order 8110.103 regarding requests for approval of Alternate Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) for FAA Airworthiness Directives and of information he provided/explained to· 

ATS representatives regarding the AMOC process on May 20,2009. 

This answer may be supplemented upon receipt of Respondent's responses to Complainant's 

discovery. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identity each person with whom you have participated in any 

discussion or conversations regarding the incident, and state the substance of each such 

discussion or conversation. 

ANSWER: 

Objection, vague; objection, overbroad and unduly burdensome; objection to the extent that it 

seeks information about attorney-client privileged communications between FAA employees 

and FAA counsel. Notwithstanding said objection, FAA Inspectors Hicks and Shinn 

discussed the violations .and the existence of supporting documents with employees of 

Respondent; with employees of ASKO; with employees ofHytek Finishes Company as 

reflected in the previously provided EIR and items of pro~f; with Principal Maintenance 

Inspector Rod Ziegler; and with their supervisor, Kenneth Snyder. Inspector Maloney 

communicated information requirements with Dave Powell and Eric Paul of the SWA · 

Certificate Management Office. · · 

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify all documents that you anticipate offering into 

evidence at the hearing in this matter, and as to each such document identify the witness or 

witnesses throu~h whom you anticipate offering such document .. 

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Interrogatories 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No FAA-201 1-0682 

Page2of9 

KAREN 0A VIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
ANSWER: 

All previously provided items of proof (items of proof J .. 31, see attached list) may be offered 

through ASI Hicks, ASI Shinn, ASI Maloney, and/or ASI Hutton. 

FAA Order 8110.103, excerpt and Appendix A may be offered through Inspectors Hicks, 

Shinn, Hutton, Senior Engineer Fox, and/or other witnesses tope identified. 

In addition, the documents on the attached list may be offered through Inspectors Hicks, 

Shinn, Maloney, or Hutton or other witnesses to be identified. 

This answer may be supplemented upon receipt of Respondent's responses to Complainant's 

discovery. 

INTERROGATORY NO.4: IdentitY each person whom you intend to call as a fact witness 

at the hearing in this matter, and for each such witness state the subject matter and substance 

of the witness's expected testimony. 

ANSWER: 

Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) Will Hicks may testify regarding his investigation of this 

matter. 

ASI William Shinn may testify regarding his ~nvestigation of this matter. 

ASI Rhonda Maloney may testify regarding her investigation of. this matter. 

This answer may be supplemented upon receipt of Respondent's responses to Complainant's 

discovery.· · 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify each person whom you intend to .call as an. expert 

witness at the hearing in this matter, and. for each such witness provide: a) a complete 

statement of all opinions; b) the facts or data considered; c) any exhibits that will be used; d) 

the witness's qualifica~ons and background; e) a list of all other cases in ~hich during the 

previous 4 years the witness testified as an expert; and 0 a statement of the coml?ensation to ~~ . . . . - . 

Complainant's Responses to.Respondent's First Set of 

Interrogatories 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No F AA-20 I I -0682 

Page3 of9 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL:.(425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
ANSWER: Qualifications of all currently known expert witnesses are stated in their attached 

resumes. · 

Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) Will Hicks may testify regarding his opinion, based upon the 

.facts in the EIR and with reference to the exhibits listed in Response to Interrogatory No.3, 

that in performing maintenance as described in the Amended Complaint A TS did not comply 

with the SWA CAMP; ATS dtd not comply with AD 2009-09-07 and SB 7J7-32Al355; 

A TS did not use methods, techniques and practices acceptable to the Administrator; and that 

ATS. did not perform the work in such a manner that the condition of the aircraft, airframe or 

appliance worked on was at least equal to its original or properly altered condition. 

AS! William Shinn may testify regarding his opinion that, based upon the facts in the EIR 

and with reference to the exhibits listed in Response to Interrogatory No.3, that in 

performing maintenance as described in the Amended Complaint A TS did· not comply with 

the SWA CAMP; ATS did not comply with AD 2009-09-07 and SB 737-32A1355; ATS d~d 

not use methods, techniques and practices acceptable to the Administrator; and that A TS did 

not perform the work in such a manner that the condition ·of the aircraft, airframe or 

appliance worked on was at least equal to its· original or properly altered condition. 

