in Re Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 NO. CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK

IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS at HOUSTON, TEXAS ______________________________________________

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relator ______________________________________________

Original Proceeding From The 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2014-34635 ______________________________________________

RELATOR’S RECORD (Part 2 of 4) R0320-R0664 ______________________________________________

COATS & EVANS, P.C. George Andrew Coats State Bar No. 00783846 E-mail: coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans State Bar No. 00795338 E-mail: evans@texasaviationlaw.com Carrie M. McKerley State Bar No. 24056625 Email: mckerley@texasaviationlaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 Telephone: (281) 367-7732 Facsimile: (281) 367-8003

EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

RECORD

RECORD NO. DATE DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 1. 12/04/2015 Affidavit of Carrie M. McKerley certifying true N/A and correct copies of record documents

2. 06/16/2014 Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. R0001- R0019 3. 06/16/2014 Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests to R0020- Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0036

4. 08/11/2014 Helicopter Services, Inc.’s Original Answer and R0037- Request for Disclosure. R0039

5. 08/11/2014 Original Answer of the Estate of Christopher R0040- Yeager, Deceased, and Request for Disclosure. R0042

6. 08/18/2014 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Original R0043- Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. R0049

7. 09/30/2014 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0050- Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First R0085 Discovery Requests.

8. 12/11/2014 Docket Control Order. R0086- R0088 9. 03/19/2015 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Continuance R0089- and for Entry of Docket Control Order. R0095

10. 03/20/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0096- Helicopter Company’s Responses to First R0137 Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections.

11. 03/20/2015 Plaintiffs’ Designation of Expert Witnesses and R0138- Expert Reports. R0271

¹². 03/23/2015 Order Granting Continuance. R0272

13. 04/28/2015 Agreed Amended Docket Control Order. R0273- R0274 14. 05/07/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0275- Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel R0290 Responses to First Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections.

15. 05/20/2015 Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition. R0291- R0319 16. 06/01/2015 Amended Agreed Protective Order. R0320- R0328 17. 06/15/2015 Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production to R0329- Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0340

18. 07/10/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. R0341- R0349 19. 07/15/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0350- Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Second R0375 Discovery Requests.

20. 07/22/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0376- Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Responses to R0422 Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections.

21. 07/24/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s First R0423- Amended Responses and Objections to R0456 Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests.

22. 08/07/2015 Plaintiffs’ Amended Designation of Expert R0457- Witnesses and Expert Reports. R0555

23. 08/11/2015 Plaintiffs’ Third Requests for Production to R0556- Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0561

24. 08/12/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0562- to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0664 Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections.

25. 08/12/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0665- to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for R0682 Sanctions.

26. 08/21/2015 Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of R0683- Deposition by Written Questions. R0696

27. 08/24/2015 Deposition Subpoena to Testify or Produce R0697- Documents. R0702

28. 08/27/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition R0703- Transcript. R0719

29. 08/28/2015 Supreme Court of Texas Grant of Motion for R0720- Limited Emergency Stay. R0721

30. 09/04/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0722- to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition R0740 Transcripts.

31. 09/08/2015 Plaintiffs’ Reply to the Response of Robinson R0741- Helicopter Company, Inc.to Plaintiffs’ Motion R0752 to Compel Deposition Transcripts.

32. 09/10/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0753- Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Third R0765 Discovery Requests.

33. 09/14/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0766- Designation of Expert Witnesses and Expert R0821 Reports.

34. 09/14/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s First R0822- Amended Responses and Objections to R0845 Plaintiffs’ Second Discovery Requests.

35. 09/22/2015 Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoena. R0846

36. 09/23/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R0847- to Reconsider or in the Alternate, Motion to R0854 Clarify.

37. 09/30/2015 Reporter’s Record of September 30, 2015 R0855- hearing. R1016

38. 11/05/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R1017- for Leave to Designate Responsible Third R1022 Parties.

39. 11/10/2015 Plaintiffs’ Response to Robinson Helicopter R1023- Company, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Designate R1026 Responsible Third Parties.

40. 11/17/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R1027- for Continuance. R1045

41. 11/17/2015 Trial Preparation Order. R1046- R1048 42. 11/18/2015 Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Motion for R1049- Continuance of Robinson Helicopter Company, R1053 Inc.

43. 11/19/2015 Order Granting Motion to Take Judicial Notice, R1054- Granting Objection to Production Requests in R1060 Part; Granting Discovery in Part.

44. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc's R1061- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of Dr. R1065 Joseph Burton.

45. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc's R1066- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of R1070 William D. Carden M.S. P. E.

46. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc's R1071- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of R1075 William S. Lawrence.

47. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc's R1076- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of Colin R1080 A Sommer, P.E.

48. 11/25/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, R1081- Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration of Order R1274 Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Contingent Motion to Stay Pending Mandamus.

49. 11/27/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc.’s R1275- Motion to Bifurcate Trial on Exemplary R1282 Damages.

50. 11/27/2015 Notice of Deposition of Dr. Stephen K. Wilson. R1283- R1284 51. 11/30/2015 Order Denying Trial Continuance. R1285- R1287 52. 11/30/2015 Order Denying Leave To Designate R1288 Responsible 3rd Party.

53. 11/30/2015 Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Notice of Oral and R1289- Videotaped Deposition of Dr. Stephen K. R1296 Wilson.

54. 12/2/2015 Exhibit List from Court Reporter (pursuant to R1297 September 30, 2015 hearing).

55. Reporter’s Record of August 17, 2015 hearing. R1298- R1314 56. Reporter’s Record from November 30, 2015 R1315- hearing. R1326

Pgs-9

CIPRO MODIX

R0320

R0321

R0322

R0323

R0324

R0325

R0326

R0327

R0328

R0329

R0330

R0331

R0332

R0333

R0334

R0335

R0336

R0337

R0338

R0339

R0340

7/10/2015 3:20:04 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 6022000 By: Tammy Tolman Filed: 7/10/2015 3:20:04 PM

CAUSE NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates

VS. HARRIS ay•TTY, TEXAS

ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. 4 and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER a 4K , YEAGER tkiuDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND F ANCTIONS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, Nathan S. Ate.), vidually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deqeltag , Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates, filing this Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, and port thereof would respectfully show unto the Court the following:

I.

This Court overruled TZ endant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.'s Motion for O Reconsideration of its Ort(gianting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel on July 7, 2015. This Court

also denied Defendant' >4 uest for stay as the ten days given to defendants by the Court in order

to seek mandamu expired without any effort of the defendant to file such a writ. 0 Defen tied its Limited Motion for Emergency Stay along with its Petition for Writ of

Mandamus on Wednesday, July 8, 2015. The Court of Appeals has rejected Defendant's Motion for Emergency Stay, which renders Defendant in contempt of the Court's order for production of the subject documents by Wednesday, July 8, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. (See Exhibit A, attached

hereto.) 1

R0341

II.

Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., unlike any other aviation manufacturer, is self-insured. Plaintiff has filed a petition alleging both negligence and punitive damages against defendant. Plaintiff has also filed discovery requests seeking Defendant's net worth.

On May 11, 2015, the parties appeared before the Court. The Cot onsidered the arguments of counsel and advised Defendant to provide evidence of net h. Defendant has not followed the Court's directive. Plaintiff has filed a proposed , r which the Court has edited and granted on June 24, 2015, directing Defendant to pr . . . documents sufficient to establish the current net worth of Robinson Helicopter ny, Inc. within 10 days . . ." of June 24, 2015.

Defendant has threatened and ultimatel ght appellate review, despite the fact that this Court's ruling is consistent with current cas on this subject.

Plaintiffs will not repeat the cedural history set out in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion for the net wortscovery, but would show that Defendant's opposition does not address the issues raise circumstances where defendant is uninsured, such as this. Additionally, Plaintiffs ae1 Defendant have entered into a protective order providing for confidentiality of the qy • rmation exchanged during the discovery process.

Defendan Os put on no evidence of any "extreme risk of prejudice involved with the disclosure oefendant's net worth" in this case. The information is sought to evaluate both ability and capacity of the Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., to pay damages for negligence and for punitive damages, which have been alleged.

R0342

IV.

Defendant claimed it does not have to produce the information and attached Senate Bill No. 735, which it claims was signed the same date Plaintiffs filed the proposed order. However, the new law does not take effect until September 1, 2015. Furthermore, the new law will not apply to the facts of this case. Section 3 of SB 735 states that the ". chan law made by this Act applies only to an action filed on or after the effective date of th ff

As Plaintiffs' case was filed on June 16, 2014, the law p s this Court to order defendant to provide its net worth information, both necessary ppropriate in this cause of action.

Defendant's opposition and its claims of reli ugh SB No. 735 are unfounded, disingenuous and unsupported by the evidence DefeigIcont purports to be applicable.

Defendant filed its additional Motieor Reconsideration of Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Contingent M to Stay Pending Mandamus on July 3, 2015. This motion additionally requeste e Court conduct a gatekeeper hearing or in the alternative,

an emergency stay on the pro eft. % n of Defendant's documents evidencing net worth pending its 0 Petition for Writ of Ma Qs. These requests were denied by the Court on July 7, 2015.

VI. ANT CONTINUES TO DEFY THE COURT'S ORDERS

Plaintiff uld show that 5:00 p.m. has come and gone on July 8, 2015 and Defendant has failed toQitport with the Court's order directing its production of net worth information.

Defendant continues to defy the Court's rulings despite an oral hearing and two written orders. Instead, defendant filed its Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Limited Motion for Emergency Stay, which motion was denied on July 10, 2015.

R0343

Defendant is in contempt of this Court's order.

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Counsel for defendant has challenged the Court's discretion in entering the Orders of June 24, 2015 and July 7, 2015. With the motion denied at the trial court and

appellate levels, the Defendant is in contempt of the Court's order. 4 Therefore, Plaintiffs now request. this Court to order sanctions andtt L.ey fees in this t%, matter pursuant to TRCP 215.2, which allows a trial court to sanction for failure to

comply with a discovery order or request. Rule 215.2(b) lists th tions a court may impose. Possible sanctions include, among others, an order refusingS w the disobedient party to support designated defenses, an order striking out plead' r parts thereof, and an order requiring the disobedient party to pay reasonable e/ ses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure. TEX.R.CIV.P. 215.2(b); Cire v. C ngs, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004). The legitimate purposes of discovery sanctions secure compliance with discovery rules, to deter others from similar misconduct o punish violators. Chrysler Corp. V. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844, 849 (Tex. 1992). A court has the discretion to apply sanctions that are appropriate or just. TransAmd, Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 916 (Tex. 1991). More severe sanc4Sl imay be assessed when accompanied by a party's flagrant bad faith or counsel's callous, gard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules. Id. at 918. If a party refuses to .(tP uce material evidence, despite the imposition of lesser sanctions, the court may presumliat an asserted claim or defense lacks merit and dispose of it. Id.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs file this Motion against Defendant,Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and request sanctions for Defendant's failure to

R0344

comply with this Court's orders of June 28, 2015 and July 7, 2015, and for a finding that Defendant is in contempt of this Court's order. Plaintiffs pray for such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled, at law and in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

STEVENSON & •

oe 1st Mark T. !4. ay/s/ MARK T° '14 ' • Y State B. 14724810 24 ° ay Plazas, Suite 750 , Texas 77046 ,z) v 713) 622-3223 (713) 622-3224

O• ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICAT ONFERENCE

I certify that I contacted counsel for D V, dant via email on July 10, 2015, in regard to filing this motion to compel. ounsel for Defendant has neither responded to counsel's email, nor complied wit ourt's order, the undersigned believes that Defendant's counsel is opposed he filing of this motion.

/s/ Mark T. Murray/s/ 00 Mark T. Murray OHO

R0345

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered to all counsel on this the 10 th day of July 2015, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, via email, E-file, U.S. Mail, or facsimile:

DON SWAIM Cunningham Swaim, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440 e Dallas, Texas 75231 M-_)) George Andrew Coats l'%9 - Gary Linn Evans COATS & EVANS, P.C. '<5" P.O. Box 130246 aft, The Woodlands, Texas 77393 0246-

Courtesy Copy: Robinson Helicopter, Inc. O In House Counsel via ceta,robinsonheli.com

/s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ 0 s Mark T. Murray

ay

R0346

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. Appellate case number: 01-15-00594-CV Trial court case number: 2014-34635

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris Co i qe> On July 8, 2015, relator, Robinson Helicopter pany, Inc., filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Relator also has filed a motion for e ncy stay, requesting a stay as to the trial court's order compelling production of docum flecting relator's net worth. The motion is denied. It is so ORDERED.

Judge's signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd Acting indiv . ❑ Acting for the Court 0_

Date: July 10, 2015 Exhibit A

R0347

7/10/2015 3:20:04 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 6022000 By: TOLMAN, TAMMY E Filed: 7/10/2015 3:20:04 PM CAUSE NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Personal Representative of the Estate § of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates vs. HARRIS CTITY, TEXAS § rr,,c , ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § _V) INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § ki.) and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § , YEAGER § K1/4` _ICIAL DISTRICT

*O

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTI\ OR SANCTIONS

BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the day a e shown hereinbelow, the Court considered PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; After considering the motion, evidence, and the arg jJ s of counsel if any, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is with me rd should be, in all respects, granted.

The Court also finds that the ~ r, ndant is in contempt and has wholly failed to comply with the Court's orders directing ndant's production of net worth evidence, entered June 24, 2015 and July 7, 2015. This has previously denied Defendant's motion for a stay. The

Court notes a mandam eeding with a request for a stay was filed. The Appellate Court by order denied Defer#iQ s request for a stay on July 10, 2015. Defendant is in contempt of this

Court's prior ord0.

It is erefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is in all things

GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall pay reimbursement to Plaintiffs for the cost of counsel's discovery practice, motion practice and appearance; to further discourage this

R0348

Defendant from engaging in discovery abuse in the State of Texas and before the Court, this Court makes an award of $ payable by Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc., to Plaintiffs which shall be paid within ten days from the date of entry of this Order.

SIGNED this day of July 2015. 4 C PRESIDING OD

C

R0349

NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES § and NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants.

DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. ("Robinson") hereby responds to Plaintiffs NATHAN S. ATES’, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES and NATHAN M. ATES (“Plaintiffs’”) Second Request for Production for the purpose of this action only without admitting in any way or to any extent the relevance to this cause of action or the admissibility as evidence of any statement or document provided herein, and without prejudice to subsequently discovered facts or information relevant to these requests. Robinson’s discovery is not completed at this time, and, as such defendant reserves the right to supplement any and all responses herein by reason of subsequently discovered information.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Robinson submits the following general objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions, Definitions and Discovery Requests which apply to each and every request contained in

R0350

Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to Robinson. For convenience, these general objections are set forth below and are not necessarily repeated after each request. The assertion of the same, similar or additional objections to a specific request does not waive any of Robinson’s general objections as set forth below:

1. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek to expand the scope of, or impose upon Robinson obligations greater than those required by the applicable rules of the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or applicable orders of this Court.

2. Robinson reserves the right to challenge the competency, relevancy and admissibility, at trial or any subsequent proceeding, in this or any other action, of any information produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests.

3. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they are directed to or made on behalf of entities or persons who are not parties to this case or over whom Robinson has no control.

4. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests on the grounds that they are ambiguous, vague, overly broad, oppressive and unduly burdensome, and seek information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

5. Robinson bases its responses on information currently available to it, after reasonable inquiry, and Robinson reserves the right to amend and/or supplement its objections and responses to conform to information and documents which may be obtained through ongoing discovery and investigation, in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery.

R0351

6. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they attempt to elicit protected documents or information subject to the attorney client privilege; the work product doctrine; a joint or common defense privilege; the confidentiality of documents containing the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories of Robinson or its attorneys; or seeks materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or information that is proprietary in nature. Robinson asserts each and every one of the foregoing privileges and protections applicable to the information sought to the fullest extent provided by law, applicable rules, current and future case management orders.

7. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek documents or information not within Robinson’s possession, custody or control.

8. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek information or documents constituting trade secrets, or other confidential, research, development, commercial, financial and/or proprietary information.

9. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek information which is within Plaintiffs’ knowledge, possession, custody or control, or otherwise accessible to Plaintiffs from other sources with substantially the same or greater facility than Robinson.

10. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they are unlimited in time, or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to this litigation, and to Robinson’s products at issue in this case, on the grounds that such

R0352

requests seek documents neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they include contention interrogatories that solicit premature responses before the close of discovery.

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

Robinson makes the following specific objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions, which objections are incorporated into all of Robinson’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests where applicable. Any omission to refer specifically to such objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions and instructions shall not be deemed a waiver of such objections.

Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and to the extent that Robinson may not be able to ascertain all entities and/or individuals falling within these definitions. Further, Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” to the extent that they seek to expand the scope of, or impose obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

R0353

SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to each and every investigation of a Robinson R22 helicopter crash that you have been a part of during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request number 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: A full and complete copy of all investigation reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that have been prepared by you or provided to you regarding a Robinson R44 helicopter model crash during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

R0354

of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: A full and complete copy of all investigation reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that have been prepared by you or provided to you regarding a Robinson R22 helicopter model crash during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request number 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; duplicate of request number 1 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its

R0355

possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any malfunction and/or failure that resulted in a crash that you have been made aware of regarding a Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request numbers 1 and 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any malfunction and/or failure that resulted in a crash that you have been made aware of regarding a Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information

R0356

protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all incidents (including crashes) involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is duplicative of request number 5 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and

R0357

confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all incidents (including crashes) involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request numbers 1 and 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; duplicative of request number 4 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crash or incident during the last twelve years.

R0358

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crash/incident during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the

R0359

scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to

R0360

the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non- objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: A full and complete copy of all opinions, articles, bulletins, memoranda, and/or presentations that you have issued pertaining to aerial photography services utilizing R-22 and/or R-44 helicopters during the last twelve years.

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: A full and complete copy of all safety reports, issued by your Safety Committee, regarding the helicopter model at issue.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope and time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated

R0361

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request number 4 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any accident reconstruction, in whole or any part, relative to this case.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request numbers 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any accident reconstruction relative to any case involving a Robinson R22 helicopter in the last twelve years.

R0362

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents containing confidential information; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) that have discussed, analyzed, and/or concluded the possible cause(s) of the crash subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request numbers 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; calls for a legal conclusion; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege and the trade secret privilege. Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) that have discussed the analytics, investigations and/or conclusions regarding cause(s) of crashes in which Robinson R-22 helicopters have been involved during the last twelve years.

R0363

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents containing confidential information; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: A full and complete copy of the operating manual pertaining to the Robinson R22 helicopter model.

