### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

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 MOTIONTO COMPELDISCOVERY 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 ofRequests for Production ofDocuments (see Exhibit B) on Complainant. On February 14, 2012, Complainant served its Responses to Respondent's First Set ofInterrogatories (see Exhibit C) and Responses to Respondent's First Set of Requests for Production. See ExhibitD. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, who "possess knowledge of the purposes for and requirements ofthe Airworthiness Directive applicable in this case." Also identified is FAA Senior Engineer Steve Fox ofthe Seattle ACO, who "possesses knowledge ofthe applicability of FAA Order 8110.103 regarding requests for approval of Alternate Methods ofCompliance (AMOCs) for FAA Airworthiness Directives and ofinformation 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 ofAD 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 ofAD 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 ofAD 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 ofthe specific content oftheir "knowledge ofthe 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 Answerto Interrogatory No. 1stated: FAA Senior Engineer Steve Fox of the Seattle ACO possesses knowledge of the applicability of FAA Order 8110.103 regarding requests for approval ofthe Alternate Methods ofCompliance (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 ofeach 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 ofRespondent; with employees of ASKO; with employees of Hytek Finishes Company as reflected in the previously provided EIR and items ofproof; with Principal Maintenance Inspector Rod Ziegler; and with their supervisor, Kenneth Snyder. Inspector Maloney communicated information requirements with Dave Powell and Eric Paul ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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/INFORMATIONWITHHELD 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 ofany otherprivilege, rule, doctrine, orprotection

- 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 orprotection 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 ofPractice



### 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 ofprivilege"). 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 ofproviding Respondent with the requested log or similar statement, Complainant should be compelled to produce all documents as to which privilege orprotectionhas 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 ofInterrogatories and First Set ofRequests 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 otherprotection is being asserted.

6DATED: September 7, 2012



### 7 Respectfully submitted,

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.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 ofRegional 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 ofthe foregoing Motion to Compel on the following, at the address indicated, by UPS overnight delivery: Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, 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 ofthe foregoing Motion to Compel on the following, at the address indicated, by UPS overnight delivery: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Fax: 202-366-7536 Dated this 7th day ofSeptember, 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 OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

# RECEIVED SEP 10 2012 

## HEARING DOCKET

In the Matter of: Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

## * * 

## * * * FAA Case No. 20IONM010105 FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

### *******************************************
RESPONDENTAVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.'S FIRST SET OFINTERROGATORIES 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 ofservice of this First Set ofInterrogatories. DEFINITIONS

1. "Document" means any written orgraphic matter or othermeans ofpreserving 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 ofany 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 orjob 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. Thepresent tense includes the pastand future tenses. The singular includes the plural,



### 2and 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 ofthe 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 ofyour attorneys, consultants, advisors, or otherpersons directly or indirectly employed by you orotherwise subjectto 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 intendedto, and does, request that each and everypartthereofbe answered as though it were the subject of, and were asked by, a separate interrogatory. 4. Ifthe interrogatories cannotbe answered in full, answer to the extent possible, specify the
reason for your inability to answer the remainder, and state whatever information and knowledge youhave regarding the unanswered portion. 5. Ifyou claim that an**attomey~client** privilege orthe attorney work product doctrine is applicable to any document the identification ofwhich is sought by the interrogatories, state and identify as to each document:
a. The date the document was prepared orexecuted; b. The drafter orauthor ofthe document;
c. Eachperson who prepared or assisted inthe preparation ofthe document; d. Eachpersonto whom the document was sent ordelivered, and each person who received the document;

3e. The present location and custodian ofthe document; f. The grounds upon which you base your claim ofprivilege, in a manner that, without revealing the information claimed to be protected, will enable Respondent to assess the applicability ofthe 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 suchdocument.