AS! Theodor~ Hutton m,ay testify regarding his opinion, based upon the facts in the EIR and 

with reference to ·the exhibits listed in Response to Interrogatory No.3, that in performing 

maintenance as described in the Amended Complaint ATS did not comply with the SWA 

CAMP; ATS did not comply with AD 2009-09-07 and SB 737-32Al355; ATS qid not use 

methods, techniques and practices acceptable to the Administrator; and th!it A TS. did not 

perform the work in such a maiuier that the condition of the aircraft, airframe or appliance 

worked on was at least equal to its original or properly altered condition .. He may also testify 

regardi~g. the agency's sanctions guid~ce and the computation of the penalty. 

Aerospace Engineer Terry Kahled of the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office may be 

called to testify regarding bright. cadmium plating and baking requirements applicable in this 

case. 

An aeronautical engine~r or engineers employed by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

to be identified in a supplemental response, may be .called to testify regarding the · 

requirements of AD 2009-09-07 .and SB.737-32Al355 and FAA Order 8110.103 and their 

application to the conteste~ matters. · · 

. . 

This answer may be supplem(mted upon. receipt of Respondent's responses to Complainant's 

discovery. . . 

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Interrogatories 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No FAA-2011-0682 

Page 4 of9 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL:.(425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
INTERROGATORY NO.6: Identify and describe in detail any physical evidence in your 

possession, custody or control that relates to, concerns. or pertains to the incident. Identify 

the custodian and location of such physical evidence. · . · · 

ANSWER: 

None. 

INTERROGATORY NO.7: State all facts that form the basis of the allegations in paragraph 

5 of Part II of the Amended Complaint. 

ANSWER: 

ATS gave orders to ASKO and Hytek specifying the use of AMS QQ-P-416. ASKO and 

. Hytek performed the plating in accordance with ATS's instructions. The plating was less 

than the .0005inch required by SOPM 20-42-05. 

INTERROGATORY NO.8: State all facts that form the basis of the allegations in paragraph 

6 of Part II of the Amended Complaint. . 

ANSWER: 

The SOPM requires that following cadmium plating the repair parts fabricated with 17-4 PH 

stainless steel be given a hydrogen embrittlement bake for a minimum of 12 hours at 375-400 

degrees. ATS specified a process per AMS-QQ-P-416 which provides shorter bake times. 

ASKO and Hytek shop travelers show that they baked the parts per ATS's instructions. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Stat~ all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph 

7 of Part II of the Amended Complaint that, in conducting the overhaul and repair of the 

listed main landing gear actuator beam assembles, ATS did not conduct the maintenance in 

the manner required by AD 2009-09-07 and SB 737-32Al355. 

ANSWER: 

The AD and Service Bulletin (SB) were intended-to strengthen the walking beam bushings 

and repair sleeves. They required specific plating thicknesses per CMM 32-16-31 and 

SOPM 20-42-05. The standard specifie~ by ATS did not meet the AD.and SB requirements. 

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Interrogatories 

·Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No FAA-2011-0682 · · 

Page 5 of9 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER F A.A. ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
INTERROGATORY NO~ 10: State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in 

paragraph.9 of the Amended Complaint that "in conducting the overhaul and repair of the 

listed main landing gear actuator beam assemblies, ATS did not comply with the SW A 

CAMP." ... 

ANSWER: 

The SWA CAMP requires compliance With the AD as described in the 'response.io 

Interrogatory 9 above. ATS provided faulty instructions that did not meet the AD 

requirements and thus.did not meet the SWA CAMP requirements. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in 

paragraph IQ.ofthe Amended Complaint.that "in conducting the overhaul and repair ofthe 

listed main landing gear actuator beam assemblies, ATS did not use methods, techniques, and 

··practices acceptable to the Administrator." 

ANSWER: 

See responses to interrogatories ?• 8, 9, and 10. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State ali' facts that form the basi~ of the allegation ·in 

paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint that "in conducting the overhaul and repair of the 

listed main landing gear actuator beam assemblies, A TS did not perform the work in such a 

manner that the condition of the aircraft,.airframe, engine, propeller or appliance worked on 

was at least equal to its original or properly altered condition." 

ANSWER: 

The Ab speCified the properly altered.condition of the repaired parts. ATS did not comply 

with the AD as described in the responses to Interrogatories 7, 8, 9, and 10. 