RESPONSE: This is publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: A full and complete copy of the operating manual pertaining to the Robinson R44 helicopter model.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, This is publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: A full and complete copy of your corporate policies and procedures, including any mission statements, code of conduct, and/or any statements covering business ethics and safety procedures for your company.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is

R0364

propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All documents, correspondence, and/or communications submitted to NTSB during the last twelve years which involve R-22 helicopter crashes resulting in personal injury or death.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All witness statements that were obtained relative to the incident subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is vague, overly broad, duplicative of Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosures; and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it will supplement this response and will produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that Robinson maintains suggest pilot error occurred during the crash subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

R0365

unlimited in scope; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it will supplement this response and will produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All documents addressing or discussing the belt drive system and power failures associated with the Robinson R22 helicopter model.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: A full and complete copy of all service bulletins and safety notices issued for Robinson R-22 helicopters and Robinson R-44 helicopters during the last 12 years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

R0366

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: A full and complete copy of all service bulletins and safety notices withdrawn for the Robinson R-22 helicopter.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Final engineering drawings which describe and identify the R-22 helicopter such as that involved in the incident subject of this suit, including part drawings, depictions of the configuration, specified tolerances, U.S. Government and Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. specifications, engineering orders, "Operation Sheet" a/k/a Outside Data Sheet setting out required specific tooling, inspection requirements, finish coating, process specifications, identification requirements, packaging requirements and any special facilities required for production. This request includes the supporting documentation for the power transfer system and fuel system of the R-22, including belt drive system, fuel tank location, fuel tank liners, clutch system and wiring diagram.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all belt manufacturing changes, including changes from Gates to any other manufacturer, involving the Robinson R22 helicopter model from 2003 to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

R0367

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Records identifying each and every crash in which any R-22 helicopter models have been involved including but not limited to crash date, crash location, root cause analysis, investigation materials, identity of investigators and exact model of helicopter involved from 2003 to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Documents reflecting the identity of members of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.'s Safety Committee, including official capacity and/or office held by each, from original establishment of any committee dealing with helicopter safety of Robinson-manufactured helicopters, to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential and proprietary; violates third-party’s privacy rights and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

R0368

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: All documents provided to customers purchasing the R-22 helicopter from Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., i.e., warranty information, brochures, guarantees, user guides, etc. from 2003 to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29 [sic]: All Exhibit "A's" attached to any protective order entered on behalf of and/or for the benefit of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., including those executed by consulting witnesses and/or testifying witnesses who have or may have reviewed documents related to Robinson R-22 helicopters.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is vague; overly broad; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30 [sic]: All documents which reflect testing of the belt drive system such as that utilized on the Robinson R-22 helicopter subject of this suit, including but not limited to stretching of belts, conditioning of belts, instructions for belt replacement, instructions for belt inspection and instructions for handling any belt "failure."

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and

R0369

exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31 [sic]: All documents which evidence and/or reflect instructions for response to rotor power loss while piloting a Robinson R-22 helicopter.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Information reflecting the net worth of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that is seeks privileged financial records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson further objects to the extent that the request seeks information that is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and is duplicative of request number 22 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant, and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. Robinson incorporates by reference its prior briefing to the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals on this issue.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: All documents exchanged between Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and Helicopter Services, Inc. which resulted in HSI becoming a factory-authorized Robinson Helicopter Service Center.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

R0370

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: All documents which evidence inspections, reviews, audits or any other documents submitted by HSI to Robinson in order to maintain its designation with Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: All documents which reflect, depict and/or outline the training of HSI technicians, service and/or repair personnel, by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. personnel and/or its representatives, authorizing HSI to service the R-22 helicopter in question.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All photographs of post-crash R-22 helicopters from 2003 through the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Produce all documentation evidencing and/or reflecting post-crash fuel fed fires from 2003 through the present, involving R-22 and/or R-44 helicopters.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential; seeks information not within the actual or

R0371

constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: All deposition transcripts of the following individuals, which are maintained by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and/or its counsel:

a. Robert McSwain, McSwain Engineering, Inc. b. William "Bill" Carden, McSwain Engineering, Inc. c. Sri Kumar, Ph.D., Safety Research Institute d. Colin Sommer, Aeroscope, Inc. e. WilliamS. Lawrence, Colonel USMC (Ret' d), ConsulAir, Inc. f. Joseph L. Burton, M.D. g. Dr. Kenneth Orloff, Orloff Consulting

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the request to the extent that it seeks information unrelated to the accident aircraft and/or outside the scope of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: To the extent that Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. maintains it is self-insured, produce any and all documents which evidence or reflect all financial limitations and/or restrictions relative to the incident in question.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; is duplicative of request number 6 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; and is duplicative of Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosures.

R0372

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: All documents obtained from the NTSB including but not limited to photographs, statements and /or conclusions relative to the R-22 helicopter subject of this litigation.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope; and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: All documents which evidence or reflect the decision to line, not to line and/or to delay lining the aluminum fuel tanks of the R-22 Robinson Helicopter with alternative materials.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: All documents reflecting the decision to line, not to line and/or to delay lining the aluminum fuel tanks of the R-44 Robinson Helicopter with alternative materials.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the

R0373

same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non- objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: All maintenance manuals associated with the Robinson R-22 Beta distributed during the regular course of business by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. over the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

Respectfully submitted,

COATS & EVANS, P.C.

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 evans@texasaviationlaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003

Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

R0374

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney, as attorney of record for the Defendant, certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all parties of record on this the 15th day of July, 2015.

MARK T. MURRAY Via Email and/or Facsimile STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com

DON SWAIM Via Email and/or Facsimile CUNNINGHAM SWAIM, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Ste. 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-646-1495 dswaim@cunninghamswaim.com

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats

R0375

7/22/2015 5:37:42 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 6185982 By: Tammy Tolman Filed: 7/22/2015 5:37:42 PM

CAUSE NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Personal Representative of the Estate § of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates § and Nathan M. Ates § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § YEAGER § 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, AND REQUEST FOR RULING ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE MIKE D. MILLER:

Plaintiffs file this Motion to Compel requesting the Court to enter an order compelling ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Defendant (hereinafter “Robinson”), to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production.

I. FACTS & BACKGROUND

On September 10, 2012, Joyce Ates was a passenger in a 2007 Robinson manufactured R22 Beta II helicopter (serial number 4250 and registration number N281RG). The helicopter took off from Baytown Airport in Baytown, Texas at approximately 3:00 p.m. While flying in Harris County, Texas, the helicopter experienced a power loss and crashed. Within a minute of impacting the ground, the helicopter ignited into a fireball. Joyce Ates suffered serious injuries which eventually resulted in her death.

Plaintiffs filed suit and immediately commenced the discovery process. On June 16, 2014 Plaintiffs served Defendant, Robinson, with their First Discovery Requests, including requests for production. Robinson, however, did not produce responsive documents. Thus, on March 20,

R0376

2015 Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Robinson Helicopter Company’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests and on June 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Proposed Order Compelling Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc to Provide Plaintiff with Net Worth Information. On June 24, 2015 the Court entered an order compelling Defendant to provide its net worth information to Plaintiffs, See Exhibit B, and on July 07, 2015, the Court denied Defendants’ request for a stay, See Exhibit C. Plaintiffs’ Order to Compel documents from its First Request for Production is pending before this Court. See Exhibit D. Now Plaintiffs seek an Order requesting its Second Request for Production.

On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs propounded their Second Request for Production on Defendant. On July 15, 2015, Defendant served Plaintiffs with its responses. Once again, Robinson failed to produce any responsive documents. See Exhibit A. Therefore, this Motion to Compel is necessary due to Robinson’s continued unwillingness to adequately respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for production.

II. ARGUMENT

Robinson has refused to adequately respond to any of the propounded requests for production; it has either objected without any merit or has referred Plaintiffs to sources instead of directly providing the available requested documents and information. See id. Ultimately, Robinson has failed to demonstrate any good faith cooperation.

Robinson generally objects to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production without any merit. Robinson argues Plaintiffs requests are ambiguous, vague, overbroad, oppressive, unlimited in time, and seeking privileged information. However, this not the case as the requests made by Plaintiffs are clear, timely, reasonable, to the point, and do not seek to gather privileged information.

R0377

Robinson also argues Plaintiffs’ requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson argues a number of requests “seek documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence” because some requests are “relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft.” See Exhibit A. It is true that some requests are not limited to the helicopter model at issue; however, discovery is not limited to the specific helicopter model involved in this case. See In re Exmark Mfg. Co., 299 S.W.3d 519, 528 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009, orig. proceeding) (“Fundamentally, the scope of discovery is obviously much broader that the scope of admissible evidence, and evidence of incidents involving other products besides the exact model at issue can be admissible, and therefore, obviously discoverable.”).

Additionally, Defendant refuses to properly answer to Plaintiffs requests because certain definitions are “broad” and “seek to expand the scope of, or impose obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.” Plaintiffs, in good faith, have defined their terms to the best of their ability. If certain definitions lack clarity, Plaintiffs argue and assert the requests made are not seeking to expand or impose greater obligations than those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Furthermore, Robinson insists in not producing responsive documents “because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what plaintiff contends caused the accident.” Ironically, the purpose of discovery is precisely for Plaintiff to better analyze and understand what all caused the accident at issue. Therefore, in order for Plaintiffs to establish a theory about the accident, Defendant needs to produce the requested information first.

At this moment, Plaintiffs have not received any responsive documents from Robinson pertaining to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production. In the interest of time and in furtherance

R0378

of this lawsuit, it is essential for Plaintiffs to obtain the discovery requested. Plaintiffs, therefore, request for this Court to compel the discovery requested and overrule Robinson’s objections.

III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to enter an Order compelling the discovery

requested by Plaintiffs, overrule Robinson Helicopter Company Inc.’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production, compel Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. to fully respond to the same, and award Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs involved in the filing of this Motion. Plaintiffs also pray for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which they may show themselves justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

STEVENSON & MURRAY

/s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ By: _________________________ MARK T. MURRAY Texas Bar No. 14724810 Weslayan Tower, Suite 750 24 Greenway Plaza Houston, Texas 77046-2416 (713) 622-3223 (713) 622-3224 (fax) Email: mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

R0379

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On July 16, 2015 and July 22, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to confer with defense counsel for Robinson Helicopter Inc. concerning Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production. Counsel for Defendant has not responded to these overtures and therefore the undersigned must presume defense counsel is opposed to Plaintiff’s motion.

/s/ Mark T. Murray /s/

_____________________ MARK T. MURRAY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections was forwarded to all known counsel of record by electronic case filing on this 22nd day of July, 2015.

Don Swaim Cunningham Swaim, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75231

George Andrew Coats Gary Linn Evans COATS & EVANS, P.C. P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246

/s/ Mark T. Murray /s/

________________________ MARK T. MURRAY

R0380

No. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES § and NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 11*" JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and 2 the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants.

DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. ("Robinson") hereby responds to Plaintiffs NATHAN S.

ATES’, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES and NATHAN M. ATES (“Plaintiffs”) Second Request for Production for the purpose of this action only without admitting in any way or to any extent the relevance to this cause of action or the admissibility as evidence of any statement or document provided herein, and without prejudice to subsequently discovered facts or information relevant to these requests. Robinson’s discovery is not completed at this time, and, as such defendant reserves the right to supplement any and all responses herein by reason of subsequently discovered information.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS Robinson submits the following general objections to Plaintiffs‘ Instructions,

Definitions and Discovery Requests which apply to each and every request contained in

EXHIBIT 1 § A R0381

Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to Robinson. For convenience, these general objections are set forth below and are not necessarily repeated after each request. The assertion of the same, similar or additional objections to a specific request does not waive any of Robinson's general objections as set forth below:

1. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek to expand the scope of, or impose upon Robinson obligations greater than those required by the applicable rules of the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or applicable orders of this Court.

2. Robinson reserves the right to challenge the competency, relevancy and admissibility, at trial or any subsequent proceeding, in this or any other action, of any information produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests.

3. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they are directed to or made on behalf of entities or persons who are not parties to this case or over whom Robinson has no control.

4. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests on the grounds that they are ambiguous, vague, overly broad, oppressive and unduly burdensome, and seek information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

5. Robinson bases its responses on information currently available to it, after reasonable inquiry, and Robinson reserves the right to amend and/or supplement its

objections and responses to conform to information and documents which may be obtained through ongoing discovery and investigation, in accordance with the Rules of

Civil Procedure governing discovery.

R0382

6. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they attempt to elicit protected documents or information subject to the attorney client privilege; the work product doctrine; a joint or common defense privilege; the confidentiality of documents containing the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories of Robinson or its attorneys; or seeks materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or information that is proprietary in nature. Robinson asserts each and every one of the foregoing privileges and protections applicable to the infonnation sought to the fullest extent provided by law, applicable rules, current and

future case management orders. 7. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the

extent that they seek documents or information not within Robinson's possession, custody or control.

8. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek information or documents constituting trade secrets, or other confidential, research, development, commercial, financial andlor proprietary information.

9. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek infonnation which is within Plaintiffs’ knowledge, possession, custody or control, or otherwise accessible to Plaintiffs from other sources with substantially the

same or greater facility than Robinson. 10. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the

extent that they are unlimited in time, or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to this litigation, and to Robinson’s products at issue in this case, on the grounds that such

R0383

requests seek documents neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they include contention interrogatories that solicit premature responses before the close of discovery.

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS Robinson makes the following specific objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions, which

objections are incorporated into all of Robinson’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests where applicable. Any omission to refer specifically to such objections to

Plaintiffs’ definitions and instructions shall not be deemed a waiver of such objections. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and

“Defendant” on the grounds that it is overly broad. unduly burdensome and to the extent that Robinson may not be able to ascertain all entities and/or individuals falling within these definitions. Further, Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” to the extent that they seek to expand the scope of, or impose obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

R0384

SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:documents, correspondence, and All communications (including emails) pertaining to each and every investigation of a Robinson R22 helicopter crash that you have been a part of during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request number 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege andlor protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: A full and complete copy of all investigation reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that have been prepared by you or provided to you regarding a Robinson R44 helicopter model crash during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; is unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere "fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofion v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks infomtation not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

R0385

of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of pennissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 3: Aand complete copy of all investigation full

reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that have been prepared by you or provided to you regarding a Robinson R22 helicopter model crash during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request number 13 of set of requests for production; duplicate of request number 1 of Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs’ first second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere "fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its

R0386

possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: documents, correspondence, and All communications (including emails) pertaining to any malfunction and/or failure that resulted in a crash that you have been made aware of regarding a Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request numbers 1 and 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; constitutes a mere "fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to detennine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request. Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any malfunction and/or failure that resulted in a crash that you have been made aware of regarding a Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks infonnation

R0387

protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks infonnation not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of pennissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege. the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to detennine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation andlor narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 6: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all incidents (including crashes) involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is duplicative of request number 5 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition" prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Loflon v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks infonnation protected by the attomey—client privilege; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and

R0388

confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all incidents (including crashes) involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request numbers 1 and 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; duplicative of request number 4 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition" prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks infonnation which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crash or incident during the last twelve years.

R0389

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks infonnation not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crashfincident during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks information not within the actual or constmctive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the

R0390

scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident. it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; is unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-client privilege; seeks infonnation protected by the attomey-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to

R0391

the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non- objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: A full and complete copy of all opinions, articles, bulletins, memoranda, and/or presentations that you have issued pertaining to aerial photography services utilizing R-22 and/or R-44 helicopters during the last twelve years.

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to detennine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: A full and complete copy of all safety reports, issued by your Safety Committee, regarding the helicopter model at issue.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; is unlimited in scope and time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated

R0392

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request number 4 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any accident reconstruction, in whole or any part, relative to this case.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible scope; is

evidence; is duplicative of request numbers 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attomey-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attomey-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to detemrine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any accident reconstruction relative to any case involving a Robinson R22 helicopter in the last twelve years.

R0393

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents protected by attomey-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attomey-work product privilege; seeks documents containing confidential information; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:documents, correspondence, and All communications (including emails) that have discussed, analyzed, and/or concluded the possible cause(s) of the crash subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible is evidence; is duplicative of request numbers 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs‘ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attomey-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attomey-work product privilege; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; calls for a legal conclusion; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege and the trade secret privilege. Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request.

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) that have discussed the analytics, investigations and/or conclusions regarding cause(s) of crashes in which Robinson R-22 helicopters have been involved during the last twelve years.

R0394

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents protected by attomey-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attomey-work product privilege; seeks documents containing confidential infonnation; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to detennine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: A full and complete copy of the operating manual pertaining to the Robinson R22 helicopter model.

RESPONSE: This is publically available on Robinson’s website: httgz//www.robinsonhe|i.com/#

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: A full and complete copy of the operating manual pertaining to the Robinson R44 helicopter model.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, This to, is publically available on Robinson’s website: httpz//www.robinsonhe|i.com/#

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: A full and complete copy of your corporate policies and procedures, including any mission statements, code of conduct, and/or any statements covering business ethics and safety procedures for your company.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in scope or time; is is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is

R0395

propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All documents, correspondence, and/or communications submitted to NTSB during the last twelve years whidn involve R-22 helicopter crashes resulting in personal injury or death.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented;

not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to detennine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 22: All witness statements that were obtained relative to the incident subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is vague, overly broad, duplicative of Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosures; and seeks

information not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

Subject but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it to, will supplement this response and will produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that Robinson maintains suggest pilot error occurred during the crash subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

R0396

unlimited in scope;not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible is evidence; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attomey-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery.