### 4INTERROGATORY 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 ofthe 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 dataconsidered by the witness in forming them; (c) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or supportthem; (d) the witness's qualifications and background, including a list ofall publications authored in the previous 10 years; (e) a list ofall other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial orby deposition; and (t) a statement ofthe 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 ofsuch 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.



### 5INTERROGATORY 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, ATS 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 ofthe 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 ofthe allegation in paragraph 10 ofPart II the Amended Complaint that, "[i]n 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." INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State all facts that form the basis ofthe allegation in paragraph 11 ofPart II the Amended Complaint that, "(i]n conducting the overhaul and repair ofthe 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."

6INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph l(a) of Part III ofthe 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." INTERROGATORYNO. 14: State all facts that form the basis ofthe allegation in paragraph 1 (b) of Part III ofthe Amended Complaint that, in performing maintenance, alteration orpreventive maintenance, ATS "did not perform the work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition ofthe aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on was at least equal to its original orproperly altered condition." INTERROGATORYNO. 15: State all facts that form the basis of the allegation in paragraph 1 (c) of Part III ofthe 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 ofits maintenance manual." INTERROGATORYNO. 16: State all facts that form the basis ofthe allegation in paragraph 1(d) of Part III ofthe 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 ofsubpart ofRespondent Aviation Technical Services, Inc.'s First Set ofRequest 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 informationregarding the same. 

### INTERROGATORY NO. 18: For each document and piece ofinformation you withhold on the basis ofa 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 ofinformation in detail sufficient to establish your rightto withhold it.

DATED: January 

### \3 ,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.



### 8

### •**.~**
CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy ofthe 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 ofRegional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Fax: 425-227-1007 

## +h
. Dated this

## Q_ day ofJanuary, 2012.

9

# --------------------

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

# RECEIVED SEP 10 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 AVIATIONTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.'S FIRST SET OFREQUESTS FORPRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS 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 ofservice of this First Set ofRequests for Production ofDocuments. DEFINITIONS 

### l.

."Document" means any written or graphic matter orother means ofpreserving 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 ofany 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 ofany 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 ofComplainant'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 orjob 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 underComplainant's authority and control. 6. Thepresent tense includes the past and future tenses. The singular includes the plural,



### 2and 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 ofthe other genders. INSTRUCTIONS 1. Ifany ofthe 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. Ifit 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 ordirected the destruction. 4. Ifyou claim that an attorney-clientprivilege or the attorney workproduct doctrine is applicable to any document sought by these Requests for Production ofDocuments, state and identify as to each document:

a. The date the document was prepared orexecuted; b. The drafter orauthor ofthe document;
c. Eachperson who prepared orassisted inthe preparation ofthe document; d. Each person to whom the document was sent or delivered, and eachperson who received the document;
e. The present location and custodian ofthe document;



### 3f. The grounds upon which you base your claim ofprivilege, in a manner that, without revealing the information claimed to be protected, will enable Respondent to assess the applicability ofthe privilege or protection asserted. 

### 5. The following Requests for Production ofDocuments shall be deemed to be continuing. If, after producing documents, you become aware ofany additional documents responsive to any ofthese 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 ofinformation and specify the basis on which such record is being withheld. REQUEST NO. 2: Provide complete copies ofall 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 ofits agents, orby any other person acting for or on behalfofRespondent or under Respondent's authority and control, regarding the Incident.

4REQUEST NO.4: Provide complete copies ofall 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 orresulting 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 ofthe expert's testimony; and
c. A copy ofall writtenreports the expert has prepared inthis case. REQUEST NO. 7: Provide complete copies ofany and all documents in your possession or control that are identified in, or that support any ofyour answers to, Respondent's First Set ofInterrogatories to the FAA, and for each suchdocument specifythe interrogatory to which the document applies. REQUEST NO. 8: Provide copies ofany and all documents upon which any denials ofRespondent's First SetofRequests 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 ofthis Incident.