INTERROGATORY N0 .. 13: State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in 

paragraph l(a) of Part III of the AmencJ:~d Complaint, that "when perfqrm!ng maintenance, 

alteration or preventiv~ maintenance required by Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Reguh1tions, 

ATS failed to use the·methods, techniques and practices prescribed in the current 

manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness prepared by 

its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the 

Administrator." 

Complainant;s Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

· Interrogatories · · 

Aviation Technical Services . 

FDMS No FM-2011-0682 

Page 6 of9 

KAREN DAVIS Hi.JBER FAA ATTORNEY 

. TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
ANSWER:· 

See the responses to Interrogatories 7, 8, 9, and 10. 

. INTERROGATORY NO. . 14: State all facts that fonn the basis of the allegation in 

· paragraph 1 (b) of Part III of the Amended Complaint that "when perfo~ing maintenance, 

alteration or preventive maintenance, ATS "did not perfonn the work in such ·a manner and 

use materi~s or such a quality that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, 

· propeller, or appliance worked on was at least equal to its original or properly altered 

condition." 

ANSWER: 

See the responses to Interrogatories 7, 8, 9, and 10. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State all facts that fonn the basis of the allegation in 

paragraph 1 (c) of Part III of the Amended Complaint that "when perfonning maintenance, 

alteration or preventive maintenance or alterations for an air carrier that has a CAMP under 

part 121 or 13 5, A TS "did not follow the air carrier's or commercial operator's program and 

applicable sections of its maintenance manual." 

ANSWER: 

The SWA CAMP requJres compliance with ADs and AD notes. ATS did not complywith 

AD 2009-09-07 as described above in the responses to Interrogatories· 7;.8, 9, and 10. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: State all facts, that fonn the basis of the rulegatiori in 

paragraph 1 (d) of Part III of the Amended Cpmplaint that A TS "failed to accomplish the 

required actions in accordance with" AD 2009-09-07." 

ANSWER: 

See responses to interrogatories above. 

·INTERROGATORY NO. 17: As to each and eyery.part of subpart of(sic) Respondent 

A. viation Technical Set;Vices,. Inc.'s Fir$t Set of Request for Aqmissions· that you denied, state 

the reasons for the denial and state and describe in detail all facts kno\vn by you concerning 

and supporting the sarrie, and identify a1J documents containing infonnation regat:ding t4e 

same. 

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Interrogatories 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No FAA-2011-0682 

Page7of9 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATIORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
ANSWER: 

No requests for admissions were received from the Respondent until February 1, 2012. 

Complainant will respond to Interrogatory 17 when it responds to the Respondent's requests for admissions. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: For eachdocument and piece of information you withhold on 

the basis of a privilege .or otherwise, state the basis on which you are withholding the 

document or piece ofirtformation and describe each such the document (sic) or piece of 

information in detail sufficient to establish your right to withhold it. 

ANSWER: 

Documents. created by FAA counsel in anticipation of litigation are withheld as attorney work product. 

Electronic mail communications from FAA counsel requesting information are withheld as 

attorney work product and attorney-client communications. 

DATED this 14th day of February 2012. 

(~ j) ·/-4t9=:: 

Karen Davis Huber 

FAA Attorney 

Office.ofRegional Counsel 

FAA Northwest Mountain Region 

1601 Lind Ave SW Suite 570 (ANM-7) 

Renton, W A 98057 

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Interrogatories 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No FAA-201 1-0682 

Page 8 of9 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATIORNBY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
... 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

.·Jhereby certify that on this date, I have served the foregoing COMPLAINANT'S 

RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Federal Express upon; 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

DombroffGilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

DATED this 14th day of February 2012 

· Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Interrogatories 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No F AA-2011-0682 

Page9of9 

ana Stephenson 

'P:r:ogram Support Specialist . 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Avenue SW 

Renton, WA 98055 

Ph: (425) 227-2164 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (42.5) 227-1007 
In the Matter of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEIVED 

SEP 1 0 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. (To Be Assigned] 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0682 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

February 14, 2012 

COMPLAINANT'S :taSPONSES TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS 

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Complainant has not yet received documents and information requested from the Respondent in 

this matter; accordingly, its responses below are based only on information currently known. 