Subject but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it to, will supplement this response and will produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All documents addressing or discussing the belt drive system and power failures associated with the Robinson R22 helicopter model.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented;

not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: A full and complete copy of all service bulletins and safety notices issued for Robinson R-22 helicopters and Robinson R-44 helicopters during the last 12 years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to is lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

R0397

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: httg://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: A full and complete copy of all service bulletins and safety notices withdrawn for the Robinson R-22 helicopter.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson's website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Final engineering drawings which describe and identify the R-22 helicopter such as that involved in the incident subject of this suit, including part drawings, depictions of the configuration, specified tolerances, U.S. Government and Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. specifications, engineering orders, "Operation Sheet" a/k/a Outside Data Sheet setting out required specific tooling, inspection requirements, finish coating, process specifications, identification requirements, packaging requirements and any special facilities required for production. This request includes the supporting documentation for the power transfer system and fuel system of the R-22, including belt drive system, fuel tank location, fuel tank liners, clutch system and wiring diagram.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all belt manufacturing changes, including changes from Gates to any other manufacturer, involving the Robinson R22 helicopter model from 2003 to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

R0398

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircrafl and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Records identifying each and every crash in which any R-22 helicopter models have been involved including but not limited to crash date, crash location, root cause analysis, investigation materials, identity of investigators and exact model of helicopter involved from 2003 to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks infonnation that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; seeks information protected by attomey-client privilege; seeks information protected by attomey-work product privilege; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Documents reflecting the identity of members of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.'s Safety Committee, including official capacity and/or office held by each, from original establishment of any committee dealing with helicopter safety of Robinson-manufactured helicopters, to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential and proprietary; violates third-party's privacy rights and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

R0399

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: All documents provided to customers purchasing the R-22 helicopter from Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., i.e., warranty information, brochures, guarantees, user guides, etc. from 2003 to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29 |sic|: All Exhibit "A's" attached to any protective order entered on behalf of and/or for the benefit of Robinson Helicopter Company, lnc., including those executed by consulting witnesses and/or testifying witnesses who have or may have reviewed documents related to Robinson R-22 helicopters.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is vague; overly broad; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

presented; seeks information protected by attomey-client privilege; seeks infonnation protected by attomey-work product privilege; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks infonnation not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the scope of pennissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30 [sic|: All documents which reflect testing of the belt drive system such as that utilized on the Robinson R-22 helicopter subject of this suit, including but not limited to stretching of belts, conditioning of belts, instructions for belt replacement, instructions for belt inspection and instructions for handling any belt "failure."

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and

R0400

exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31 [sic|: documents which evidence and/or All reflect instructions for response to rotor power loss while piloting a Robinson R-22 helicopter.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks infonnation that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Information reflecting the net worth of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that is seeks privileged financial records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson's competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson

further objects to the extent that the request seeks information that is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and is duplicative of request number 22 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant. and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. Robinson incorporates by reference its prior briefing to the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals on this issue.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: All documents exchanged between Robinson Helicopter Company. Inc. and Helicopter Services, Inc. which resulted in HSI becoming a factory-authorized Robinson Helicopter Service Center.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

R0401

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: All documents which evidence inspections, reviews, audits or any other documents submitted by HSI to Robinson in order to maintain its designation with Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: All documents which reflect, depict and/or outline the training of HSI technicians, service and/or repair personnel, by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. personnel and/or its representatives, authorizing HSI to service the R-22 helicopter in question.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All photographs of post-crash R-22 helicopters from 2003 through the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks infonnation that is confidential; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Produce documentation evidencing and/or all

reflecting post-crash fuel fed fires from 2003 through the present, involving R-22 and/or R—44 helicopters.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as is presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks infonnation that is confidential; seeks infonnation not within the actual or

R0402

constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the attomey-client and work product privileges, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. deposition transcripts of the following 38: All individuals, which are maintained by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and/or its counsel:

a. Robert McSwain, McSwain Engineering, Inc. b. William "Bill" Carden, McSwain Engineering, Inc. c. Sri Kumar, Ph.D., Safety Research Institute d. Colin Sommer, Aeroscope, Inc. e. Williams. Lawrence, Colonel USMC (Ret' d), ConsulAir, Inc. f. Joseph L. Burton, M.D.

g. Dr. Kenneth Orloff, Orloff Consulting

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the is discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is protected by attomey-work product privilege; and exceeds the pennissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the request to the extent that it seeks information unrelated to the accident aircraft and/or outside the scope of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: To the extent that Robinson Helicopter Company, maintains it is self-insured, produce any and all documents which Inc. evidence or reflect all financial limitations and/or restrictions relative to the incident in question.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; is duplicative of request number 6 of Plaintiffs’ first

set of requests for production; and is duplicative of Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosures.

R0403

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: All documents obtained from the NTSB including but not limited to photographs, statements and /or conclusions relative to the R-22 helicopter subject of this litigation.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

presented; not reasonably limited in scope; and seeks infonnation not within the actual or constructive control of this party. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: All documents which evidence or reflect the decision to line, not to line and/or to delay lining the aluminum fuel tanks of the R-22 Robinson Helicopter with alternative materials.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non—objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: All documents reflecting the decision to line, not to line and/or to delay lining the aluminum fuel tanks of the R-44 Robinson Helicopter with alternative materials.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that itisoverly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the

R0404

same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and oonfidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non- objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: All maintenance manuals associated with the Robinson R-22 Beta distributed during the regular course of business by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. over the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson's website: httgz//www.robinsonheli.com/#

Respectfully submitted,

COATS & EVANS, P.C.

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 evans@texasaviationIaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003

Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

R0405

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney, as attorney of record for the Defendant, certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all parties of record on this the 15th day of July, 2015.

MARK T. MURRAY Via Email and/or Facsimile STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonIaw.com

DON SWAIM Via Email and/or Facsimile CUNNINGHAM SWAIM, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Ste. 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-646-1495 dswaim@cunninghamswaim.com

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats

R0406

6/19/2015 2:38:23 PM Chris Daniel - District Cferk Harris County Envelope No. 5751318 By: GABRIELA COX Flied: 6119/2015 2:38:23 PM

CAUSE NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF f) and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates § § § c. e(lj)~- § vs. § HARRIS C~TY, TEXAS

ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § § § a~ and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § ~~ YEAGER § ~JUDICIAL DISTRICT ~0 Ph'ldf 1Ill FS' Pltf>P6BD ORDER COMPELLING ~SON HELICOPTER COMPANY. INC. TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFFS WITH' WORTH INFORMATION ~ ~ BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the' !'1th day o~, 2015, came on for consideration -~~ the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Robinson Helicop~ompany, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiffs' . ~@@

First Discovery Requests, and Request for ~Defendant's Objections.

Defendant, Robinson Helicopter ~{;J,.y, Inc., represented to the Court that it is self insured, with no insurance carrier, suref!/Ji{jJbond holder available to pay any potential judgment '0 in this case. Plaintiffs have servett,,~tequested that Defendant provide information concerning

.iT__ its net worth to Plaintiffs. Tu_~-- es have agreed to a protective order in this case. The Court

indicated net worth info~... should be provided, however, an Order has not been entered at ?~ (u . this time. ~ ~:@ The pl~filed in this lawsuit plead claims both for negligence and gross negligence.

In order for~~liffs to evaluate the strength and ability of Defendant to pay a potential judgmen~ to assess and evaluate a punitive damage claim, Plaintiffs require financial information that is not otherwise available from a privately held corporation. Beea&se no,,.

~CORDER"SMEMORANo quar':- This Instrument 1s of poor at the tirne of itnagfng ?JIBIT

l_o_ R0407

The patties w this lawsuit have couferrat; ucgotimed; compremised, aud eatei:cd ieto a '

* the C6'!R te et=der Defendant's te pio1;4de aet werth infnnnadan. Plaintiffs "Will mainta1n

cofiDlleaftalily of~s iufuillmr:lon-&11 cemplianse with the preyjnns OAier~ ,• (~ · ·'Ole Cellf&, aa~ug consitlered the motions, cvidcnee, i:espan~H arguments g,f (u coUJ1!5 finds PhivtilPs'"'llte~qmurees~t-fifuM. . .,,,nreet-wt:-woMrt.tJ.thri;infitr1murn11T11nanam·o1TTn-t.to~hAfe~·..llll'l~iitltk~:nFM~A-i* it is therefore

ORDERED tbaA~~o~on r~ ~mp ~,., ~:~ -f ~ ORDERED to provide .te et ' . to Pl ' . . within I~ ?the si~ng

oftbis Order. :~ r 41-r ~+- SIGNED on this day of JUN 2 ~ '5, 2015. V\f Ir') -}- h JJ r:: - ~SJ ~ /10):,;1)1~,'-J ~ D Ne.J: 4'f> 7C') ~a .ruoaEP"""SIDING fump4o/_,, APPROVED AS TO FORM AND E~ REQUESTED: .::t= t')t:.. •

STEVENSON & MURRAY t'/~$} Isl Mark T. Murrqlsl ~ ~ ~ MARKT. MURRAY . Q· State Bar No. 14724810[)) 24 Greenway Plaza, ~~so Houston, Texas 7 _, Phone: (713) 6~ Fax: (713) 622 Email: mm "ohnstevensonlaw.com COUNS~ PLAINTIFFS

R0408

iiflsv NO. 2014-34635 §)Ef’KX .

00 )C. NATHAN s. ATES,ETAL § INTHEDISTRICT COURT OF § vs. § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. g $3, §

ORDER °@ I 5% Defenda.nt’s Motion to Reconsider production of a curr et worth document is ’

overruled.The request for a stay is denied as the J order already gave Q 0 Defendant 10 days to seek a writ of mandamus. cfion is ordered by 5 p.m. on _

‘Z51 July 8,2015.

Signed this 7th day ofJuly, 2015. @ i*

©\ Kgga rz>\ K Mike Miller Judge Presiding D 5% ©\ \© .

$551’

i‘%\‘

QQ (O?

FILED Chris Daniel District clerk

EXHIBIT

R0409

6/30/201512:08:04 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 5878744 By: DE LA ROSA, GABRIELA Filed: 6/30/2015 12:08:04 PM CAUSE NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. A TES, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Personal Representative of the Estate § of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates § and Nathan M. Ates § § vs. § HARRIS C~TY, TEXAS § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § § ,Qt~ and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § YEAGER § ~ ~JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL R SON HELICOPTER R PRODUCTION AND RE UEST FOR RULING ON DEFEND OBJECTIONS

After considering Plaintiffs' Motion to Com~~binson Helicopter Company Inc.'s Responses to First Discovery Requests, and Req~ for Rulings on Defendants' Objections, any responses or replies thereto, and all arg4@s of counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiffs'

Motion should be GRANTED. :f!!i:·· @n It is therefore ORDERED t~~Q,'1'endant must fully respond to Plaintiffs' Requests for

Production within _ _ days oft~rder. Further, the Court ma~"\e following rulings on Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.'s ,F~ objections to Plaintiffs' ~~equests for Production: ,

~«L ~ ~ OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED ~eguest No. 2. - - - - OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED Request No. 3.

- - - - OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED

EXHIBIT

IQ R0410

Request No. 4.

- - - OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED Request No. 5.

- - - OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED Request No. 6. ~ No objections. ~ Request No. 7. ofy ~ - - - OVERRULED _ _ _ _ SUS~D

Request No. 8. ¢ ~ @) ~·

_ _ _ OVERRULED ~STAINED Reguest No. 9. ~

_ _ _ OVERRULED ,~ SUSTAINED Q Request No. 10. ~-

No objections. .tf·<®> Request No. 11. Q No objections. ©~ ~ Request NoQ. ¢~ ~OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED ~estNo.13.

~ OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED Request No. 14.

- - - OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED

R0411

Request No. 15.

- - - OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED Request No. 16.

- - - - OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED Request No. 17.

---- OVERRULED ---- SUSTAINED (t~ ~} * rt!$ (I~~ Request No. 18. ~~ ~ ---- OVERRULED _ _ _ _ SUS~D

Request No. 19. ~ o~ - - - OVERRULED ---q~~STAINED Request No. 20. o~ No objections. .~~ ,~() RequestNo.21. ~

___ OVERRU~ _ _ _ _ SUSTAINED ·~~ Request No. 22. Q The Court has ~ed its Order Compelling Robinson Helicopter Company, tn!f:Jo Provide Plaintiffs with Net Worth Information, signed J~~' 2015.

~ ~ OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED ~equest No. 24. - - - - OVERRULED - - - - SUSTAINED Request No. 25.

No objections.

R0412

Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. must comply with this Order within _ _ days of the signing hereof.

SIGNED this the _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2015.

R0413

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ENTRY REQUESTED

STEVENSON & MURRAY

By:~~~~~~~~~~~ MARKT. MURRAY State Bar No. 14724810 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: 713.622.3223 Facsimile: 713.622-3224 Email: mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com

R0414

CAUSE NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ¢0>0O°‘&¢&<«03<«0J<«0>§(7=¢nO'?0O>\'47>

vs.

ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER 11"‘ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, lNC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, AND REQUEST FOR RULING ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS Afier considering Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson Helicopter Company Inc.’s

Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production, and Request for Rulings on Defendants’ Objections, any responses or replies thereto, and all arguments of counsel, the Court

finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be GRANTED. therefore ORDERED ? Defendant must respond to Second It is that fiilly Plaintiffs’

Requests for Production within days of this Order.

Further, the Court makes the following rulings on Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production:

Reguest No. 1.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Reguest No. 2.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Reguest No. 3.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED

R0415

Rgguest No. 4.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 5.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rgguest No. 6.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 7.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 8.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 9.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 10.

OVERRULED SUSTAIN ED Rgquest No. 11.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 12.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 13.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 14.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED

R0416

Rguest No. 15.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 16.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 17.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 18.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 19.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 20.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 21.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 22.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 23.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 24.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 25.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED

R0417

Rguest No. 26.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 27.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 28.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 29.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 30.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 31.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 32.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 33.

OVERRULED SUSTAIN ED Rguest No. 34.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 35.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 36.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED

R0418

Rguest No. 37.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 38.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 39.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 40.

OVERRULED SUSTAIN ED

Rguest No. 41.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 42.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Rguest No. 43.

OVERRULED SUSTAINED Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. must comply with this Order within

days of the sigxing hereof. SIGNED this the day of , 2015.

JUDGE PRESIDING

R0419

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ENTRY REQUESTED

By: / MAR1(T.‘M1JRRA'! W-/7 L State Bar No. 14724810 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: 713.622.3223 Facsimile: 713.622-3224 Email: mmurra ‘ohnstevensonlaw.com

R0420

7/23/2015 4:44:38 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 6203692 By: Tammy Tolman Filed: 7/23/2015 4:44:38 PM

CAUSE NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Personal Representative of the Estate § of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates § and Nathan M. Ates § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § YEAGER § 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that hearing on PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S’ FIRST

AND SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR RULING ON

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AND SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; AND, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REVOKE PRO HAC VICE, FOR SANCTIONS AND RELIEF have been set for oral hearing before the Court on Monday, August 17, 2015, at 11:00 a.m., 11th Judicial District Court, Hon. Mike Miller presiding.

Respectfully submitted,

STEVENSON & MURRAY

/s/ Mark T. Murray/s/ MARK T. MURRAY State Bar No. 14724810 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 Ph:(713) 622-3223 Fax (713) 622-3224 Email:mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

R0421

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered to all counsel on this the 23rd day of July 2015, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, via email, U.S. Mail, or facsimile:

DON SWAIM Cunningham Swaim, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75231

George Andrew Coats Gary Linn Evans COATS & EVANS, P.C. P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246

Courtesy Copy: Robinson Helicopter, Inc. In House Counsel via cet@robinsonheli.com

/s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ ________________________________ Mark T. Murray

Page 2 of 2

R0422

NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES § and NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants.

DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. ("Robinson") hereby serves this its Amended Responses Plaintiffs NATHAN S. ATES’, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES and NATHAN M. ATES (“Plaintiffs’”) First Discovery Requests for the purpose of this action only without admitting in any way or to any extent the relevance to this cause of action or the admissibility as evidence of any statement or document provided herein, and without prejudice to subsequently discovered facts or information relevant to these requests. Robinson’s discovery is not completed at this time, and, as such defendant reserves the right to supplement any and all responses herein by reason of subsequently discovered information.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Robinson submits the following general objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions,

R0423

Definitions and Discovery Requests which apply to each and every request contained in Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to Robinson. For convenience, these general objections are set forth below and are not necessarily repeated after each request. The assertion of the same, similar or additional objections to a specific request does not waive any of Robinson’s general objections as set forth below:

1. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek to expand the scope of, or impose upon Robinson obligations greater than those required by the applicable rules of the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or applicable orders of this Court.

2. Robinson reserves the right to challenge the competency, relevancy and admissibility, at trial or any subsequent proceeding, in this or any other action, of any information produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests.

3. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they are directed to or made on behalf of entities or persons who are not parties to this case or over whom Robinson has no control.

4. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests on the grounds that they are ambiguous, vague, overly broad, oppressive and unduly burdensome, and seek information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

5. Robinson bases its responses on information currently available to it, after reasonable inquiry, and Robinson reserves the right to amend and/or supplement its objections and responses to conform to information and documents which may be obtained through ongoing discovery and investigation, in accordance with the Rules of

R0424

Civil Procedure governing discovery.

6. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they attempt to elicit protected documents or information subject to the attorney client privilege; the work product doctrine; a joint or common defense privilege; the confidentiality of documents containing the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories of Robinson or its attorneys; or seeks materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or information that is proprietary in nature. Robinson asserts each and every one of the foregoing privileges and protections applicable to the information sought to the fullest extent provided by law, applicable rules, current and future case management orders.

7. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek documents or information not within Robinson’s possession, custody or control.

8. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek information or documents constituting trade secrets, or other confidential, research, development, commercial, financial and/or proprietary information.

9. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek information which is within Plaintiffs’ knowledge, possession, custody or control, or otherwise accessible to Plaintiffs from other sources with substantially the same or greater facility than Robinson.

10. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they are unlimited in time, or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to

R0425

this litigation, and to Robinson’s products at issue in this case, on the grounds that such requests seek documents neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they include contention interrogatories that solicit premature responses before the close of discovery.

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

Robinson makes the following specific objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions, which objections are incorporated into all of Robinson’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests where applicable. Any omission to refer specifically to such objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions and instructions shall not be deemed a waiver of such objections.

Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and to the extent that Robinson may not be able to ascertain all entities and/or individuals falling within these definitions. Further, Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” to the extent that they seek to expand the scope of, or impose obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

R0426

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

In addition to the documents identified below, Robinson has previously produced the following documents pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request that Robinson provide copies of all documents produced in Cause No. 2013-29873, Paula Yeager, et. al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et. al., in the 129th Judicial Court of Harris County, Texas. Robinson does not believe the documents are responsive to any of Plaintiffs’ requests for production, but have produced the documents as a courtesy to Plaintiffs.

• • R44 Belt Removal Tie Down Test (192-193) • Ferry Pilot Notice – Helicopter Limitations (77) • MLB correspondence, drawings, sample certificates of compliance, purchase orders and quotations (149-167) • MLB Corporate Overview (168-191)

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Original and subsequent design drawings and/or blueprints relating to the engine and rotor systems of the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this request inasmuch as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. With waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it did not manufacture the engine installed in the subject helicopter. Robinson further responds that if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is

R0427

overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

More specifically, Robinson cannot produce the requested documents with respect to the engine because Robinson did not manufacture the engine and the requested documents are not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time. More specifically, the request seeks drawings and blue prints that are not specific to the accident aircraft. Additionally, the requested documents contain information that is highly sensitive proprietary and protected trade secrets of Robinson. The confidentiality of such information is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability.

Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, and in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

R0428

• • Drawing A190, Rev Z [V-Belt Sets (Source Control)] (148) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Documents from 2005 to the present referring to or reflecting any operational malfunction, testing malfunction or operational failure or defect of any type with the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this request inasmuch as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, and contains terms and phrases which are ambiguous and undefined and unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Without waiving these objections, if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in time and scope; contains terms and phrases which are ambiguous and undefined; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989).

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or

R0429

occurrence.

The requested documents contain information that is highly sensitive proprietary and protected trade secrets of Robinson. The confidentiality of such information is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, and in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • R22 Service Bulletins, Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

Documents referring to or reflecting any changes, alterations, or modifications in the design instructions or service bulletins for the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further responds that it is not familiar with the term “design instructions” and as such cannot reasonably provide a response. Without waiving these objections, Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins and

R0430

R22 Service Letters. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in time and scope; contains terms and phrases which are ambiguous and undefined; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989).

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

The requested documents contain information that is highly sensitive proprietary and protected trade secrets of Robinson. The confidentiality of such information is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to

R0431

this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Robinson further responds that it is not familiar with the term “design instructions” and as such cannot reasonably provide a response.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins and R22 Service Letters. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. Additionally, in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • FAA Form 8110-3 re: Drawing A190, Rev Z (89)
• • FAA Form 8110-3 re: RTR 009, Rev Z (90)
• • FAA Form 8110-3 re: RTR 009, Rev B (145) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Advertising brochures, safety alerts, safety notices, service bulletins, service letters, service/technical advisories, promotional literature and the like relating to the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving these objections, Robinson refers to the R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The current R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, Robinson Safety Notices and Robinson Safety Alerts are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at

R0432

www.robinsonheli.com. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in time and scope; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989).

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson refers to the R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The current R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance

R0433

Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, Robinson Safety Notices and Robinson Safety Alerts are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. Additionally, in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • R22 Service Bulletins, Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices
• • Current R22 brochure REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

Articles, evaluations, reports, case studies, and the like appearing in aviation or general mechanical engineering periodicals, industry or aviation trade journals, or governmental or aviation groups relative to or concerning any alleged operational or testing malfunction or failure in connection with the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects to this Request inasmuch as it seeks documents which are equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain any file or database of these documents. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in time and scope; seeks information not within the

R0434

actual or constructive control of this party; and seeks information equally available to Plaintiffs; seeks information that as equally cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire as Robinson; and seeks information not within the active or constructive control of this party.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it does not maintain any file or database of these documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

Contracts and/or policies of insurance which might afford coverage to Defendant in the event of a verdict for Plaintiff in the above-styled cause, whether primary, secondary or excess coverage. RESPONSE:

Robinson responds that there is no insurance policy that insures Robinson for claims contained in the subject lawsuit. Robinson has no knowledge of any insurance policies covering third parties for claims contained in the subject lawsuit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

Correspondence between Defendant and Helicopter Services, Inc. regarding the use, experience, anticipated use, flight use, operational concerns, or otherwise specifically pertaining to or governing the maintenance, inspection or operation of the

R0435

helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter and any components of such aircraft manufactured or assembled by Defendant. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson refers Plaintiff to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog, and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989).

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this

R0436

request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson refers Plaintiff to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog, and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. Additionally, in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • Current Robinson Dealership and Service Center Agreement issued to

Helicopter Services

• • 2012 Customer Service Correspondence file for Helicopter Services (3-76) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

For the time period from 2005 to the present, petitions for damages or complaints filed in any court or comparable administrative tribunal in connection with any lawsuits against Defendant in which it is alleged or acclaimed that the helicopter model at issue crashed as a result of design or mechanical failures. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome. Robinson further objects to this request in that it seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case, and as such this information is outside the scope of proper discovery and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

R0437

Robinson further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information which is protected by the attorney work product and/or attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain any database or compilation of responsive documents. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; exceeds the scope of permissible discovery; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; is not reasonably limited in time or scope; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain any database or compilation of responsive documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

Maintenance manuals, parts catalogs, price lists and estimated operating costs

R0438

publications prepared by Defendant and sent to distributors, dealers or repair facilities with respect to appropriate maintenance, inspection and testing of, and parts for, the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson refers to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this

R0439

request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson refers to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. Additionally, in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • Pages 7.50 and 7.52 of the R22 Maintenance Manual (1-2)
• • Excerpts from R22 Maintenance Manual (78, 79, 81-88) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Service difficulty reports generated by Defendant and submitted to any field operatives, dealers, maintenance facilities and distributors with respect to the helicopter model at issue and/or any of its components. RESPONSE:

Robinson responds that Service Difficulty Reports are not generated by Robinson, and such documents are received and maintained by the FAA and are not within Robinson’s custody or control. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; calls for the creation of a nonexistent document; is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; and is not reasonably calculated to lead to

R0440

the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that Service Difficulty Reports are not generated by Robinson, and such documents are received and maintained by the FAA. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

Notices of malfunction or defect reports reported to the FAA or NTSB which in any way relate to tail rotor effectiveness in the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson responds that this Request seeks documents maintained by the FAA, and not in Robinson’s custody or control. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as

R0441

substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that such documents are maintained by the FAA and/or NTSB. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

Internal memoranda including, but not limited to, letters, bulletins, reports, test results, investigative evaluations and the like generated within and by employees of Defendant or at the behest of Defendant relating to any alleged or perceived malfunction, materials problem, operational or maintenance failure or alleged failure with any component of the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson responds it does not believe it is in possession of responsive documents at this time.

R0442

AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

Accident investigation reports or memoranda prepared by or at the behest of Defendant, including reports of all in-house investigations, diagrams, photographs, witness statements, engineering or test reports and memoranda, litigation testing and the like, regarding any crash of the helicopter model at issue (including the subject helicopter in the crash made the basis of this lawsuit).

R0443

RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects to this Request as it seeks documents relating to other helicopters not related to the accident in question without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson also objects to this Request inasmuch as it seeks information protected by the attorney work product and attorney/client privilege. Without waiving this objection, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff

R0444

contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • RHC Accident Report REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Documents, materials, reports or memoranda contained within FAA or NTSB files concerning operation or testing deficiencies or failures, either actual or alleged, relating to the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope, and seeks documents which are proprietary and trade secret in nature. Without waiving this objection, Robinson responds that this Request seeks documents maintained by the FAA and/or the NTSB, and not in Robinson’s custody or control. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; seeks information

R0445

that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

The requested documents contain information that is highly sensitive proprietary and protected trade secrets of Robinson. The confidentiality of such information is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that such documents are maintained by the FAA and/or NTSB. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

Evaluations, whether conducted internally or externally, at the behest of

R0446

Defendant, upon the subject helicopter, both before and after the crash. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and burdensome as framed. Without waiving this objection, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • RHC Accident Report REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Documents referring to or reflecting any testing, whether operation or field testing or component, experimental or laboratory testing, concerning evaluation of the helicopter model at issue's engine and rotor systems. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks documents which are proprietary and contain trade secrets. Without waiving these objections, if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a

R0447

response. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

The requested documents contain information that is highly sensitive proprietary and protected trade secrets of Robinson. The confidentiality of such information is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • RTR 009, Appendix XIII (91-144)
• • RTR 009, Appendix III (146-147)

R0448

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

Correspondence between Defendant and Helicopter Services, Inc. referring or relating to the proper inspection, maintenance and operation of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request in that it is duplicative in nature. Robinson refers to its response to Request for Production No. 7, which is incorporated herein by reference. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

Correspondence referring to or reflecting proper maintenance, operation, and flight use of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. This Request seeks ‘correspondence’ without indicating between what parties it is referring to. If Plaintiff can clarify this Request, Robinson can attempt to provide a reasonable response. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; requests “correspondence” without indicting what parties/entities it is referring to; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks information

R0449

protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; exceeds the scope of permissible discovery; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); and cannot be answered as framed.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

Each and every exhibit that Defendant will offer at trial for any purpose, including all demonstrative exhibits, all substantive exhibits and all tangible, photographic or documentary evidence which Defendant will attempt to show to the jury or otherwise use at the trial of this case. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature at this stage of discovery, and disclosure of such documents and things will be conducted at the appropriate time under the relevant rules of Court. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

Any videotapes, photographs, or other similar evidence in your possession depicting and/or relating in any way to Plaintiff.

R0450

RESPONSE:

Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. AMENDED RESPONSE:

In response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • RHC Accident Report REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

Each and every exhibit, including all demonstrative exhibits, all substantive exhibits and all tangible, photographic or documentary evidence that have been reviewed by or created by your testifying experts or that in any way support or illustrate your testifying experts' opinions that are relevant to this case. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature at this stage of discovery, and disclosure of such documents and things will be conducted at the appropriate time under the relevant rules of Court. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

Your current balance sheet, financial statement or other document(s) sufficient to show your current net worth. For purposes of this request, "net worth" means the difference between total assets and liabilities determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to the Request as it seeks privileged financial

R0451

records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson also objects to this Request as the information requested is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant, and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:

Photographs, videos or maps of the scene of the crash. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome, seeks information which is equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Without waiving these objections, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number

N281RG.

AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; and seeks information equally available to Plaintiffs; seeks information that as equally cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire as Robinson; and seeks information not within the active or constructive control of this party.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states

R0452

that it has previously produced the following documents:

• • RHC Accident Report REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:

All documents supporting your claim that another person or entity is a Responsible Third Party that has not been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature, discovery is in progress and the investigation and preparation have not been completed. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request on the grounds that it is premature, discovery is in progress and the investigation and preparation have not been completed; and is duplicative of information properly requested pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

Pilot operating manuals, helicopter operational manuals, or the like, prepared by Defendant for the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE:

Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Flight Training Guide, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, and Robinson Safety Notices. Robinson will produce a full set of R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook and R22 Flight Training Guide are publicly available for

R0453

purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome; and unlimited in time and scope.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Flight Training Guide, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, and Robinson Safety Notices. Robinson will produce a full set of R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook and R22 Flight Training Guide are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. Additionally, in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • R22 Service Bulletins, Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices
• • R22 POH, page 4—7 (80)

R0454

Respectfully submitted,

COATS & EVANS, P.C.

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003

Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

R0455

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney, as attorney of record for the Defendant, certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all parties of record on this the 24th day of July, 2015.

MARK T. MURRAY Via Email and/or Facsimile STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com

DON SWAIM Via Email and/or Facsimile CUNNINGHAM SWAIM, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Ste. 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-646-1495 dswaim@cunninghamswaim.com

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats

R0456

CAUSE NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF as Personal Representative of the Estate § of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates § and Nathan M. Ates § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § And the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW, NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates, Plaintiffs herein and file this Amended Designation of Expert Witnesses as shown on the attached Exhibit A, subject to the following:

I.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this designation with additional designations of experts within the time limits imposed by the Court or any alterations of same by subsequent Court Order or agreement of the parties, or pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence.

II.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to elicit, by way of cross-examination, opinion testimony from experts designated and called by other parties to the suit. Plaintiffs express their intention to possibly call, as witnesses associated with adverse parties, any of Defendants’ experts.

R0457

III.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to call un-designated rebuttal expert witnesses whose testimony cannot reasonably be foreseen until the presentation of the evidence against Plaintiffs.

IV.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to withdraw the designation of any expert and to aver positively that any such previously designated expert will not be called as a witness at trial, and to re-designate same as a consulting expert, who cannot be called by opposing counsel.

V.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to elicit any expert opinion or lay opinion testimony at the time of trial which would be truthful, which would be of benefit to the jury to determine material issues of fact, and which would not be violative of any existing Court Order or the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

VI.

Plaintiffs hereby designate, as adverse parties, potentially adverse parties, and/or as witnesses associated with adverse parties, all parties to this suit and all experts designated by any party to this suit, even if the designating party is not a party to the suit at the time of trial. In the event a present or future party designates an expert but then is dismissed for any reason from the suit or fails to call any designated expert, Plaintiffs reserve the right to designate and/or call any such party or any such experts previously designated by any party.

R0458

VII.

Plaintiffs reserve whatever additional rights they might have with regard to experts, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence, the case law construing same, and the rulings of the trial court.

Respectfully submitted,

STEVENSON & MURRAY

/s/ Mark T. Murray By: MARK T. MURRAY State Bar No. 14724810 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 (713) 622-3223 (713) 622-3224 (FAX)

R0459

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered to all counsel by U.S. Mail, facsimile and/or other means, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 7th day of August 2015, to-wit:

George Andrew Coats Gary Linn Evans COATS & EVANS, P.C. P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 and Tim Goetz Robinson Helicopter Company Via E-Service 2901 Airport Drive Torrance, California 90505 Counsel for Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc.

Don Swaim Cunningham Swaim, LLP Via E-Service 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 Counsel for Helicopter Services, Inc. And Christopher Yeager, Deceased

/s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ ______________________________ Mark T. Murray

R0460

“EXHIBIT A”

Dr. Thomas Mayor 5555 Del Monte, #1306 Houston, Texas 77056 713.552.1522 Plaintiffs’ Economic Expert

Dr. Mayor will testify regarding the economic loss and damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the death of Joyce Ates. Dr. Mayor will also be asked to calculate and consider the net worth of Defendants in relation to Plaintiffs’ gross negligence claim. Dr. Mayor will testify concerning past and future loss of earnings of Plaintiffs, including but not limited to real rate of interest, future real compensation growth, earnings, benefits, work expenses, work life expectancy, and loss of household services. He will also testify regarding Defendants’ net worth.

Dr. Mayor will rely upon the Life Table from the National Vital Statistics Reports and Work Life Expectancy table. Written notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to use this government document is provided herein.

Dr. Mayor’s curriculum vitae and list of cases in which he has served as an expert have been provided to all counsel and are not reattached to this pleading. All records reviewed by Dr. Mayor will be exchanged between the parties through discovery.

Dr. Mayor’s opinions will be based on his education, training, experience, research and review of documents produced in this litigation through discovery and Plaintiffs’ Petitions. Dr. Mayor may supplement his opinions after review of Defendants’ experts’ conclusions, and should any other additional information become available relevant to his purposes.

R0461

William Carden, M.S., P.E. McSwain Engineering, Inc. 3320 McLemore Drive Pensacola, Florida 32514 (850) 484-0506

Mr. Carden has been retained for the purposes of failure analysis and engineering based investigation into the cause of the incident subject of this suit. He is expected to testify concerning the components of the subject helicopter which failed and/or contributed to the crash subject of this suit. This includes helicopter defects, design and performance of the R-22, its engine, fuel system, gas tank, rotor system, drives, reserve power and the performance envelope of the helicopter; what Robinson knew and/or should have known prior to this crash; alternative designs and feasibility of alternative designs, negligence, liability, causation and damages.

Mr. Carden has been provided with the all records ordered and exchanged with counsel in this matter, including NTSB Docket Items, NTSB Preliminary and Final Reports, the FAA Accident Data, FAA Airworthiness and Registration Records, and certified weather records, as well as the depositions taken to date and Plaintiffs’ petitions. Mr. Carden has been provided with components from the helicopter involved herein and performed a hands-on analysis, as well as photographic documentation, which has been previously provided to counsel. All records reviewed by Mr. Carden have been exchanged between the parties through discovery. Mr. Carden has been provided with expert reports, as received.

Mr. Carden’s curriculum vitae and list of cases in which he has served as an expert have been previously provided to all counsel. Mr. Carden’s opinions are based on his education, training, experience, research and review of documents and components produced in this litigation through discovery.

-2-

R0462

Mr. Carden’s expert report is attached, See Exhibit C.

Mr. Carden may supplement his opinions after review of Defendants’ experts’ conclusions, and should any other additional information become available relevant to his purposes.

Sri Kumar, Ph.D. Safety Research Institute 110 Industrial Boulevard Hoschton, Georgia 30548 Phone: (706) 654.4830

Dr. Sri Kumar is an expert in biomechanics, occupant body movement in crash situations, and biomechanical injury causation. Dr. Kumar will give opinions on the likelihood and mechanism of injuries to Ms. Joyce Ates and express opinions concerning the cause of injury and/or death in this case. Dr. Kumar will testify to the biomechanical issues based upon a comprehensive biomechanical reconstruction of the crash, including his personal inspection of the subject helicopter and review of documents pertinent to this case as well as his education, experience, background, training and knowledge in the field of biomedical/biomechanical engineering. Dr. Kumar's testimony will rely in part on the accident reconstruction of Mr. Collin Sommers. Dr. Kumar is expected to base his opinions upon documents and components produced in discovery by the defendants, depositions taken in this case, as well as his background, prior experience and qualifications.

Dr. Kumar has been provided with the depositions of fact witnesses, all records ordered and exchanged with counsel in this matter, Plaintiffs’ Petition, NTSB Docket Items, NTSB Preliminary and Final Reports, the FAA Accident Data, FAA Airworthiness and Registration Records, and certified weather records.

-3-

R0463

Dr. Kumar has been provided with expert reports, as received.

Dr. Kumar’s curriculum vitae and list of cases in which he has served as an expert have been previously produced to counsel. All records reviewed by Dr. Kumar have been and will be exchanged between the parties through discovery.

Dr. Kumar may supplement his opinions after review of Defendants’ experts’ conclusions, and should any other additional information become available relevant to his purposes.

Joseph L. Burton, M.D. 13784 Highway 9 Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 (770) 777-0437 (770) 402-5861

Dr. Burton is Plaintiffs’ retained expert in the field of forensic pathology. He may testify concerning the survivability of the crash, the nature and extent of injuries suffered by Joyce Ates, pain and suffering, physiology of injury, cause of death, interval between initial trauma and death, kinematics, and life expectancy. Dr. Burton may also testify as to the negligence, causation and damages issues and will provide testimony regarding his background, education, experience, and qualifications.

Dr. Burton has been provided with the depositions of fact witnesses and the autopsy records in this matter, as well as all records ordered and exchanged with counsel, and Plaintiffs’ Petitions. Dr. Burton has been provided with other expert reports, as received.

Dr. Burton’s curriculum vitae and list of cases in which he has served as an expert have been provided to all counsel. All records reviewed by Dr. Burton have been exchanged between the parties through discovery.

-4-

R0464

Dr. Burton’s opinions are based on his education, training, experience, research and review of documents produced in this litigation through discovery.

Dr. Burton’s report is again attached. See Exhibit C.

Dr. Burton may supplement his opinions after review of Defendants’ experts’ conclusions, and should any other additional information become available relevant to his purposes.