DATED:**January~** 2012

Dane 

### B. Jaques, Esq. DombroffGilmoreJaques & 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 ofthe foregoing Aviation Technical Services, Inc.'s, First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on the following party's counsel ordesignated representative, at the address indicated, by UPS overnight delivery:
Karen Davis Huber, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Fax: 425-227-1007

### ~ Dated this

### /.2_ day ofJanuary, 2012.



### A. Eastwood offGilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 1676 International Drive, Penthouse McLean, VA 22102 703-336-8800 (P) 703-336-8650 (F)



### 7

# RECEIVED
UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHE.t\RINGS ·

WASIDNGTON, D.C. 

## SEP 1020f2 

## HEARING DOCKET

In the Matter of: AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, (Civil Penalty Action) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FAA DocketNo. [To BeAssigned] FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0682 Judge Richard C. Goodwin February 14,2012 

### COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSES TORESPONDENT'S FIRSTSET OF INTERROGATORIES Complainanthas notyet received documents and informationrequested from the Respondent inthis matter; accordingly, its responses below are based only oninformation currently known. Complainantreserves its rightto supplementthese responses. INTERROGATORYNO. 1: Identify eachperson whom you claimpossesses any knowledge ofthe incident, and describe what each suchperson knows aboutthe incident. ANSWER: Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) Will Hicks investigated the incident. His knowledge is described in the previouslyprovided Enforcement Investigation Report (EIR). ASI William Shinn investigated the incident. His knowledge is described inthepreviously provided EIR. ASI Rhonda Maloney investigated the incident. Herknowledge is described in the previouslyprovided 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 .KARENDAVIS HUBERFAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007Tim Killion ofATS Quality Assurancepossesses knowledge ofthe incident. Ken Remillard and BrucePleake ofHytekProcessing possess knowledge oftheplating request made J:>y ATS and the workperformedbyHytek. JohnFranks ofASKO possessesknowledge ofthe plating request made byATS andthe workperformed byASKO. FAAEngineers NancyMarsh and Tammy Anderson ofthe Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (SACO) possess knowledge ofthe purposes for and requirements ofthe Airworthiness Directive applicable

### iri this case. FAA SeniorEngineer SteveFox ofthe SeattleACO possessesknowledge ofthe applicability ofFAA Order 8110.103 regarding requests for approval ofAlternate Methods ofCompliance (AMOCs) for FAAAirworthiness Directives and ofinformation he provided/explainedto· ATS representatives regarding the AMOC process onMay 20,2009. This answermaybe supplemented uponreceipt ofRespondent's responses to Complainant's discovery. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identity eachperson with whom youhaveparticipated inany discussion orconversations regarding the incident, and state the substance ofeach such discussion orconversation. ANSWER: Objection, vague; objection, overbroad and unduly burdensome; objection to the extent that it seeks information about attorney-client privileged communications betweenFAA employees andFAA counsel. Notwithstanding said objection, FAAInspectors Hicks and Shinn discussed the violations .and the existence ofsupporting documents with employees of Respondent; with employees ofASKO; with employees ofHytekFinishes Company as reflected inthe previously provided EIR and items of**pro~f;** with Principal Maintenance Inspector Rod Ziegler; and with their supervisor, Kenneth Snyder. Inspector Maloney communicated informationrequirements with Dave Powell and Eric Paul ofthe SWA· Certificate Management Office. · · INTERROGATORYNO. 3: Identify all documents that you anticipate offeringinto evidence atthe hearing inthis matter, and as to each such document identify the witness or witnesses**throu~h** whom you anticipate offering such document
..