Complainant reserves its right to supplement these responses. 

REQUEST NO. 1: Provide complete copies. of aU documents and other materials contained in 

the FAA's case file forEIR 1009NM010l05. 

All items of proof were previously provided. See attached inspector report, cover sheet and 

Section B. Inspector's analysis is withheld under the deliberative process privilege. AVS QMS 

Sanction Determination Transmittal is withheld under the deliberative procyss privilege. 

Attorney generated documents other than pleadings are withheld as attorney work product. 

REQUEST NO.2: Provide complete copies of all documents supporting or relating to any of the 

allegations contained in the FAA's Amended Complaint. 

See previously furnished documents and the attached documents. 

REQUEST NO; 3: Provide complete copies of all statements that the FAA contends were made 

by Respondent or any of its agents~ or· by any other person acting for or on behalf of Respondent 

or under Respondent's authority and control, regarding the incident. 

See previously provided items of proof and the attached documents. 

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Requests for Production of Documents 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAA ATrORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167; FAX: 

Page I of4 
REQUEST NO. 4: Provide complete copies of all witness statements in your possession or 

control regarding this incident. 

See previously provided documents. 

REQUEST NO. 5: Provide complete copies of all photographs, videotapes or other video 

media in your possession or control regarding or resulting from the FAA's investigation of 

the incident. · · · 

None. 

REQUEST NO. 6: For any person whom Complainant may call as an expert witness, 

produce their current resume or curriculum vitae; all documents, things, reports, models or 

compilations provided to, reviewed by, or prep;:rredby the expert in anticipation of 

testimony; and a copy of all written reports the expert has provided in this case. 

See the attachments and the previously provided documents. This response will be 

supplemental when all witnesses are identified. 

REQUEST NO. 7: Provide complete copies of all documents in your possession or control 

that are identified in or that support your answers to Respondent's First Set of 

Interrogatories. 

See attached. 

REQUEST NO; 8: Provide copies of any and all documents upon which any denials of 

Respondent's First Set of Requests for Admissions are based. 

No Requests for Admissions were received until February 1, 2012. This will be treated as a 

continuing request. 

REQUEST NO. 9: Provide copies of all documents that you anticipate offering into 

evidence at the heating in this mf).tter. 

See the previously provided documents and the attachments. Complainant reserves the right 

to supplement this response. 

REQUEST NO. 10: Provide copies of all and all emails, letters, memos, telephone notes, 

summaries and other documents that relate to communications among FAA personnel or 

between FAA personnel and other persons or entities that relate in any way to the incident, 

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Requests for Production .of Documents 

Page i of4 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAA A TIORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
., .;;.-

Objection to this request as vague, unduly burdensome and overbroad; objection also to the 

extent that the request seeks information concerning ·documents protected by the attorney-client 

privilege or the attomey·work product privilege. Notwithstanding said objections, Respondent is 

referred to the previously' provided itein:s of proof and the attached documen~s. · 

The undersigned has read the foregoing answers and they are in compliance with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Dated February 14,2012. 

Karen 

~IJ.~ D. Huber 

FAA Attorney 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

(425) 227-2167 

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Requests for Production of Documents 

Page 3 of4 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAA ATTORNEY 

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

I hereby certify that the foregoing Responses to Respondent's First Set oflnterrogatories and 

First Set of Requests for Production ofDocuments has been served via Federal Express this date, to the following; 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

Dombroff, Gilmore Jaques & French, PC 

1672 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

Dated this 14th day of February, 2012. 

~(L~~ anastepilel1SOll?~ . . 

Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 (50 1 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425) 227-2164 

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of 

Requests for Production of Documents KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAA ATTORNEY 

Page4of4 TEL: (425) 227-2167; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
;-. 

, .. 

From: Jaques, Dane 

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 12:58 PM 

To: Karen.Davis.Huber@faa.gov 

Subject: ATS, case number 2010NM010105 (walking beam case) 

Karen, 

RECEIVED 

SEP 1 0 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

Based on our preliminary review of the FAA's responses to ATS's First Set of Requests for Production of 

Documents and First Set of Interrogatories, please note the following: 

In response to interrogatory number 1, you listed topics for the individuals, but did not describe. what they 

know. Please provide details on what Nancy Marsh and Tammy Anderson know about the purposes for 

and requirements of the AD at issue in this case. Please also describe what Steve Fox knows about 

information he provided/explained toATS representatives regarding the AMOC process on Mary 20, 

2009. 