William S Lawrence, Colonel USMC (Ret'd) ConsulAir Incorporated 6825 Nob Hill Drive North Richland Hills, TX 76182 817 560 1840 Home/Fax 817 291 9684 Cellular

Colonel Lawrence is Plaintiffs’ retained expert in the field of aviation and pilot qualification. He will testify concerning the piloting of the helicopter subject of this suit, including the effects of the pilot’s handling of the R-22. This includes but is not limited to flight maneuvers, characteristics of the subject helicopter, stresses upon the pilot, passengers and aircraft in comparison to other helicopters; pilot education, handling and aircraft performance; liability, negligence, causation and damages. He will also testify regarding his background, prior experience and qualifications.

Colonel Lawrence has been provided with documents exchanged between the parties through discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, Plaintiffs’ Petitions, all records ordered and exchanged with counsel in this matter, NTSB Docket Items, NTSB Preliminary and Final Reports, the FAA Accident Data, FAA Airworthiness and Registration Records, and certified weather records. Colonel Lawrence has been provided with other experts’ reports, as received.

-5-

R0465

Col. Lawrence’s curriculum vitae and list of cases in which he has served as an expert have been previously provided.

Col. Lawrence’s opinions are based on his education, training, experience, research and review of documents produced in this litigation through discovery.

Col. Lawrence’s report is attached. See Exhibit C.

Col. Lawrence may supplement his opinions after review of Defendants’ experts’ conclusions, and should any other additional information become available relevant to his purposes.

Colin Sommer Aeroscope, Inc. 11901 Allison Street Broomfield, Colorado

Mr. Sommer is Plaintiffs’ retained expert who will testify concerning the components of the subject helicopter, which failed and/or contributed to the crash subject of this suit. This testimony will include defects, including with the design and performance of the R-22, its engine, fuel system, gas tank, rotor system, reserve power, drives, and the performance envelope of the helicopter; what Robinson knew and/or should have known prior to this crash; alternative designs and feasibility of alternative designs, negligence, liability, causation and damages.

Mr. Sommer has been provided with the depositions of fact witnesses, Plaintiffs’ Petitions, all records ordered and exchanged with counsel in this matter, NTSB Docket Items, NTSB Preliminary and Final Reports, the FAA Accident Data, FAA Airworthiness and Registration Records, and certified weather records.

Mr. Sommer’s curriculum vitae and list of cases in which he has served as an expert have been previously provided to counsel. All records reviewed by Mr. Sommer have been and will

-6-

R0466

be exchanged between the parties through discovery.

Mr. Sommer’s opinions are based on his education, training, experience, research and review of documents produced in this litigation through discovery.

Mr. Sommer’s report is attached. See Exhibit C.

Mr. Sommer may supplement his opinions after review of Defendants’ experts’ conclusions, and should any other additional information become available relevant to his purposes.

Supplementation of these experts’ final conclusions may be made upon receipt of additional information, and after review of Defendants’ experts conclusions. These supplements, if any, will be provided in a timely fashion and pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and docket control order entered in this matter.

Because discovery is ongoing, Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this designation as the facts dictate.

Plaintiffs hereby cross designate and state that they may call any expert witness identified or designated by an adverse party or any employee or representative of an adverse party, subject to any objections Plaintiffs may make concerning the designation of those expert witnesses, including but not limited to those experts who have prepared reports regarding this incident.

Plaintiffs further reserve the right to elicit, by way of cross-examination, opinion testimony from experts designated and called by other parties to the suit. Plaintiffs may also call, as a witness associated with other parties, any expert witness of any party who may be added to this lawsuit.

-7-

R0467

Plaintiffs further reserve the right to withdraw the designation of any expert and to aver positively that any such previously designated expert will not be called as a witness to trial and to redesignate same as a consulting expert, who cannot be called by opposing counsel.

Plaintiffs further reserve the right to elicit any expert opinion or lay opinion testimony at the time of trial which would be truthful, which would be of benefit to the jury to determine material issues of fact, which would not be violative of any existing Court order or the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs further designate, as adverse parties, potentially adverse parties, and/or as witnesses associated with adverse parties, all parties to this suit and all experts designated by any party to this suit, even if the designating party is not a party to the suit at the time of trial. In the event that present or future parties designate an expert, but is subsequently dismissed for any reason from the suit or fails to call any designated expert, Plaintiffs designate witnesses listed by any such party.

Plaintiffs reserve whatever additional rights they may have with regard to experts, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Texas Rules of Evidence, the case law construing same and the rulings of the Trial Court.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this designation with additional designations of experts within any time limits imposed by the Court or any alterations of same by subsequent Court order or agreement of the parties or pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Texas Rules of Evidence.

-8-

R0468

Medical Providers and Other Persons with Knowledge of Relevant Facts Who May Qualify as Experts and/or Lay Experts but Have Not Been Specifically Retained (Fact Experts B Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2(f))

The following persons, or the custodians of their records, have not been retained by and are not employed by, or are otherwise subject to the control of Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as Anon-retained@ experts), but are hereby designated as testifying experts by Plaintiff and the following information is provided in accordance with Rule 194.2, Tex. R. Civ. P.

Although these witnesses have not been specifically retained as expert witnesses by Plaintiffs, and while Plaintiffs cannot vouch for the expertise or credibility of such witnesses at this time, it is believed that they may have knowledge, training or expertise which may qualify them as experts in their respective fields. Accordingly, Plaintiffs designate these witnesses as persons who may be called upon to give testimony that would be considered expert testimony.

The following entities, medical providers, and/or the custodians of their records, may testify regarding the investigation into the accident subject of this suit, causation, injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs and Decedent in the incident made the subject of this suit, medical diagnoses, and the reasonable and necessary cost of hospital, doctor and medical bills for treatment of injuries in the past. Please refer to the providers= records for their mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, and the factual basis for each opinion.

These medical providers/non-retained experts are expected to testify regarding their education, experience, and credentials as a physician or medical provider and/or in their respective fields of expertise. These health care providers/non-retained experts have reviewed the events, records, including medical records and bills, employment records, performed and/or reviewed autopsy examination of the deceased, and review of relevant written documentation and

-9-

R0469

records of events related hereto. These treating medical providers/non-retained experts will testify concerning their findings regarding the events subject hereof. These non-retained experts will testify regarding the incident and related cause, nature and severity of the deceased’s injuries as well as the investigation into the events subject of this suit, as well as governmental records related hereto.

These treating medical providers/non-retained experts are familiar with the reasonable and customary charges for medical treatment of the type associated in this incident. These medical providers/non-retained experts will be asked to testify about whether the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages were proximately caused by the incident made the basis of this lawsuit. These medical providers/non-retained experts will be asked to testify about whether any associated medical bills and expenses incurred] were reasonable and necessary because of the injuries and death of the deceased.

The facts known by these medical providers/non-retained experts that relate to or form the basis of this medical provider/non-retained expert’s mental impressions and opinions are contained in the relevant records which have been produced or will be produced to the Defendants, including any records or reports from these providers. Such records, as well as any deposition testimony, are incorporated herein.

If Defendants desire further information, a more detailed form of this information may be obtained from the non-retained experts through an oral deposition, a deposition on written questions, or a subpoena. T.R.C.P. 176, 205; T.R.C.P. 195, at 2.

-10-

R0470

These non-retained experts may be called to testify as to the physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, and any related medical, funeral and/or burial expenses related to the deceased.

The records custodians of the below-listed providers may testify as to the business records kept in connection the injuries and damages suffered by the parties herein, and the reasonableness of charges and necessity of services, if any. Medical Providers and Other Persons with Knowledge of Relevant Facts Who May Qualify as Experts and/or Lay Experts But Have Not Been Specifically Retained:

Representatives and Employees of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., Defendant by and through its counsel of record including but not limited to: Kurt L. Robinson Thomas Webster, Investigator Chong Yip Kelvyn Oum Ken Martin, Investigator Jack Fleming, Test Pilot Gilbert Acevedo, Jr. Peter Riedl, VP, Engineering By and through counsel of record, Tim A. Goetz Attorney at Law 2901 Airport Drive Torrance, California 90505 (310) 539-0508 and George Andrew Coats Gary Linn Evans COATS & EVANS, P.C. P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 (281) 367-7732

-11-

R0471

Representatives and Employees of Helicopter Services, Inc. Including but not limited to : Carl Thomas Michael Crossland, General Manager Robert Spradlin, Director of Flight Operations Trevor Tapp, QC Manager Benito Perez, Helicopter Mechanic Jerome Thompson, Helicopter Mechanic Chris Starinski, Helicopter Mechanic Robin Crossland, Office Manager By and through its counsel of record, Don Swaim Cunningham Swaim, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 (214) 646-1495

Phillip Greenspun, Instructor c/o East Coast Aero Club Hanscom Field Civil Termianl 200 Hanscom Drive, Ste. 111 Bedford, Massachusetts 01730 (781) 274-6322 Individual with technical expertise as a Robinson Factory Trained Instructor with knowledge concerning handling and control of Robinson R-22 helicopters

Records Custodians and Employees of the Federal Aviation Administration including but not limited to Records Custodians David M. Metz, Aviation Safety Inspector POI, Unit B (281) 929-7080 Glen Longnion, Aviation Safety Inspector PMI, Unit A (281) 929-7009 Larry Eckert, Investigator (281) 370-4354 Houston Flight Standards District Office 12650 N. Featherwood Drive, Suite 230 Houston, Texas 77034 Individuals believed to have knowledge of relevant facts

Russell Lewis, Ph.D. Records Custodians TC, FAA, Forensic Toxicology Research FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Room 351 6500 South MacArthur Boulevard -12-

R0472

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 FAA employee who performed toxicology testing on the remains of pilot and passenger

National Transportation Safety Board c/o South Central Regional Office 624 Six Flags Drive, Ste. 150 Arlington, Texas 817-652-7800 including but not limited to: Records Custodians Leah D. Yeager Sr. Air Safety Investigator Tom Latson, Investigator Bill Tuccio, Specialist/Electronic Device Report Performed investigation of the incident subject of this suit

FAA/NTSB FOIA Request Department Response for request of air traffic communication records on 9/10/12

Federal Aviation Administration Records Custodian Houston Flight Standards District Office 12650 North Featherwood Drive, Ste. 230 Houston, Texas 77034 Provided Federal FAA Accident Incident Data System Report (281) 929-7000

FAA Records Custodian P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 Provided records regarding sale, repair and airworthiness of the helicopter involved in the incident subject of this suit (405) 954-3116

Federal Aviation Administration Records Custodian Southwest Region 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, Texas 76137 (817) 222-5006 Provided DOT Accident Incident Data System Report

-13-

R0473

Records Custodian NOAA National Data Centers U.S. Department of Commerce National Climatic Data Center Federal Building 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, North Carolina 28801 (828) 271-4800

Mr. Jeffrey Greenawalt Starr Insurance Senior Claims Representative 3353 Peachtree Road N.E., Suite 1000 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 cell: 214-223-0202

Air Salvage of Dallas Records Custodians 1361 Ferris Road Lancaster, Texas 75146 972-227-1111 Facility storing the helicopter wreckage

Investigating Officers including but not limited to: Trooper Michael Martin Trooper John Sampa Trooper James E. Wilkins Trooper Alberto Feliciano Bobby R. Risch Jeremy W. Mireles Records Custodians ( no records deposition) c/o Texas Department of Public Safety 7710 Will Clayton Parkway Humble, Texas 77338 (281) 517-1200

Officer Gustavo Lopez Capt. James Bolton Lt. Chad Shaw Demond Anderson, Investigator Randy Corliss, Investigator Records Custodians Harris County Fire Marshal

-14-

R0474

2318 Atascocita Road Humble, Texas 77396 (281) 436-8000 Persons called to crash site for purposes of investigation and photography of scene

Charles Danley Records Custodians Manager(s) of Fueling and/or Maintenance Baytown Airport (KPHY) 5600 Barkaloo Road Baytown, TX 77521 (281) 421-1671 Individuals believed to have knowledge of relevant facts, including fueling of helicopter prior to crash

Roger Schmidt, Manager David Wayne Hooks Airport (KDWH) 20803 Stuebner Airline Rd, Spring, TX 77379 (281) 376-5436 Individual believed to have knowledge of relevant facts

Bobby Lopez Records Custodians Xtreme Piper 7814 Miller Road 3 Houston, Texas 77049 (281) 452-9015 Individual believed to have knowledge of relevant facts

Records Custodians Dr. Kristin Escobar Alvarenga, Forensic Pathology Fellow Dr. Stephen K. Wilson, Asst. Medical Examiner Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences 1885 Old Spanish Trail Houston, Texas 77054 Individuals who performed autopsy services on the victims of the crash

John B. Butler Investigator Lycoming Engines 3004 Green Valley Lane Arlington, Texas 76014 (817) 456-0933 Individual who may have knowledge of relevant facts

-15-

R0475

Erling Sales & Service Records Custodians (no records deposition) 10321 Veterans Memorial Drive Houston, Texas 77038 (281) 260-7878 Believed to have performed maintenance on helicopter at issue

David Boudreaux Boudreaux Aviation Records Custodians Orange County Airport 2540 S. Highway 87 Orange, Texas 77630 Performed weight/balance report on helicopter at issue

Robert L. Garza Records Custodians Garza Avionics 7644 Eagle Lane Spring, Texas 77339 (832) 717-0818 Believed to have performed transponder certification on helicopter at issue

Western Skyways, Inc. Records Custodians 21 Creative Place Montrose, Colorado (970) 249-0232 Performed overhaul of subject helicopter engine

Mr. Ruben Vazquez Records Custodians Blackwell Woodforest Funeral Home, Inc. 750 Uvalde Road Houston, Texas 77015 (713) 453-1900 Provided assistance with services and funeral of Joyce Ates, Deceased

Flowers of Conroe Records Custodian 806 N. Loop 336 W Conroe, Texas 77301 (936) 760-3499 Provided assistance with funeral services of Joyce Ates, Deceased

-16-

R0476

Kelly Monument Company (f/k/a Muskogee Monument Co.) Records Custodians 1525 N York Street Muskogee, Oklahoma 74403 (918) 682-2641 Provided monument at burial site of Joyce Ates, Deceased

Sheldon Community Fire & Rescue William Crawford, Records Custodian 8407 C.E. King Parkway Houston, Texas 77044 (281) 458-1431 Provided emergency responders and equipment to crash site

Harris County HazMat Harris County Fire Marshal’s Office Records Custodians 2318 Atascocita Road Humble, Texas 77396 Provider emergency responders and equipment to crash site (281) 436-8000

Harris County Sheriff’s Department Records Custodians 1200 Baker Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-6044 No Records Deposition

Channelview Fire Department Records Custodians 16010 Ridlon Channelview, Texas 77530 (281) 452-5782 Provided emergency responders and equipment to crash site

Cloverleaf Fire Department Records Custodians 911 Hollywood Street Houston, Texas 77015 (713) 453-1811 Provided emergency responders and equipment to crash site

-17-

R0477

KFOR-TV Records Custodian 444 E. Britton Rd. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73114 405) 424-4444 Provided local news report of Joyce Ates’ death

Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics Department of State Health Services P.O. Box 12040 Austin, TX 78711-2040 1(800) 963-7111

Internal Revenue Service 3651 S. Interregional Hwy., PhotoCopy Unit, STOP 6716 AUSC Austin TX 73301

Social Security Administration - Earnings 300 North Greene Street, Dero Section-3T Baltimore MD 21290-0300

THE LISTED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS MAY BE CALLED TO TESTIFY AS TO THOSE MEDICAL DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF.

THE RECORD CUSTODIANS LISTED MAY TESTIFY AS TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS KEPT IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS RECORDS AND/OR THE REASONABLENESS OF CHARGES AND NECESSITY OF SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH BUSINESS RECORDS.

Subject Matters of Non-Retained Experts: The subject matters on which said non-retained non-controlled experts will testify are as follows: a. The written, photographic and/or video communications made within the records relevant to each non-retained expert; b. Examination of the injuries and cause of death of the Deceased Plaintiff; c. The type, purpose, extent, results, evaluations and/or interpretations of the investigation into the incident subject of this suit; d. The cause and/or causes of Deceased Plaintiff's injuries and condition;

-18-

R0478

e. Incident response required by the subject accident; f. The reasonableness and the necessity of the services provided by the agencies relevant to the incident subject of this suit and as contained in the business records; g. All those subject matters contained, discussed or disclosed in: (1)The business records and medical records concerning the incident, investigation and the Deceased Plaintiff which have been and which may hereafter be produced in this cause; (2)Any and all business and medical records affidavits and/or billing affidavits which have been filed and which may hereafter be filed in this cause, and all exhibits thereto; (3)The depositions on written questions of all business records custodians, including Deceased Plaintiff's health care providers, if any, which have been taken and which may hereafter be taken in this cause, and all exhibits thereto; and 4)All written reports of contained in the business records listed herein and records of business record and/or medical providers as have been produced during the course of discovery in this cause.

All of which documents are incorporated herein by reference as though set out at length for all purposes. 3.Impressions and Opinions of Non-Retained Experts. The general substance of said non-retained / non-controlled experts' mental impressions and opinions are expected to be, and a brief summary of the basis for these are, as follows: a. The nature, extent and severity of Deceased Plaintiff's injuries and the reasons therefor; b. Deceased Plaintiff's injuries and death are the result of the incident subject of this suit; c. That the subject accident did, based on reasonable medical probability, cause all of the

-19-

R0479

complaints, disabilities, injuries, and/or death of Deceased Plaintiff, d. All other impressions and opinions that are contained, discussed or disclosed in: (1)The business records which have been and which may hereafter be produced in this cause;

(2)The business records which have been filed and which may hereafter be filed in this cause, and all exhibits thereto;

(3)The depositions on written questions of business records custodians which have been taken and which may hereafter be taken in this cause, and all exhibits thereto; and

4)All written reports of contained in the business records produced during the course of discovery in this cause.

All of which documents are incorporated herein by reference as though set out at length for all purposes. 4.Brief Summary of Basis For Impressions And Opinions. The basis for the foregoing impressions and opinions of the above named and/or designated expert witnesses are all of the facts shown by and/or contained in: a. All of the business records, depositions upon written questions, and other records promulgated in this case and relevant to the incident subject hereof and the deceased Plaintiff, which have been produced in this cause; b. All depositions taken and hereafter taken in this cause, either by written questions or orally, and all exhibits thereto; c. The expert reports hereinabove expressly referred to; d. All witness statements which may be produced in this cause; e. All of the photographs and videotape recordings produced in this cause; f. The Responses to Requests For Disclosure, Responses to Requests For Production, Answers to Interrogatories, and the Amendments and Supplements thereto which have been filed by each of

-20-

R0480

the parties to this cause; g. The Pleadings on file in this cause; h. All documents and tangible things produced in this cause; All of which records, reports, documents, depositions, photographs and videotape recordings are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof for all purposes as if set out at length herein.