Complainant'sResponses to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories Aviation Technical Services FDMS No FAA-201 1-0682 Page2of9 KAREN 0A VIS HUBERFAA ATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007

### ANSWER: All previously provided items ofproof(items ofproofJ
..

### 31, see attached list) may be offered through ASI Hicks, ASI Shinn, ASI Maloney, and/orASI Hutton. FAA Order 8110.103, excerpt and Appendix A may be offered through Inspectors Hicks, Shinn, Hutton, SeniorEngineer 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 ofRespondent's responses to Complainant's discovery. INTERROGATORYNO.4: IdentitY eachperson whom you intend to call as afact witness atthe hearing inthis matter, and for each such witness state the subject matter and substance ofthe witness's expected testimony. ANSWER: Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) Will Hicks may testify regarding his investigation ofthis matter. ASI William Shinn may testify regarding his**~nvestigation** 

### ofthis matter. ASI RhondaMaloney may testify regarding herinvestigation of.this matter. This answermay be supplemented upon receipt ofRespondent's responses to Complainant's discovery.· · INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify eachperson whom you intend to .call as an.expert witness atthe hearing in this matter, and.for each such witness provide: a) a complete statement ofall opinions; b) the facts ordata considered; c) any exhibits that will be used; d) the witness's**qualifica~ons** 

### and background; e) alist ofall othercases in**~hich** 

### during the previous 4 years the witness testified as an expert; and 

## 0 a statement ofthe coml?ensation to**~~** . . . . 

### - .

Complainant's Responses to.Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories Aviation Technical Services FDMS No F AA-20I I-0682 Page3 of9 KARENDAVIS HUBER FAA ATTORNEY TEL:.(425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007ANSWER: Qualifications ofall currentlyknown expert witnesses are stated 

### intheir attached resumes. · Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) Will Hicks may testify regarding his opinion, based upon the .facts in the EIRandwith reference to the exhibits listed in Response to InterrogatoryNo.3, thatin performing maintenance as described inthe Amended ComplaintATS did not comply with the SWA CAMP; ATS dtd notcomply with AD 2009-09-07 and SB 7J7-32Al355; ATS did notuse methods, techniques and practices acceptable to the Administrator; and that ATS.did not performthe work in such a mannerthatthe condition ofthe aircraft, airframe or appliance worked on was atleast equal to its original orproperly altered condition. AS! William Shinnmaytestifyregardinghis opinionthat, based uponthe facts in the EIR and with reference to the exhibits listed inResponse to Interrogatory No.3, that in performingmaintenance as described 

### inthe Amended Complaint ATS did·not comply with the SWA CAMP; ATS didnotcomply withAD 2009-09-07 and SB 737-32A1355; ATS**d~d** notuse methods, techniques and practices acceptable to the Administrator; and that ATS did notperform the work in such a manner thatthe condition·ofthe aircraft, airframe or appliance worked onwas atleast equal to its· original orproperly altered condition. AS!**Theodor~** Hutton

### m,ay testifyregarding his opinion, based upon the facts inthe EIR and withreference to ·the exhibits listed in Response to InterrogatoryNo.3,that inperforming maintenance as described inthe Amended ComplaintATS did not comply with the SWA CAMP; ATS did not comply withAD 2009-09-07 and SB 737-32Al355; ATS qid not use methods, techniques andpractices acceptable to the Administrator; andth!it ATS.did not perform the work 

### in sucha maiuierthat the condition ofthe aircraft, airframe orappliance worked on was at least equal to its original orproperly altered condition
.. Hemay also testify**regardi~g.**the agency's sanctions**guid~ce** and the computation ofthe penalty. Aerospace EngineerTerry Kahled ofthe Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office may be calledto testify regarding bright.cadmiumplating and baking requirements applicable inthis case. An aeronautical**engine~r** orengineers employed bythe Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, to be identified in a supplemental response, maybe.called to testify regarding the · requirements ofAD 2009-09-07 .and SB.737-32Al355 andFAAOrder 8110.103 and their application to the**conteste~** matters. · ·