In response to interrogatory number 2, you listed topics for the individuals, but did not describe whatthey 

know. Please provide the substance of the discussions described in this answer. 

In response to Requestfor Production No. 1, requesting "all documents and other materials contained in 

the FAA's case file for the enforcement investigative report for this matter," you state that "[a]ll items of 

proof were previously provided." You also refer to these "previously provided items of proof in response 

to Request Nos. 3 and 10. We have no record of receiving these documents. Please provide us with 

complete copies of these materials. 

in response to ReqUe$t Nqs, 2, 4, 6, and 9, .you refer to "previously furnished documents" and "previously 

provided documents. • Again, we have no record of receiving such materials. Please provide us with 

complete copies of these documents. 

In response to Request No. 10, requesting "copies of any and all emails, letters, memos, telephone notes, 

summaries and other documents that relate to communications among FAA personnel or between FAA 

personnel and other persons or entities" that relate to the Incident, the allegations in the Complaint, or any 

;other matter considered during the FAA's investigation, you have objected on the basis .that the request is 

"vague, unduly burdensome and overbroad." We do not believe the request is vague, unduly 

burdensome, or overbroad, and renew our request for all documents relating to such communications. 
Page 2 of2 

You have also objected to Request No. 10 "to the extent that the request seeks information concerning 

documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product privilege." In response to 

Request No. 1, you have withheld certain documents on the basis of attorney work product and the deliberative 

process privilege. In response to Interrogatory No. 18, you have withheld documents on the basis of attorney 

work product and attorney-client communications. You have also objected to Interrogatory No. 2 on the basis of 

attorney-client privilege. To the extent you are withholding any documents or information based on attorney-client 

privilege, work product protection, deliberative process privilege -- or on the basis of any other privilege, rule, 

doctrine, or protection-- please provide us with a privilege log, as requested in the instructions contained in the 

Requests for Production and Interrogatories, so that we may assess the applicability of the privilege or protection 

asserted. See, !.UJ.:., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). 

Thank you for your attention to our request. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do 

not hesitate to contact us. 

Best regards, 

Dane 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

Dombroff, Gilmore, Jaques & French, PC 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

Office: 703-336-8709 

Cell: 703-966-6111 

Fax: 703-336-8750 

'This message is intended for the designated recipients only and may contain PRIVILEGED & 

CONFIDENTIAL information. If you receive this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete 

all copies of the email. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEIVED 

SEP 1 0 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of: 

AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

____________________________ ) 

FAA Docket No. [To Be Assigned] 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0682 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

February 29, 2012 

COMPLAINANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST 

SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.220(i), Complainant supplements its responses to the Respondent's 

initial discovery requests as follows: · 

INTERROGATORY NO. I: Identify each person whom you claim possesses any 

knowledge of the incident, and describe what each such person knows about the incident. 

SUPPLEMENTED ANSWER: 

FAA Engineer Nancy Marsh drafted the final rule and preambles of AD 2009-09-07. She 

possesses knowledge of its requirements. Her supervisor FAA Engineer Tammy Anderson 

also possesses knowledge of the final rule and preambles and requirements of AD 2009-09-

07. 

FAA Senior Engineer Steve Fox ofthe Seattle ACO possesses knowledge of the applicability 

of FAA Order 8110.103 regarding requests for approval of Alternate Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) for FAA Airworthiness Directives and of information he provided/explained to 

ATS representatives regarding the AMOC process on May 20, 2009, specifically, that he 

advised them they must apply for an AMOC when unable to follow the requirements of an 

Airworthiness Directive. 

Complainant's Supplemental Responses to Respondent's 

First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No FAA-2011-0682 

Page I 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each person with whom you have participated in any 

discussion or conversations regarding the incident, and state the substance of each such 

discussion or conversation. 