-21-

R0481

EXHIBIT

McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC. 3320 MCL EMORE DRIVE 6 P.O. Box 10888 PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32524-0888

(850) 484-0506 FAX (850) 484-0508

Materials Engineering Report July 22, 2015 Reference: Nathan S . Ates, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc . , et al.

Accident Aircraft: Robinson R22 BETA Helicopter, Registration N281RG

Accident Location: Houston, TX

Accident Date: September 10, 2012 1.0 Requested Analysis

Mcswain Engineering, Inc. was requested to perform a materials engineering analysis regarding the crash of a Robinson R22 BETA helicopter, Registration N281RG , i n Houston, TX.

Mcswain Engineering, Inc. i s a consulting engineering firm with capabilities in materials engineering, mechanical engineering, and forensic chemistry. Mcswain Engineering, Inc. utilizes standard methodology and generally accepted techniques in performing a materials engineering investigation .

This is a report of findings and opinions to date based on examination of sel ected subject components, and the literature produced in this case. 2. O Background Information1

On September 10 , 2012, about 1545 Central Daylight Time, a Robinson R22 BETA helicopter impacted the terrain of a steel pipe yard in Houston , TX. The pilot and passenger

1 Extracted NTSB Factual Report, NTSB ID No. CEN l 2FA62 l M1231BC/ HUr ray-At es Page l of s

R0482

were fatally injured. The helicopter sustained extensive post-impact fire damage.

The V-belts were thermally damaged and small sections of the V-belts were found on the horizontal fi r ewall, forward of the grooves of the lower sheave, inside the rim of lower sheave, and on the ground below the sheaves . The upper sheave was extensively damaged by the post- impact fire .

The clutch annunciator and low rotor RPM warning lights were examined by the NTSB Materials Laboratory. Based on the Materials Laboratory Factual Report No. 12-116, the broken filament from the clutch annunciator light bulb "exhibited hot coil stretching." The low rotor RPM warning light bulb filament was broken , but did not exhibi t hot coil stretching.

3.0 Mcswain Engineering Analysis

Selected subject components were shipped to Mcswain Engineering on September 8, 2014. The laboratory analysis was performed on March 17, 2015 .

3.1 Subject V-Belt Remnants

The V- belt remnants collected from t he subject aircraft were sev erely burned and brittle, as shown in Enclosure 1 . One remnant still showed white numbers, indicative of the stamped lot number typically found on v-belts. Another remnant showed the characteristic groove and tie band configuration. The v-belt remnant was analyzed us i ng Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) for comparison with the deposit samples taken from the lower sheave.

3.2 Subject Lower Sheave

The subject lower sheave is shown in Enclosure 2. The lower sheave was burned with traces of coating remaining on the grooves . Samples were taken from both the forward and aft grooves at the 6:00, 9:00, and 12 :0 0 positions, as shown in Enclosure 3. A sample was also taken from the aft face of the lower sheave in order to characterize a non-contact area sample of the sheave coating . The samples were analyzed using FTIR .

/'fl2J.l8C/ Murr•y·Ates Page 2 of 5

R0483

Out of the six samples taken from the aft two grooves of the lower sheave, the FTIR spectra of four samples showed indications matching the v-belt remnant spectra and were identified as belt material. The locations from where these samples were taken are shown in Enclosure 4. None of the five samples taken from the forward two grooves of the lower sheave showed any FTIR characteristics of the v-belt remnant. Three of the five samples taken from the forward two grooves did show similar FTIR spectra of the coating sample taken from the aft face of the lower sheave , but lacked any indications of transferred belt material. The locations of these samples are shown in Enclosure 5.

3.3 Subject Clutch Annunciator Light and Low Rotor RPM Warning Light Bulbs and Filaments

The NTSB materials report stated that the subject clutch annunciator light showed sections of hot coil filament stretching. The hot coil filament stretching is indicated by the NTSB figures shown in Enclosure 6 . Upon examination at the March 17, 2015 inspection, the filament of the subject clutch annunciator light was broken and only one end of the filament was attached to the base. The area where the NTSB saw stretching was not attached to the base and could not be examined, as shown in Enclosure 7.

The low rotor RPM warning light was also examined by the NTSB . Their materials report concluded that the filament did not exhibit signs of hot coil stretching (shown in their figures i n Enclosure 8). The filament was examined under the stereomicroscope at the March 17, 2015 inspection . The examination showed that the glass bulb had melted around the filament, allowing only a small portion of the filament to be visible for examination. That portion of the filament did not exhibit signs of stretching, as shown in Enclosure 9.

4.0 Opinions

The following is a summary of findings and conclusions expressed in the previous sections of this report. They have been reached to a reasonable degree of materials engineering certainty based on observations, laboratory examination and analysis, consideration of case documents, literature researched, and my experience, education and training:

H123lBC/HUrray-Ates Page 3 ot s

R0484

1. The subject clutch annunciator light filament exhibited signs of hot coil stretching indicating that the light was illuminated at the time of impact.

Basis: Laboratory examination, review of case documents

2 . The subject low rotor RPM warning light filament did not show any signs of hot coil stretching indicating that the light was not illuminated at the time of impact .

Basis: Laboratory examination, review of case documents

3. Samples taken from the lower sheave indicated that belt material was present on the aft two grooves of the lower sheave. No indication of belt material transfer was found on the forward two grooves .

Basis: Laboratory examination, review of case documents

4. The presence of belt material on the aft grooves and the lack of belt material on the forward grooves is indicative of the forward belt jumping the grooves.

Basis: Laboratory examination, review of case documents

The above are findings and conclusions of this investigation to date. I reserve the right to supplement these findings and opinions as new information becomes available .

The curriculum vitae and testimony chronology of William Carden, P.E . , are enclosed as attachments. A curriculum vitae includes qualifications and all publications authored and/or co - authored. Mcswain Engineering, Inc . , charges $225.00 per hour for materials failure analysis and testimony of Mr. Carden in this case.

Page 4 ot 5

R0485

It is intended that case documents, literature reviewed, collected data, photographs, and exemplar hardware will be used to support the above findings and conclusions. Other photographic exhibits and demonstrative aids may also be selected for trial .

l!L~ William Carden , M.S., P . E.

H123l.BC/Hurr ay-AttJS Pa ge 5 of 5

R0486

McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: Nathan S. Ates, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et al. Subject V-Belt Remnants

Bag of V-Belt Remnants Partia l Lot Number on V-Belt

t. 11MAA1$

DP-0 148 ·I I t1MAR1&

DP-0150

V-Belt Tie Ban d V-Belt Groove

Front of V-Belt Remnant 1· Back of V-Belt Remnant 11 \CAR 15

DP-0378 DP-0379

ENCLOSURE 1

R0487

-~ ..., ~~ 2 McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: Nathan S. Ates, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et al. Subject Lower Sheave

-~ ~\Y 7 McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC.

PROJECT: Nathan S. Ates, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et al. Subject Lower Sheave - Sample Locations

-~ ~~ ? McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC . .... PROJECT: Nathan S. Ates, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et al. Subject Lower Sheave - Location of Samples Matching Belt Material

- 1~

Sample 6 I, I I I

I ; .. ' 1 ! ,I, ·I

Belt Material f. , IL '•;..·it . ~" ip•11~- i

," l ~ t~,: ~ ···~ rt 't'~ ~·1 ~ ., ··1 . . ji 'I .; . i' . FORW

- 3

DP-0089-0097

ENCLOSURE4

R0490

McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: Nathan S. Ates, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. , et al. Subject Lower Sheave - Location of Samples Matching Paint Sample 8

;~J': I : ..·. l ' .. I

~·

!h .i.i I· ( I

1··;i '. ,

' FORW - 1;:

- 3

•!YNll1

DP-0089-0097

ENCLOSURE 5

R0491

McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: Nathan S. Ates, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et al. Subject Clutch Annunciator Light - NTSB Materials Report

Reported Hot Coil St retched Filament Section

NTS B Materials Laboratory Factual Repon No. 12-116 Figure 3

02!50inc:ll

NTSB Materials Laboratory Factual Repon No. 12-116 Figure I

NTSB Materials Laboratory Factual Rcpon No. 12-116 Figure 4

ENCLOSURE6

R0492

~~-?. McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: Nathan S. Ates, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et al. Subject Clutch Annunciator Light

As-Received Condition Location of Missing Filament Section

Intact Section DP-0143 of Filament

' 1 mm 3/ 17/2015 MDP_A-003

'""" MDP_A-002

ENCLOSURE 7

R0493

-~ ~\~ ::· McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC.

PROJECT: Nathan S. Ates, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et al. Subject Low Rotor RPM Light - NTSB Materials Report

0.250inch

NTSB Materials Laboratory Factual Rcpon No. 12- 11 6 Figure 2 NTSB Materials Laboratory Factual Repon No. 12-1 16 Figure 5

ENCLOSURE 8

R0494

-~ <' ll;- McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: Nathan S. Ates, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et al. Subject Low Rotor RPM Light

As-Received Condition

·,

Non-Stretched

DP-0147

.,

3117/2015 MDP_A-024

'""" MDP_A-020

ENCLOSURE 9

R0495

WILLIAM DAVID CARDEN, M.S., P.E. TESTIMONY CHRONOLOGY Case Style

LINDA P. SEVERINO and FRANK D 2015 SEVERINO, Plaintiffs, vs. LAZY DAYS. R.V. CENTER LLC f/k/a LAZY DAYS ' R.V. CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation and citizen; DOMINIC A. CALABRO, a Florida resident and citizen; GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES GERMANY GMBH, a foreign corporation; GOODYEAR LUXEMBOURG TIRES S.A., a foreign corporation; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, a foreign corporation; and SP REIFENWERKE G.M.B.H., a foreign corporation, Defendants IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL C IRCUIT, IN AND FOR HlLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 12 01 7948 DIVISION F

PAMELA MARGARET LEWIS, et al. D 2014 Plaintiffs, V. LYCOMING, et al. Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action No. 11-6475-HB

- 1-D - Deposition H - Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration

R0496

JEFF LYON and LISA LYON, D 2014 Plaintiffs, vs. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC., METROLIFT, INC., and METROLIFT SALES AND SERVICE, LLC, Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION No. 09 LI 0983

LARRY DALE CROUCH; RHONDA MAE D 2013 CROUCH; TEDDY LEE HUDSON; AND CAROLYN SUE HUDSON, Plaintiffs, vs. TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION NO. 1:10-cv-00072-KD-N

PARIS PICKETT, D 2013 Plaintiff, vs. MCDONALD·s RESTAURANTS OF NEVADA, INC.; LOWE' S HOME IMPROVEM ENT WAREHOUSE, INC. ; JOHN DOES I through l 00; and DOE CORPORATIONS I through I 00, Defendants. DISTRJCT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEY ADA No. A-11-653208-C Dept.XIII

- 2-D - Deposition H - Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration

R0497

BLANCA M. GONZALEZ, fNDIVlDUALL Y D 2013 AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EST ATE OF ROBERTO GONZALEZ, DECEASED, ET AL. Plaintiffs,

VERSUS

LONE STAR TEMP SERVICES, fNC ., ET AL. Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS l 64rn ruDICIAL DISTRICT CASE NO: 20 10-62821

KRISTI MITTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND D 2013 AS ADMfNISTRATOR OF THE EST ATE DESEASED AND ON BEHALF OF ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES, Plaintiffs,

VERSUS

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION; SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES, fNC. d/b/a SIKORSKY AEROSPACE MAINTENANCE; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION; PARKER-BERTEA AEROSPACE GROUP f/k/a BERTEA CORPORATION; CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION; and, CURTISS-WRIGHT CONTROLS, INC., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 4: l O-cv-05164 CONSOUDATED WITH CIVIL ACTrON NO: 4: 1 l-cv-00551

- 3-D - Deposition H - Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration

R0498

CHAD EVERETI, et al. , Plaintiffs, T 2012 And KENTUCKY FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Intervening Plaintiff vs. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY I ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FULTON CIRCUIT COURT CASE No.: 10-CI 0015 1

CHAD EVERETI, et al., Plaintiffs, D 2012 And KENTUCKY FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Intervening Plaintiff vs. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY I ST JUDIC IAL CIRCUIT FULTON CIRCUIT COURT CASE No.: 10-CIOOISl

LURA HESS BECHTEL, individually and as Co- T 2012 Administratrix of the Estates of Donald R. and Veronica Hess, JOHANNA V. HESS, individually and as Co-Administratrix of the Estates of Donald R. and Veronica Hess, Plaintiffs, VS. SANDEL AVIONICS, INC., DELAWARE SANDEL AVIONICS, LLC, CENTURY FLIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. dba CENTURY FLIGHT SYSTEMS; MID CONTINENT INSTRUMENT COMPANY, IN CORPORA TED, dba MID CONTINENT INSTRUMENTS, ELECTRIC GYRO CORPORTATION, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CASE NO. 37-2010-00104069-CU-PO-CTL

- 4-D - Deposition H - Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration

R0499

LURA HESS BECHTEL, individually and as Co- D 2012 Administratrix of the Estates of Donald R. and Veronica Hess, JOHANNA V. HESS, individually and as Co-Administratrix of the Estates of Donald R. and Veronica Hess, Plaintiffs, vs. SANDEL AVIONICS, INC., DELAWARE SANDEL AVIONICS, LLC, CENTURY FLIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. dba CENTURY FLIGHT SYSTEMS; MJD CONTINENT INSTRUMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, dba MID CONTINENT INSTRUMENTS, ELECTRIC GYRO CORPORTATION, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DrEGO CASE NO. 37-2010-00104069-CU-PO-CTL

SEAN DAVI, an individual; SHAWNA DA VI, D 2012 an individual; JAMES SANTOS, an individual; SHANNON SANTOS, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation; BEE WELDING, INC. d.b.a. BEE ACCESS PRODUCTS , and DOES 1 through I 00, Inclusive, Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT CASE NO. BC425711

LARRY DALE CROUCH; RHONDA MAE T 2011 CROUCH; TEDDY LEE HUDSON ; AND CAROLYN SUE HUDSON, Plaintiffs, vs. TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS , INC., Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION NO. l : IO-cv-00072-KD-N

- 5-D - Deposition H - Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration

R0500

IDANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, as T 2011 Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MIGUEL A CRUZ-SANTIAGO, and IDANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, individually, Plaintiff V. SCORPION SPORTS, INC., a/k/a SCORPION SPORTS USA, a California corporation; and J.P. CYCLES, INC ., d/b/a SEMINOLE POWERSPORTS, a Florida corporation, Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2008-ca-20186 DIVISION: 33

LARRY DALE CROUCH; RHONDA MAE D 20 11 CROUCH; TEDDY LEE HUDSON; AND CAROLYN SUE HUDSON, Plaintiffs, vs. TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC ., Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION NO. I: I O-cv-00072-KD-N

-6 -D - Deposition H- Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration

R0501

JOANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, as D 2010 Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MIGUEL A CRUZ-SANTIAGO, and IDANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, individually, Plaintiff V. SCORPION SPORTS, INC., a/k/a SCORPION SPORTS USA, a California corporation; and J.P. CYCLES, INC., d/b/a SEMINOLE POWERSPORTS, a Florida corporation, Defendants. IN THE CIRCU1T COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUlT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2008-ca-20186 DIVISION: 33

IDANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, as D 2009 Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MIGUEL A CRUZ-SANTIAGO, and IDAN IS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, individually, Plaintiff V. SCORPION SPORTS, INC., a/k/a SCORPION SPORTS USA, a California corporation; and J.P. CYCLES, INC ., d/b/a SEMINOLE POWERSPORTS, a Florida corporation, Defendants. IN THE ClRCU1T COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2008-ca-20186 DIVISION : 33

- 7-D - Deposition H - Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration

R0502

DALIA AMAYA, AS PARENT AND D 2009 NATURAL GUARDIAN OF NATALIA AMAYA , A MINOR, Plaintiffs, vs. BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION; PV HOLDING CORPORATION , A FOREIGN CORPORATION; AND JUAN CARLOS BASURTO, A FLORIDA RESIDENT, Defendants IN THE C IRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 50 2008CA0095 I 3XXXXMBAI

JOEY MALLARD, D 2009 Plaintiff, v. SAFARI MOTOR HOMES , INC.,et al., Defendants. IN THE CIRCUlT COURT OF CULLMAN COUNTY, ALABAMA CASE NO: CV-08-18 1

KRISTINE FERNANDEZ, Individually T 2008 and as natural mother and next friend of MEAGAN K. CARPINTERO, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO.: 02-22006 CA 09

- 8- D - Deposition H - Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration

R0503

The ESTATE OF POLLY ANN GONZALEZ, D 2008 by ALLAN J. MOTA, Administrator and SABRINA MARJE MOTA and GABRlELLA MONIQUE MOTA, Minors, by their Guardian ad Li tern, ALLAN J. MOT A, Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY a Delaware corporation, SILVER STATE FORD d/b/a GAUDIN FORD, a Nevada corporation and Black and White Corporation I through X, Defendants DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA CASE NO. A538297 DEPT. NO. XI

CYNDI H. BLANCHARD, INDIVIDUALLY D 2008 AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF COLBY TAYLOR BLANCHARD, DECEASED, AND MARK BANKS AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DAYNA BANKS, DECEASED PLAINTIFFS, v. ROBERT J. LANDRY, JR. , AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT JOSEPH LANDRY, SR. AND THERESA BOYD AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF COY MAC BOYD, SR. DEFENDANTS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKAN SAS, WESTERN DIVISION - CIVIL DIVISION- AT JONESBORO CASE NO. CV2007-0607 (JF)

DA YID WEBSTER, Plaintiff D 2007 v. MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and MATTHEWS CREMATION DIVISION, Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION CASE NO. 6 :06-cv-1688-0rl-31KRS

- 9-D - Deposition H - Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration

R0504

MICHAEL W. RAMSEY AND ANN R. T 2007 RAMSEY, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of CARRIE GRACE RAMSEY, deceased, Plaintiffs v. CLARENCE N. BEHN AND DUDE BEHN TRUCKING, Defendants IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORlDA CASE NO. 05-28640-CA

MICHAEL W. RAMSEY AND ANN R. D 2007 RAMSEY, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of CARRIE GRACE RAMSEY, deceased, Plaintiffs V. CLARENCE N. BEHN AND DUDE BEHN TRUCKING, Defendants IN THE C IRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORlDA CASE NO. 05-28640-CA

WILLIAM B. NICKELL, M.D., Plaintiff D 2007 v. MIDMARK CORPORATION, ET AL. , Defendants CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL CASE NO.: CV-05- 1823

KRISTINE FERNANDEZ, individually and as natural D 2006 mother and next of kin of MEAGAN K. CARPINTERO Plaintiff, v. LUAR ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, DAMARIS RIOS, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendants. CIRCUIT COURT OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE CASE NO .: 02-22006 CA 09

- 10 -D - Deposition H - Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration

R0505

murton DJ&Associates )•"«ph I . ll11rr• •n. \ 1.I l

March I 6, 2015

Mark T. Murray Stevenson & Murray 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, TX 77046

Re: Ates v. Robinson Helicopter Co ., Inc; Our case No. 14-052:

Dear Mr. Murray:

You have ask me to address th is case in order to evaluate the injuries that occurred to Joyce Ates, a 62-year-old female who was the occupant of a R22 helicopter piloted by Chris Yeager on September I 0. 2012 in Harris County, Texas.