. . This answermay be supplem(mted upon. receipt ofRespondent'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 4of9 KARENDAVIS HUBERFAA ATTORNEY TEL:.(425) 227-2167FAX: (425) 227-1007INTERROGATORYNO.6: Identify and describe in detail anyphysical evidence in your possession, custodyor control that relates to, concerns. orpertains to theincident. Identify the custodian and location ofsuchphysical evidence. · . · · ANSWER: None. INTERROGATORYNO.7: State all facts that form the basis ofthe allegations inparagraph 5 ofPartII ofthe AmendedComplaint. ANSWER: ATS gave orders to ASKO and Hytek specifying the use ofAMS QQ-P-416. ASKO and

. Hytekperformed the plating inaccordance with ATS's instructions. The plating was less

than the .0005inchrequired by SOPM 20-42-05.
INTERROGATORYNO.8: State all facts that form the basis ofthe allegations 

### in paragraph 6 ofPart II ofthe Amended Complaint.
. ANSWER: The SOPM requires that following cadmium plating therepairparts fabricated with 17-4 PH stainless steel be given a hydrogen embrittlementbake for a minimum of 12 hours at 375-400 degrees. ATS specified a process perAMS-QQ-P-416 whichprovides shorterbake times. ASKO and Hytek shop travelers showthat theybaked theparts perATS's instructions. INTERROGATORYNO. 9:

### Stat~ all facts that form the basis ofthe allegation in paragraph 7 of

## Part II ofthe Amended Complaint that, in conducting the overhaul and repair ofthe listed main landing gear actuator beam assembles, ATS did not conductthe maintenance in the mannerrequired byAD 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 specificplatingthicknesses perCMM 32-16-31 and SOPM 20-42-05. The standard**specifie~** byATS did not meetthe AD.and SB requirements.

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Setof 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) 227-1007INTERROGATORY**NO~** 10: State all facts that form the basis ofthe allegation in paragraph.9 

### ofthe AmendedComplaint that "inconducting the overhaul and repair ofthe listed main landing gear actuator beam assemblies, ATS did not complywith

### the SW A CAMP."
... ANSWER: The SWA CAMPrequires compliance With the AD as describedinthe 'response.io Interrogatory 

### 9 above. ATS provided faulty instructions that did not meet theAD requirements and thus.did not meetthe SWA CAMP requirements.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State all facts that form the basis ofthe allegation in paragraph IQ.ofthe Amended Complaint.that "inconducting the overhaul and repair ofthe listed main landing gear actuatorbeam assemblies, ATS did not use methods, techniques, and ··practices acceptableto the Administrator."

ANSWER: Seeresponses to interrogatories

## ?• 8, 9, and 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State ali'facts that form the

### basi~ ofthe allegation ·in paragraph 11 ofthe Amended Complaintthat "inconducting the overhaul and repair 

### of the listedmain landing gear actuator beam assemblies, ATS did notperform the work in such a mannerthat the condition ofthe aircraft,.airframe, engine, propeller orappliance worked on was at least equal to its original orproperly altered condition." ANSWER: The Ab speCified the properly altered.condition ofthe repaired parts. ATS did notcomply with the AD as described inthe responses to Interrogatories 7, 8, 9, and 10. INTERROGATORYN0
.. 13: State all facts that form the basis ofthe allegation in paragraph l(a) of PartIII ofthe**AmencJ:~d** Complaint,that "whenperfqrm!ng maintenance, alteration or**preventiv~** maintenance required by Part 

### 91 ofthe Federal AviationReguh1tions, ATS failed to use the·methods, techniques and practices prescribed inthe current manufacturer's maintenance manual orinstructions for continued airworthinessprepared by its manufacturer, orother methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator."