SUPPLEMENTED ANSWER: 

Objection, vague; objection, overbroad and unduly burdensome; objection to the extent that it 

seeks information about attorney.,.client privileged communications between FAA employees 

and FAA counsel. Notwithstanding said objection, FAA Inspectors Hicks and Shinn 

discussed the violations and the existence of supporting documents with employees of 

Respondent; with employees of ASKO; with employees of Hytek Finishes Company as 

.reflected in the EIR and items of proof; with Principal Maintenance Inspector Rod Ziegler; 

and with their supervisor, Kenneth Snyder. Inspector Maloney communicated information 

requirements with Dave Powell and Eric Paul of the SWA Certificate Management Office. 

Inspector Hicks discussed the violations and the requirements of the applicable AD and 

Service Bulletin with FAA Engineer Marsh. 

INTERROGATORIES NO. 4 and 5: 

SUPPLEMENTED ANSWERS: 

Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) Will Hicks may testify regarding his investigation of this 

matter. 

ASI William Shinn may testify regarding his investigation of this matter. 

ASI Rhonda Maloney may testify regarding her investigation of this matter. 

~en Remillard or Bruce Pleake ofHytek Finishes Co. may be called to testify regarding the 

work request made by ATS and the work performed by Hytek. 

FAA Engineer Nancy Marsh may testify regarding the final rule and preambles of AD 2009-

09-07. 

FAA Engineer Tammy Anderson may testify regarding the background of the final rule and 

preambles of AD 2009-09-07. 

Complainant's Supplemental Responses to Respondent's 

First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No FAA-20 11-0682 

Page2 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
FAA Senior Engineer Steve Fox of the Seattle ACO may testify regarding the requirements 

ofF AA Order 8110.103 regarding requests for approval of Alternate Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) for FAA Airworthiness Directives and the information he provided/explained to 

ATS representatives regarding the AMOC process on May 20, 2009. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: As to each and every part of[sic] subpart of Respondent 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc.'s First Set of Request for Admissions that you denied, state 

the reasons for the denial and state and describe in detail all facts known by you concerning 

and supporting the same, and identify all documents containing information regarding the 

same. 

SUPPLEMENTED ANSWER: 

I. Request for Admission No. 6 (Exhibit E). Complainant denies that Exhibit E is 

admissible, on the grounds of relevan~e and lack of completeness. Exhibit E pertains 

to production of a newly manufactured part and as such is not applicable to 

production of oversize repair parts such as the four parts involved in this case. 

Exhibit E, which consists of a single page excerpt from a part list, is also incomplete 

as the original is accompanied by drawings. 

2. Request for Admission No. 7 (Exhibit F). Complainant denies that Exhibit F is 

admissible on the grounds of relevance. The finish codes are not relevant to the 

overhaul of replacement parts in accordance with AD 2009-09-07 and SB·737-

32A1355. 

3. Request for Admission No. 10 (Exhibit I). Complainant denies that Exhibit I is 

admissible, on the grounds of relevance. Exhibit I is dated November 1, 2011 and is 

not the version ofCMM 32-16-31 that was in effect at the time ofthe violations. Page 

608 contains a revision that was adopted after the violations and after filing of the 

original Complaint in this matter. 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION: 

Supplemental response to Requests I, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10-see enclosed compact disc with 

electronic copies of all items of proof. 

Supplemental response to Request No.6- see the attached resumes of Theodore Hutton, 

Nancy Marsh, Steven Fox, and Tamara Anderson. 

Complainant's Supplemental Responses to Respondent's 

First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No F AA-20 11-0682 

Page3 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
Response to request for a privilege log of documents withheld under the attorney-client and 

attorney work product privilege: no such log exists and none is required to be kept under the 

Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions. 

DATED this 29th day of February 2012. 

~ {)_rf1u4---

Karen Davis Huber 

FAA Attorney 

Office of Regional Counsel 

FAA Northwest Mountain Region 

1601 Lind Ave SW Suite 570 (ANM-7) 

Renton, W A 98057 

Complainanfs Supplemental Responses to Respondent's 

First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No F AA-20 11-0682 

_ Page 4 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007 
" . 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF 

fNTERROGATORIES by Federal Express upon: 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

DombroffGilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

DATED this 29th day of February 2012 

Complainant's Supplemental Responses to Respondent's 

First Set of Interrogatories and Requysts for Production 

Aviation Technical Services 

FDMS No FAA-2011-0682 

Page 5 

tanasteJ;henSOn 

Program 

~ Support Specialist 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Avenue SW 

Renton, W A 98055 

Ph: (425) 227-2164 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007