In arriving at my opinion s I have considered the following case specific material:

I. HARRIS COUNTY M.E. REPORT FOR JOYCE ATES 2. HARRIS COUNTY M.E. PHOTOS 3. HARRIS COUNTY M.E. REPORT FOR CHRIS YEAGER (PILOT) 4. FAA REPORT 5. NTSB REPORT 6. PRODUCTION DOCUMENTS

In addition lo the above material s. I have considered my experience as a Medical Examiner over a span of 30+ years which includes investigating and autopsying victims of various types of fires including residen ti al fires, industrial fires, and post-collision plane and other transportation fires.

.I

R0506

Page 2 14-052 Report

I have considered my review of 169 cases involving fires in automobile accidents. This is relevant because in each of these cases I have evaluated how the fire affected the occupants, caused Lht:ir injuries and evaluated their conscious pain and suffering.

I have considered peer-reviewed literature and studies relative to fires, carbon monoxide, conscious pain and sufferi ng and human tolerance. (Burton & Associates Fire Bibliography, Pain and Suffering Bibliography and Human Tolerance Bibliography)

In add ition, for almost 2 decades I served as a consu ltant to the Georgia Arson Investigators, meeting with them and lecturing to them.

I have authored and presented papers on both fire deaths and conscious pain and suffering:

~ " Post Collision Vehicular Fires; Determination of Probability of Occupant Surv ival Post lmpacf' J. Burton and P. Lewi s, Jr., Burton & Associates, 54th Annu al Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. februa ry 15, 2002, Atlanta, Georgia.

>-- "Forensic and Environmental Pathology and Med ici ne: Biomcchanics-K inematics- Conscious Pain and Suffering" Joseph Burton, M. D., Presented at the Ame rican Bar Associat ion Tort Trial and In surance Practice Section Self-Insurers' and Risk Managers' Committee, Transportation Megaconfcrencc VI. Co-sponsored by Commercial Transportation Litigation Comm ittee, April 17-18, 2003.

On the date of th e incident, witnesses observed thi s helicopter out of control spinning with the rotors rotating slowly and no evidence of the tail rotor moving. descending with pitch and yaw back and forth until approximately 75 +/- feet from the ground when its descent became more rapid and it apparently crashed horizontal-forward fac ing.

Followi ng impact \vith the ground witnesses observed movement from both the pi lot a nd the passe nger. There was a fire which witnesses \Vere attempting to extinguish with fire extingu ishers; however, the fire became too hot and they had to pull back at which rime there was an explosion that foll y engu lfed the helicopter' s remains and consumed the two occupants.

Ful l autopsies and tox icology studies were done on the two victims.

Ms. Ates had less than 5 percent CO hyperemia of the respiratory tree but no obv ious soot within it. She had a right sacral iliac fractu re and multiple other injuries as described within the autopsy record summarized within this file. The cause of her death is listed as multiple blunt force injuries and thermal burn s.

R0507

Page 3 14-052 Reporl

Ms. Ates had at least a partial AO (atlantooccipital) injury . Assuming that the witnesses were accurate and that she was moving she did not have a complete separation at the AO joint and such a complete separation is not described within the autopsy record. Individuals survive partial AO dislocation injuries; some wi th significant residual neurological deficit and some without. (B urton & Associates AO Dislocation Bibliography)

I-ler right sacra l il iac joint dis location is most Iikely associated with vertical impact forces possibly more concentrated on th e right side of the aircraft.

The pilot had a compression fracture of LI. His cause of death is documented from blunt force and thermal injuries.

Neither occupant had evidence of blunt force skull fractures or blunt fo rce brain injuries. Neither is described as having cervical spine fractures.

Blunt force injuries certainly were sufficient to have caused their deaths; however, such injuries would not necessarily result in immediate unconsciousness and death.

In my opinion, there is more than reasonable probabi lity that as the aircraft is descending out of control that both the pilot and occupant were aware that there was a potential event that could have occurred and caused their deaths. Such would have resulted in pre-impact consc ious pain and suffering. Pain could have resu lted from their bodies pitch and yaw with in the helicopter's cabin. Upon impact, vertical forces were sufficient to have bottomed-out the helicopter and result in some vertical impact injuries to both victims.

Support

Y Pain is defined as a perception. An individual's previous experience with pain. the ant icipation of pain, the victim's state of mind. and invariable reflex responses to pai n all may have an impact on the severity of pain that an individual perceives as the result of some traumatic event. (Reference: "Forensic Pathology in Criminal Cases" 1-lanzlick, Graham, pages I 32-137 .)

);- Perception of pain requires some degree of consc iousness.

>- Normal consciousness requires that both cerebral hemispheres of the brain, the reticular activating system and connections between them, are intact and functioning.

>- There are two types of pain end ings in the human body, ones that carry pain related impulses to the spi nal cord very quickly and others that carry them in a slower fashion. The perception of pain depends on impact nerves to the spinal cord, an intact

R0508

Page4 14-052 Report

spinal cord pathway, and the above described brain recognition and processing centers. (Id.)

>- Black's Law Dictionary further describes "Pain and Suffering" as a term used to describe not only physical discomfort and distress but also mental and emotional trauma that are recoverable as elements of damage in torts.

}- The medical literature defines "suffering" with more understanding and compassion. Cassell portrays suffering as the state of severe distress associated with events that threaten the intactness of the person.

~ Steadman's Medical Dictionary defines "Consciousness" as awareness, perception of physical facts of mental concepts, sentiment, knowledge of one's surrounding. (Reference : "Pain and Suffering ... and Unconsciousness·' Quillen and McQuillen, The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, pp. 174-179, Volume 15, Number 2, June 1994)

):> Cassell further makes three points as follows: (Id.)

I. Suffering is experienced by persons. 2. Suffering occurs when an impending destruct ion of the pt:rson is perceived. 3. Suffering cnn occur in relation to any aspect of the person.

~ Consciousness is further described as an awareness of self and environment. Its precise limits are difficult to define. There are two primary aspects to consciousness, these being .. Content" and "Arousal".

).;- The "conten t'' of consciousness is the sum of mental function s and arousal, the appearance of wakefulness.

).- There are numerous levels of consciousness, including the following: I. Clouding of con sciousness 2. Confusional state 3. Delirium 4. Stupor 5. Coma

).- The concept of conscious pain and suffering is a complex issue. Studies published by a British scienti st in 200 I on comatose patients have indicated that the appreciation of pain and stimuli can occur even after a patient is "clinically dead:'

).... Intimately associated with the issue of"conscious pain and suffering" is the period of potential surv ival after a particular trauma has occurred.

R0509

Page 5 14-052 Report

>- Forensic pathologists and scientists by their training, background and experience are often able to give a reasonable range that a person may remain conscious and/or survive after a particular type of injury has been sustained. (Reference: Forensic Pathology, Be rnard Knight, pages I 54-155, Oxford University Press, I99 J)

);;- Th e inhalation of superheated air and carbonaceous debris is extremely irritating to the lungs causing pulmonary edema. Hypoxia, i.e. oxygen starvation, occurs. This is an extremely frightening and painful event. One can interview fire fi ghters who before the advent of using respirators to fight fires frequently inhaled smoke and heat and survived but were treated for this and can account for the extreme pain and fear associated with the lack of air and inability to breathe.

> My opinion also is based on my eva luation of nearly 50,000 forensic cases in which I have had the opponunity to observe and study the effects of various ty pes of trauma and traumatic si tuations on humans.

;;:. As stated previously, I have also lectured to the /\rnerican Bar Association on the issue of conscious pain and suffering. (Reference Dr. Burton' s CurTicu lum Vitae)

;.... Additionally, wh ile a senior medical student I rotated through the Grady Mem orial Hospital Burn Unit in /\tlanta, Georgia and par1icipated in the treatment of patients with mild, moderate and severe burns. I had the opponunity as part of the medical care team to interview, talk to and treat these individ ua ls. Not only th is experience but the textbooks describing the pathophys iology to tissues and structures clearly indicatt:s that before the deceased victims became unconscious and died, and during the occurrence of the inju ries for the other victims, that they experienced extreme conscious pain and su ffering. (Id.)

~ Support for my opinion is based on my education, training and experience as a forensic patho logist in cludin g acting as a consultant for nearly 3 decades to the Georgia Arson Investigations and the Southeastern Arson In vestigators. (ld.)

It is documented that the pil ot had on a 3-point restrain!. It is not said what Mrs. Ates was utilizing; however, the left front seat o f th is helicopter most likt: ly had a 3-poim restraint as well.

The blunt force chest and abdominal inj uries and visceral injuries occurring to both were a consequence of their bodies' interaction with the restraints and the helicopters interior structures as well as inertial forces from their impact with the ground.

There is reasona ble scientifi c probability that both the pilot and Ms. Ates experienced conscious pain and suffering before being overcome by the explosive fire as wclI as the inj uries sustained

R0510

Page 6 14-052 Report

upon impact. There is no evidence from toxicology studies that some pre-existing tox icological condition affected their consciousness or their life and death.

There is noth ing within Ms. Ates·s autopsy report to suggest a previous existing disease that may have shortened her life from what would be normally expected from someone her age.

The same is true for Mr. Yeager, the pilot, although he did have some coronary artery disease.

Mr. Yeager maintained a pilot 's license so it is reasonable to assume that he had to pass physical exams in order to mai ntain his license to operate an aircran, especially one commercially.

At this time these are the issues that I have been asked to address and these arc my opinions concerning the cause of death and the likelihood of pre-crash pain and suffering and post-crash pain and suffering.

The above opinions are based on my curren t understanding of the case based on the specific data that I have evalu ated, my personal evaluation of the various photographic evidence submitted with the case fil e and on my education, background and training.

If further or additional information becomes available of significance that might in any way impact the opinions which I have currently offered I will re-evaluate such opinions and potentially amend or expand such.

Sincerely,

Joseph L Burton. MD Consultant in Forensic And Environmental Pathology and Medicine

R0511

AEROSCOPE, INC. '1901 Al!bor Strc.:t £3ro.;mflf Id CO 80020 303 4 6544 1 ~ • Fax 3034G5411G aeroscoperS"!:aer oscope1nc: com

6 August 2015

Mr. Mark Murray Stevenson & Murray 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, TX 77046

RE: Crash of a Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter, N28 l RG Dear Mr. Murray,

The materials and activities listed in Appendix I support the conclusions contained within this document both in the conclusion section and in the body of this report. 1 have the credentials outlined in Appendix 2. Below is a report of my investigation regarding the crash of N28 l RG which resulted in the deaths of the onboard passenger/photographer, Joyce Ates and pilot, Christopher Yeager.

Report of Findings Background Information:

On 10 September 2012 at approximately 1545 Central Daylight Time (CDT), a Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter with U.S. Registration N28 I RG crashed into a steel pipe yard in Houston, Texas while conducting low altitude aerial photography. Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) prevailed at the time of the crash and the flight was being conducted in accordance with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 , general operati ng rules. According to the Baytown Airport (KHPY) manager, the subject aircraft departed KHPY at approximately 1500 CDT and fuel records indicate the helicopter was serviced with 22.9 gal Ions of fuel prior to departure.

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings- Ates Page I of28

R0512

Figure 1 - Crash Site Several witnesses, who were located in the vicinity of the crash site, reported the fo llowing observations:

Albert Collier and Kenneth Franklin both observed the subject helicopter while driving westbound on Highway 90; when they first observed the helicopter, it was at an altitude of approximately 75 feet above ground level (AGL) and was spinning in a counter-clockwise direction. Mr. Collier indicated that the helicopter descended quickly (less than 30 seconds) and the main rotor blades didn't look like they were moving. Furthermore, the nose of the helicopter was pointed down toward the ground and a post-crash fire ensued. 1

Jerrod Danner also witnessed the subject helicopter while driving westbound on Highway 90. He estimated that the hel icopter was at an altitude of 400-500 feet AGL when he first saw it and noted that it was slowly spinning around the main rotor shaft and descending vertically at about 70-80 mph as if it had lost power. "There was no smoke or parts coming off the helicopter as it descended. The main rotor blades were turning "slower than expected" and were not deflected upward." Furthermore, the tail rotor didn't appear to be turning.2

Jose Escamilla initially observed the subject helicopter at an altitude of approximately 70-100 feet AGL while driving eastbound on Highway 90. The helicopter was slowly spinning counter-clockwise around the main rotor shaft and was in a slow vertical descent. At 40-50 feet AGL, the helicopter's descent rate increased rapidly before it impacted the ground. He also noted that the main rotor blades were turning "pretty slow" and it seemed "like he lost power". Furthermore, the body of the helicopter was level and the main rotor blades were not deflected upward. 3

1 NTSB Record of Conversation with Albert Col lier and Kenneth Franklin. 18 September 2012 2 NTSB Record of Conversation with Jerrod Danner, 11 September 2012 3 NTSB Record of Conversation with Jose Escamilla. 14 September 2012

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 2 of28

R0513

Pilot:

Pilot in Command (PIC) of the subject helicopter was Mr. Christopher Yeager. Mr. Yeager held a commercial pilot certificate for helicopters and had accumulated approximately 757 total flight hours at the time of the crash; 619 of those hours were logged in the R22 Beta. In December 2011 , he obtained a first-class medical certificate with the restriction that he must wear corrective lenses. According to Mr. Yeager's flight log, he completed the required Special Federal Air Regulations (SFAR) 73 training for the R22 on 2 September 2009. This SF AR was originally issued by the FAA in March 1995 and details specific training, experience and endorsement requirements to act as pilot in command of R22 and R44 helicopters. Flight log records also indicate that Mr. Yeager completed several flights with a CFI within a week of the subject crash. During these trai ning flights he practiced hover and full-down autorotations.

Weather:

Surface weather observations from Ell ington Field Airport (KEFD) in Houston, TX, which is located approximately 16 miles southwest of the crash site, at 1550 CDT was as follows: winds 130° at 8 knots, visibility I0 statute miles, scattered clouds at 8,000 feet, temperature 93 °F, dew point 62 °F, and an altimeter setting of 30.02 inHg. Similar weather conditions were reported at Houston Intercontinental Airport which is located approximately 13 nautical miles northwest of the accident site and Houston Hobby Airport which is located approximately 14 nautical miles southwest of the accident site. 4 These conditions were reviewed and weather is not considered to be a causal factor in this crash.

Aircraft:

The 2007 Robinson R22 Beta II (serial number 4250) involved in this crash was registered to Helicopter Services, Inc. (HS I) of Spring, TX and operated by Mr. Yeager who was an HSI employee. A single Lycoming 0-360-J2A engine powered the subject helicopter and this engine was designed to produce I45 horsepower at sea-level.

In August 201 I, Western Skyways Inc. overhauled the subject 0-360-J2A engine to "Factory New Tolerances" and Helicopter Services, Inc. conducted a 2200-hour inspection of the airframe. The 2200- hour overhaul is an extensive inspection that requires the overhaul and/or replacement of numerous components, which includes a set ofv-belts that transmit power from the engine to the primary drive shaft that travels forward to the main rotor transmission and aft to the tail rotor transmission . At the time of this crash, the airframe had accumulated approximately 2030.9 total flight hours; whereas, the engine had accumulated approximately 2227.2 total hours and 26.3 hours since the overhaul. 5

4 Historical weather data from Weather Underground s Robinson Helicopter Company Accident Report. dated 11 October 2013

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 3 of28

R0514

Figure 2 - Robinson R22 Beta II Helicopter Main & Tail Rotor Drive System Operation:

The R22 helicopter incorporates two double "V" belts to transmit power from the engine to the primary driveshaft that travels for.vard to the main rotor transmission and aft to the tail rotor transmission (Reference Figures 3 and 4). Robinson recommends checking for drive belt slack before engine start. 6 Prior to and during start up, the engine is disengaged from the primary dri ve shaft and transmissions by way of the belt tensioner actuator, which is connected to the upper and lower sheaves. Engagement of the actuator and thus tensioning of the belts constitutes and is referred to in the fli ght manual as a "Clutch"; thus allowing the engine to run independently and without operation of the main rotor system and the tail rotor system.

6 Robinson Safety Notice (SN) 33

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 4 of28

R0515

I I II r-·-·· I1 TAIL ROTOR ~:-'-i-- II Upper Drive ' Tail Rotor Transmission I I I I Sheave 11 ,,_ Main Rotor I I Belt Tensioner Transmission I I Actuator I I I I I "' I( i . I Tail Rotor

l:7 Drive Shaft

TEXTRON LYCOMING 4-CYLINDER ENGINE ..., '.;::.:::?

Lower Drive Sheave

Figure 3 - R22 Drive System Diagram Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 5 o f 28

R0516

Figure 4 - Exemplar R22 Rotor Drive System

The belt tensioner actuator is controlled by a guarded "Clutch" switch in the cockpit and movement of the actuator is indicated to the pilot by an amber light on the panel. When the clutch switch is engaged after engine start-up, the clutch light on the instrument panel will illuminate and the belt tensioner actuator will extend and engage the primary drive shaft. During normal flight, the clutch light may come on infrequently as the belts change length and the actuator extends slightly to keep the proper belt tension. Operational characteristics of drive belt tensioning is detailed in Robi nson Safety Notice 28,

"It is normal for the clwch light to come on occasionally in fligh1 for a short time (approximately 3 to 6 seconds) to re-tension the drive belts. If the clutch light flickers or does not go out within

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings- Ates Page 6 of28

R0517

10 seconds, ii can indicate a belt or bearing failure. ff abnormal clutch light indication occurs, pull clutch circuit breaker and reduce power. Select a safe landing site and make a precautionmy landing to check drive system. If additional symptoms of drive system failure (smell of hot rubber, noise, or vibration) are present, land immediately. If tachometer needle split occurs, enter autorotation."