Complainant;s Responses to Respondent's FirstSet of
· Interrogatories · ·

Aviation Technical Services
. FDMS No FM-2011-0682 Page 6of9 KARENDAVIS Hi.JBERFAA ATTORNEY

.TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007ANSWER:· See the responses to Interrogatories 7, 8, 9, and 10. INTERROGATORYNO. 14: State all facts that fonn the basis ofthe allegation in

. . · paragraph 1 (b) ofPartIII ofthe Amended Complaint that "when

### perfo~ing maintenance, alteration orpreventive maintenance, ATS "did notperfonn the workin such·amannerand use

### materi~s or such a quality thatthe condition ofthe aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine,
· propeller, or applianceworked onwas atleast equal to its original orproperly altered

condition." ANSWER: Seethe responses to Interrogatories 7, 8, 9, and 10. INTERROGATORYNO. 15: State all facts that fonn the basis ofthe allegationin paragraph 1 (c) ofPart III ofthe Amended Complaintthat "whenperfonningmaintenance, alteration orpreventive maintenance or alterations for an air carrierthathas a CAMP under part 121 or 

### 135, ATS "didnotfollowthe aircarrier's orcommercial operator'sprogram and applicable sections ofits maintenancemanual." ANSWER: The SWA CAMP requJres compliance with ADs andAD notes. ATS did not complywith AD 2009-09-07as described above intheresponses to Interrogatories·7;.8, 

### 9, and 10. INTERROGATORYNO. 16: State all facts,that fonn the basis ofthe rulegatiori in paragraph 1 (d) ofPartIII ofthe Amended CpmplaintthatATS "failed to accomplish the requiredactions in accordance with"AD 2009-09-07." ANSWER: Seeresponses to interrogatories above. ·INTERROGATORYNO. 17: As to each and eyery.part ofsubpart of(sic) Respondent 

### A.viation Technical Set;Vices,.Inc.'s Fir$t Set ofRequest for Aqmissions·that youdenied, state the reasons forthe denial and state and describe indetail all facts

## kno\vn byyou concerning and supporting the sarrie, and identify

## a1J documents containing infonnationregat:ding t4e same.

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories Aviation Technical Services FDMS No FAA-2011-0682 Page7of9 KAREN DAVIS HUBERFAAATIORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007

### ANSWER: Norequests 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 ofinformation you withhold on the basis ofaprivilege.or otherwise, state the basis on which you are withholding the document orpiece ofirtformation and describe each such the document (sic) orpiece of information in detail sufficient to establish your right to withhold it. ANSWER: Documents.created by FAA counsel in anticipation oflitigation are withheld as attorney workproduct. Electronic mail communications from FAA counsel requesting information are withheld as attorney work product and attorney-client communications.
DATED this 14th 

### day ofFebruary 2012.

# (~j)

# ·/-4t9=:: KarenDavis Huber FAA Attorney Office.ofRegionalCounsel FAANorthwestMountain 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 8of9 KAREN DAVIS HUBERFAA ATIORNBY TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (425) 227-1007...



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .·Jherebycertifythat onthis date, Ihave served the foregoing COMPLAINANT'S

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

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. DombroffGilmoreJaques & 

### French, P.C. 1676 

### International Drive, Penthouse McLean, VA 22102



### DATED this 14th 

### day ofFebruary 2012

· Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Setof

Interrogatories Aviation Technical Services FDMS No F AA-2011-0682 Page9of9 

### ana Stephenson 'P:r:ogram Support Specialist
. Office oftheRegional Counsel 1601 

### Lind Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 

### Ph: (425) 227-2164

KAREN DAVIS HUBER FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2167 FAX: (42.5) 227-1007In the Matterof: 

### UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

# RECEIVED SEP 102012 

## HEARING DOCKET

AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, (Civil Penalty Action) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FAA Docket No. (To BeAssigned] FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0682 Judge Richard C. Goodwin February 14, 2012 

### COMPLAINANT'S :taSPONSESTO RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OFREQUESTS FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Complainant has not yet received documents and information requested from the Respondent in this matter; accordingly, its responses beloware based only on information currentlyknown. Complainant reserves its right to supplement these responses. REQUEST NO. 1: Provide complete copies.ofaU documents and othermaterials contained in the FAA's case file forEIR 1009NM010l05. All items ofproofwerepreviouslyprovided. See attached inspectorreport, cover sheet and Section B. Inspector's analysis is withheld under the deliberativeprocess privilege. AVS QMS Sanction Determination Transmittal is withheld underthe deliberativeprocyss privilege. Attorney generated documents otherthanpleadings are withheld as attorney workproduct. REQUESTNO.2: Provide complete copies ofall documents supporting orrelating to anyofthe allegations contained in the FAA's Amended Complaint. Seepreviously furnished documents and the attached documents. REQUESTNO; 3: Provide complete copies ofall statements that the FAA contends weremade byRespondent orany ofits**agents~** or·by any otherperson acting for oronbehalfofRespondent or under Respondent's authority and control, regarding the incident. Seepreviously provided items ofproofand the attached documents.

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of Requests forProduction ofDocuments KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAA ATrORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2167; FAX: Page I of4REQUESTNO. 4: Provide complete copies ofall witness statements in yourpossession or control regarding this incident. Seepreviouslyprovided documents. REQUESTNO. 5: Provide complete copies ofall photographs, videotapes orother video media in yourpossession or control regarding orresulting from the FAA's investigation of the incident. ·· · None. REQUESTNO. 6: Forany person whom Complainant may call as an expert witness, produce their currentresume orcurriculum vitae; all documents, things, reports, models or compilations provided to, reviewed by, orprep;:rredby the expert in anticipation of testimony; and a copy ofall written reports the experthas provided in this case. See the attachments and the previously provided documents. This response will be supplemental when all witnesses are identified. REQUESTNO. 7: Provide complete copies ofall documents in yourpossession orcontrol that are identified in orthat support your answers to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories. See attached. REQUESTNO; 8: Provide copies ofany and all documents upon which any denials of Respondent's First Set ofRequests for Admissions are based. No Requests for Admissions were received until February 1, 2012. Thiswill betreated as a continuing request. REQUESTNO. 9: Provide copies ofall documents that you anticipate offering into evidence at the heating inthis mf).tter. See the previouslyprovided documents and the attachments. Complainantreserves the right to supplementthis response. REQUEST NO. 10: Provide copies ofall and all emails, letters, memos, telephone notes, summaries and otherdocuments that relate to communications among FAApersonnel or between FAA personnel and otherpersons orentities thatrelate in anyway tothe incident,

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of Requests for Production.ofDocuments Page i of4 KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAAA TIORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2167; FAX: (425) 227-1007., .;;.- 

### Objectionto this request as vague, unduly burdensome and overbroad; objection also to the extentthatthe request seeks information concerning·documents protected by the attorney-client privilege orthe attomey·workproductprivilege. Notwithstanding said objections, Respondent is referred

# to the previously'provided itein:s ofproofand the attached

### documen~s. · The undersigned has read the foregoing answers and they are in compliance with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.
Dated February 14,2012.

# ~IJ.~ Karen D. Huber FAA Attorney 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, W A 98057 (425) 227-2167

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Setof Requests for Production ofDocuments Page 3 of4 KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2167; FAX: (425) 227-1007

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ihereby certify that the foregoing Responses to Respondent's First Set oflnterrogatories and First Set ofRequestsforProduction 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 ofFebruary, 2012.

# ~(L~~**anastepilel1SOll?~**
. . 

### Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) Federal Aviation Administration 1 (501Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-2164

Complainant's Responses to Respondent's First Set of Requests for Production ofDocuments KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAAATTORNEY 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 10 2012 

## HEARING DOCKET

Based on our preliminary review ofthe 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 aboutthe purposes for and requirements ofthe 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 ofthe 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 proofwere 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 ofthese 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 ofthese 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, oroverbroad, 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 orthe 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 ofthe privilege or protection asserted. See, !.UJ.:., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Thank you for your attention to our request. Ifyou have any questions orwish 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. Ifyou receive this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete all copies ofthe email.

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

# RECEIVED SEP 10 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 ofthe incident, and describe what each such person knows about the incident. SUPPLEMENTED ANSWER: FAA Engineer Nancy Marsh drafted the final rule and preambles ofAD 2009-09-07. She possesses knowledge ofits requirements. Her supervisor FAA Engineer Tammy Anderson also possesses knowledge ofthe final rule and preambles and requirements ofAD 2009-09- 07. FAA Senior Engineer Steve Fox ofthe Seattle ACO possesses knowledge ofthe applicability ofFAA Order 8110.103 regarding requests for approval ofAlternate Methods ofCompliance (AMOCs) for FAA Airworthiness Directives and ofinformation he provided/explained to ATS representatives regarding the AMOC process on May 20, 2009, specifically, that he advised them they must apply for anAMOC when unable to followthe requirements ofan Airworthiness Directive.

Complainant's Supplemental Responses to Respondent's First Set ofInterrogatories 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) 227-1007INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each person with whom you have participated in any discussion or conversations regarding the incident, and state the substance ofeach 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 ofsupporting documents with employees of Respondent; with employees ofASKO; with employees ofHytek Finishes Company as .reflected in the EIR and items ofproof; with Principal Maintenance Inspector Rod Ziegler; and with their supervisor, Kenneth Snyder. Inspector Maloney communicated information requirements with Dave Powell and Eric Paul ofthe SWA Certificate Management Office. Inspector Hicks discussed the violations and the requirements ofthe 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 ofthis matter. ASI William Shinn may testify regarding his investigation ofthis matter. ASI Rhonda Maloney may testify regarding her investigation ofthis matter.**~en** Remillard or Bruce Pleake ofHytek Finishes Co. may be called to testify regarding the work request madeby ATS and the work performed by Hytek. FAA Engineer Nancy Marsh may testify regarding the final rule and preambles ofAD 2009- 09-07. FAA Engineer Tammy Anderson may testify regarding the background ofthe final rule and preambles ofAD 2009-09-07.

Complainant's Supplemental Responses to Respondent's First Set ofInterrogatories 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 ofthe Seattle ACO may testify regarding the requirements ofFAA Order 8110.103 regarding requests for approval ofAlternate Methods ofCompliance (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 ofRespondent Aviation Technical Services, Inc.'s First Set ofRequest 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 ofcompleteness. Exhibit E pertains to production ofa newly manufactured part and as such is not applicable to productionofoversize repair parts such as the four parts involved in this case. Exhibit E, which consists ofa 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 ofrelevance. The finish codes are not relevant to the overhaul ofreplacement 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 ofrelevance. 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 ofthe 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 ofall items ofproof. Supplemental response to Request No.6- see the attached resumes ofTheodore Hutton, Nancy Marsh, Steven Fox, and Tamara Anderson.

Complainant's Supplemental Responses to Respondent's First Set ofInterrogatories 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) 227-1007Response to request for a privilege log ofdocuments withheld under the attorney-client and attorney work product privilege: no such log exists and none is required to be kept under the Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions.
DATED this 29th day ofFebruary 2012.

# ~ {)_rf1u4--- Karen Davis Huber FAA Attorney Office ofRegional Counsel FAA Northwest Mountain Region 1601 Lind Ave SW Suite 570 (ANM-7) Renton, WA 98057

Complainanfs Supplemental Responses to Respondent's First Set ofInterrogatories 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. DombroffGilmoreJaques & French, P.C. 1676 International Drive, Penthouse McLean, VA 22102

DATED this 29th day ofFebruary 2012

Complainant's Supplemental Responses to Respondent's First Set ofInterrogatories and Requysts for Production Aviation Technical Services FDMS No FAA-2011-0682 Page 5

# ~ tanasteJ;henSOn Program Support Specialist Office ofthe 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