The actuator automatically shuts itself off when the proper belt tension is reached . Although the clutch light does come on sporadically for sho1t durations during normal flight, it is highly unlikely that the belt tensioner in N28 I RG was in the process of doing a routine belt tension at the exact moment the impact occurred.

The Robinson line of piston helicopters are designed such that the lower drive sheave on the engine and the upper dri ve sheave driving the rotor systems are forced apart to tighten the belts. This is done by way of an actuator positioned just aft of both the upper and lower sheaves and directly connected to the two by way of two bearings. The position of the actuator is such that the upper sheave changes position vertically at a hinge point located forward of the upper sheave along the clutch shaft where it attaches to the main rotor transmission (Reference Figure 5).

I I II I, J I Il I I Displacement 1 I (emphasized) I I l I Hinge Point l I l I ---

Actuator

Figure 5 - Deflection of the Upper Sheave Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 7 of28

R0518

This design causes the two sheaves to shift out of alignment when the belts are tightened. This misalignment causes uneven belt loading, uneven belt wear, uneven belt break in and progressively larger stretch in the belts moving forward to aft. This goes against standard mechanical engineering and belt drive design principles which mandate sheave alignment in belt drive systems; furthermore, the design of this system is a proximate cause of this crash.

Robison Helicopter originally purchased the belts for their helicopters from Gates Rubber Company until Gates finally refused to provide belts to Robinson due to legal issues. 7 Gates decided they needed to get out of aviation for risk management reasons.8 Gates was so adamantly against aircraft manufacturers using their belts on aircraft that they pressed the FAA to issue an Information For Operators bulletin warning that Gates belts are not designed or intended for aircraft use. 9 Robinson now purchases the belts from Mitsuboshi Belting, Ltd., which is of a similar design with two extra plies of cotton fabric, one on the top and one on the bottom. The v-belts installed in the subject helicopter were manufactured by Mitsuboshi.

Gates Rubber Company, the world's leading belt manufacturer, provided numerous manuals, bulletins and troubleshooting guides on proper drive belt design, alignment and configuration. Gates published a design guide for belt driven farm equipment that was used in designing the Robinson belt systems. 10 The manual, published in 1976, recommends the use of idler pulleys to apply tension to the system. It also provides two types of automatic tension systems: spring loaded idlers and spring loaded pulleys (sheaves). 11 Neither of these systems was used in the R22. Idler systems are found in numerous other piston helicopters covered later in this report. The manual is very specific on sheave alignment and parallelism. The manual states:

"Make sure the sheaves are lined up and !he shafts are parallel. Misalignmenl may cause many problems, some of which are: Stability: Misaligned belts are subject to /urnover Wear: Misalignment will accelerate wear on the side of the belt that comes in contact with the sheave first due to the misalignment. Life: A significant degree ofmisalignmenl decreases belt life. " 12

Robinson has indicated that they used this manual in design but deliberately designed contrary to the guidance instructions by creating a system that operates on the principle of sheave misalignment. Gates stated: "Misalignment is one of the most common causes of premature belt failure". They go on to say, ·'Misalignment can destroy a belt in a matter of hours or days". Gates statement: ·'uneven belt and cord loading, results in unequal load sharing with multiple belt drives and leads to premature fai lure". This is

7 Peter Riedl Deposition in the Holtmeier case, Pg. 151 8 Aschenbrenner Deposition in the Holtmeier case, Pg. 29 9 FAA INFO 15007 10 Gates Agricultural V Belt Drive Design Manual 11 Gates Agricultural V Belt Drive Design Manual p. 42 12 Gates Agricultural V Belt Dri ve Design Manual p. 46

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 8 of28

R0519

exactly what happened in the subject accident. 13 Gates provided a bulletin on analyzing v-belt drives for better performance. They warn: "the drive must be properly aligned. Misalignment causes belt instability and shortens V-belt life".14 And they even show a warning diagram of how not to design or install belts on sheaves which mimics the Robinson design:

Fu:C1lt.G Al~ Wreckage:

The NTSB on-scene investigation revealed that N281 RG "came to rest upright on a heading of 195 degrees on a dirt road located inside a steel pipe storage yard." The main fuel tank was punctured during the crash sequence and a post-impact fire consumed the cabin of the helicopter. I personally inspected the wreckage ofN28lRG on 22 January 2014 at the facilities of Air Salvage of Dallas in Lancaster, TX and on 17 March 2015 at the faci lities of Mcswain Engineering in Pensacola, FL. Examination of the wreckage along with analysis of available data allowed me to confi rm and/or note the following:

• • The landing skids were attached to the fuselage post-crash and spread out, level with the belly of the helicopter. Both seat structures were collapsed. • The main rotor blades exhibited thermal damage in the inboard sections; little to no impact damage noted. • Examination of the engine and analysis of inspection reports revealed no indications of a pre- impact condition that would have prohibited the engine from producing rated power. The following engine conditions were noted: 0 With the accessory housing and RH magneto removed, compression was obtai ned in cylinders# I, #3 and #4. 0 The #2 cyli nder exhibited extensive thermal damage and was separated from the crankcase. The intake and exhaust valves and push rods were all undamaged; the piston and piston pin were unremarkable. 15 The condition of the spark plugs is consistent with normal operation • Tail Section - 0 Both of the tail rotor blades were fractured I torn off at the roots. Both blades exhibited chordwise scratching and one blade exhibired leading edge damage 0 The pitch change tube was wrapped around the tai l rotor driveshaft

13 Gates Facts Technical Information Library: Preventing Drive Belt Alignment Problems 1 ~ Gates: Analyze your way to longer lasting, bcner performing V-belt drives. 15 NTSB Factual - CEN I 2FA62 l

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings- Ates Page 9 of28

R0520

° Circumferential marks on the tail rotor drive shaft from binding with the pitch change tube. o The tail section was broken at the beacon and the aft section rotated more than 360° after the fracture occurred 0 All 3 stabilizers have side load damage from rotation of the tail 0 The tai l rotor driveshaft coupling torque rolled on itself just aft of the sheave • The belt tensioner actuator was located and the following measurements were recorded: From the shoulder to the bolt hole on the shaft= 1.4". Note - The distance for tensioned belts is normally 1.0 to 1.5 inches. 16 0 Total extension 1. 19"

• • Microscopic analysis of the "Clutch" warning light bulb filament revealed a stretched condition; which is consistent with the bulb being illuminated at the time of impact. As noted above, this warning light automatically activates when the rotor is initially engaged and occasionally in-flight due to changes in v-belt length (i.e. tens ion).
• • The v-belts were thermally damaged and the NTSB noted "small sections of v-belts remnants were fou nd on the horizontal firewall; in the grooves of the sheaves, and on the ground below the sheaves at the accident site." Numerous pieces of drive belt were also found in between the drive sheave and ring gear.
• • V-belt material was found forward of the lower drive sheave post-crash (Reference Figures 6 thru 8).
• • A Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTlR) analys is was completed on a piece of the v- belt for comparative purposes and on the lower sheave. This analysis did not reveal materi al transfer from the v-belts within the forward two grooves; whereas belt material was found in the aft two grooves. Reference the McSwain Engineering's report of findings for more detai l relating to this analysis and locations of material transfer.

16 RHC Accident Repo11, R22 Beta, N8328Q in Rialto, CA

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 10 of28

R0521

Figure 6 - Post-Crash photo of the Lower Drive Sheave

Figure 7 - Post-Crash photo of the Lower Drive Sheave (bottom view) Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 11 of28

R0522

Figure 8- Lower Sheave Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 12 of28

R0523

• • The upper drive sheave exhibited thermal damage (Reference Figure 9). Due to the heat damage, no samples were analyzed.

' Figure 9 - The Upper Driven Sheave from N281RG

Failure Sequence:

An accumulative analysis of avai lable crash data, inspection of the wreckage and FTIR analysis of the lower drive sheave indicates that this crash was caused by the failure of the helicopters drive system. The forward v-belt disengaged the forward grooves of the lower sheave while the s ubject helicopter was being operated in an out-of-ground-effect (OGE) hover; this is the proximate cause of this crash. This resulted in activation and extension of the belt tensioner actuator and a sudden loss of power to the main and tail rotor drive systems. Lack of damage to the main rotor blades, tail rotor driveshaft and couplings is all commensurate with a loss of tension of the drive system. Activation of the belt tension actuator is supported by the "hot-stretched" conditi on of the annunciator bulb filament. Pilot Yeager was forced to execute an emergency autorotation of the helicopter as it spun around the main rotor mast.

Low Rotor Inertia:

The fam ily of Robinson piston powered, light utility helicopters incorporate a two bladed teetering rotor system with blades comprised of very lightweight material s. Although beneficial as far as helicopter weight and power requirements, it very undesirable for maintaining rotor rpm following an engine or power transmission failure such as occurs after a belt failure. Rotor inertia is defined as the amount of rotational energy stored in the main rotor system and is dependent upon the radius of the blade system,

Aeroscopc Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 13 of28

R0524

the mass of the blades and the speed at which they rotate. The low mass of the Robinson system results in the low rotor inertia which causes the blades to lose rpm very rapidly after power is removed. The Robinson helicopters have a long history of crashes due to low rotor rpm and there are numerous warnings, bulletins (e.g. Safety Notice 24 - LOW RPM ROTOR STALL CAN BE FATAL), NTSB and FAA (as well as foreign government) studies and reports on the phenomena. Safety Notice 24 is evidence of Robinson's awareness of the low rotor inertia in the R22 helicopter and the dangers associated with the inherently defective design. Furthermore, Safety Notice 24 is an inadequate solution to the defectively designed low inertia rotor system on the R22 helicopter and does not meet the minimum industry standards for safe engineering and manufacturing practices. The problems were so widespread that the certification of the helicopter was reviewed and a Special Federal Air Regulation (SFA R) was issued regarding training and recurrent training required to pilot the helicopters. 17 The Robinson helicopters are the only FAA certified helicopter to have this type of special regulation for pi lot training.

Due to the lack of rotational inertia in the R22 main rotor system, pilots have a minimal amount of time to recognize a low rotor RPM condition and either instantaneously roll on the throttle and lower the collective or enter an autorotation; this is unreasonably dangerous and a violation of FAR 27. 141 , which states,

The rotorcraft must ... (b) Be able to maintain any required flight condition and make a smooth transition from any flight condition to any otherflight condition ..,,vithout exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength, and without danger of exceeding the limit load factor under any operating condition probable for the type

Research relating to pilot reaction time to recognize a failure or dangerous situation and impl ement corrective action far exceeds the minimal time required to correct a low rotor RPM situation in an R22. The concept of issuing a training requirement to address the inherent design deficiencies in the R22 is unreasonably dangerous and doesn't represent sound engineering practice. Design deficiencies need to be addressed and corrected from the engineering level and designed away; training is not the answer.

Originally issued in March 1999 and revised in April 2009, Robinson Safety Notice SN-34 warns operators of the dangers I risk associated with low time pilots conducting aerial survey and photo flights in the R22 and R44 helicopters.

"The helicopter can rapidly lose translational lift and begin to settle. An inexperienced pilot may raise the collective to stop the descent. This can reduce RPM thereby reducing power available and causing an even greater descent rate and further loss of RPM Rolling on throllle will increase rotor torque but not power available due to the low RPM Because tail rotor thrust is proportional lo the square of RPM. if the RPM drops below 80% nearly one-halfof the tail rotor thrust is lost and the helicopter will rotate nose right. Suddenly the decreasing RPM also causes the main rotor to stall and the helicopter falls rapidly while continuing 10 rotate. The resulting impact is usually fatal."

17 Special Federal Air Regulation (SFAR) No. 73

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 14 of28

R0525

This safety notice fails to address the underlying problem, which are the inherent design issues associated with the Robinson's low inertia rotor system. Furthermore, issuance of a warning does not relieve a manufacturer of their responsibilities to design a safe helicopter for all FAA approved flight operations (e.g. low altitude, low airspeed operations, Out-of-Ground-Effect (OGE) hover, etc.). The main rotor system has proven time and again to be dangerous and intolerant of power interruptions and minor reductions in main rotor RPM. Pilot Yeager met Robinson's total flight time recommendations and was well trained and properly certificated to act as pilot in command during the subject flight. The low inertia rotor system incorporated in the subject helicopter has been proven to be dangerous and intolerant to power interruptions. Furthermore, Robinson's failure to implement the necessary design changes to improve both safety and reliabi lity of the drive system is the proximate cause of this crash. From an engineering perspective, issuance of additional helicopter specific training for issues that should have been corrected via design changes is a violation of standard engineering practice.

Low altitude operations (e.g. aerial photography, surveying, etc.) and OGE hovers are common maneuvers that all helicopter pilots are trained to conduct. For Robinson to issue a safety notice indicating that these operations are dangerous is improper and contrary to the purpose of operati ng a he! icopter.

Drive Belt Break-in Procedure:

New belts are much more prone to failure than older, run in belts. Gates was concerned about the use of their belts on Robinson's helicopters and as such required Robinson to perform a 5 hour break in of the belts prior to their release into service. I inspected the machinery and break-in procedure at Robinson Helicopters on 27 July 2011 while investigating a simi lar crash. According to deposition testimony of Peter Riedl, who is the vice-president of engineering for Robinson Helicopters, new v-belts are more vulnerable to failure during the first 50-hours of operation. 18 Furthermore, new v-belts are stickier and more vulnerable to coming out of the grooves, especially if the sheaves are misaligned. 19 As the belts break in, they become more glazed and less likely to jump out of the groove. 20 To help prevent the failure of new v-belts inflight, Robinson developed a break-in procedure for all v-be lts prior to being released to service. The machines use the same actuator as installed in an R22 helicopter to tension the belts between the two sheaves. The sheave alignment in the break-in machine was measured while the belts were in tension and it was discovered that both sheaves were parallel as opposed to misaligned as they would be in the actual helicopter. This means that each set of belts are stretched uniformly during the break in and are not subject to progressive stretching and variable loading as they would be when installed in the helicopter. The belts are also not exposed to sim ilar operating temperatures as would be experienced by the belts when installed for use in a functioning aircraft.

In addition to the alignment inconsistency during break in, the upper or driven sheave is not loaded. It is freewheeling on a bearing unlike in the heli copter where it drives the main and tail rotor systems. Th is dramatically reduces the amount of load exerted on the belts on the tight side during the operation.

18 Deposition testimony of Peter Riedl in the Holtmeier case. page 76 19 Deposition testimony of Peter Riedl in the Holtmeier case. page 74 20 Deposition testimony of Peter Riedl in the Holtmeier case, page 74

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 15 of28

R0526

Robinson verified this during the deposition of the VP of Engineering. 21 The break in conditions do not represent the actual conditions on the helicopter due to the lack of loading, sheave alignment and lack of variable loading. This type of belt break in does not represent good engineering judgment and practice and does not prep the belts to be installed on an actual flying helicopter. The first time the belts are subject to conditi ons similar to that on the helicopter is when they are actually installed and flown.

Robinson attempted to warn their ferry pilots of these issues via a notice which indicated that if power li mits are exceeded during ferry flights, failure of the drive and rotor systems may occur. This notice also noted that v-belts are especially vulnerable at high power setting and are stiff due to fact that they are not broken in yet. This notice does not mention the stickiness problem of new belts nor does it mention the misalignment issues. Robinson was aware of the problem with premature belt failure due to thei r improper break in and sti ll released them into service placing the burden on the pilots. Instead of designing out the problem or breaki ng the belts in to an acceptable level, they put the belts on a helicopter in an unairworthy condition and put pilot's and occupant's li ves at risk with nothing but a ferry notice. Robinson has since deleted this notice and refuse provide a copy in conjunction with this litigation. This shows a clean and conscious disregard for the safety of the pi lots, passengers and others.

Other Similar Incidents and Accidents:

The Robison line of piston helicopters has a long history of documented belt fail ures. This is not to say that this list comprises all instances as so many of the Robinson helicopters experience post impact fire and often pilots don't live to explai n what happened. The fire damage may also have prevented the NTSB or other investigators from coming to that conclusion. It is common for the belts to break during a crash sequence, so that alone may be ignored as causal during a routine investigati on. The fol lowing instances are only a subset of the much larger body of Robinson belt failures:

11 /01 / 1991 Riverside, CA (NTSB ID LAX92LA034) - R22 Beta - The helicopter lost rotor rpm and subsequently crashed due to belt drive system failure. The forward belt was split and displaced from the transm ission pulley. The aft belt was found off the engine and transmission pulleys.

01 /1 5/1994 Gurabo, PR (NTSB ID MIA94LA054) - Robinson R22 Beta, N l93 HC - The pilot smelled burning rubber and then pulled the clutch circuit breaker after 5 seconds of illumination. The helicopter impacted terrain due to one of the two vee-belts completely separating and I/2 of the remaining belt separating. Only 1/2 of one belt remained.

06/08/2002 Henderson, NV (NTSB ID LAX02LA 189) - Robinson R22 Beta, N7 I 76S - The pilot smelled burning rubber and clutch light illuminated while rotor rpm was lost. The aircraft was auto rotated and impacted terrain. One of the two installed vee-belts was fou nd broken. The second belt was intact, with the lower section of the belt found on the lower pulley in the correct position. The upper section of the belt on the upper pulley

21 Deposition testimony of Peter Riedl in the Hohmeier case. page 218

/\eroscope Inc. Report of Findings- Ates Page 16 of28

R0527

was found shifted forward one groove on the pulley. The cause was determined to be a belt system failure.

02/18/2003 Kent, TX (NTSB ID FTW03LA099) - Robinson R22 Beta ll, N54TR - The pilots were flying the new helicopter when they heard two loud thumps from the rear of the helicopter and then the clutch light illuminated and rotor rpm was lost. The engine showed evidence of an over speed greater than 110%. One of the two drive belts was missing and the remaining belt was off of the upper sheave and showed considerable damage. Failure was determined to be from dri ve belt separation.

05/12/2004 Winstead, MN (NTSB ID CH 104LA 119) - Robinson R22, N230 IF - The pi lot reported that he heard a loud bang, smelled rubber, received a clutch warning light and auto rotated to a recently planted corn field. One of the belts was split between the 2 V's for approximately 1/2 of the circumference of the belt. The second belt was shredded. The cause was determined to be from a belt fai lure.

09/12/2007 Fort Stockton, TX (NTSB ID DFW07LA 197) - Robinson R22, N993KC - The pilot heard a loud bang and felt a vibration in the pedals. He observed the engine rpm was excessively high and noticed the rotor RPM was below 80 percent accompanied by the low rotor RPM warning. One of the v-belts to the main rotor drive system had separated which caused the other belt to slip off the upper spindle. The cause was determined to be from belt drive system failure.

11 /24/2007 Suffolk, VA (NTSB ID NYC08LA043) - Robinson R22, N442FA -The pilot noticed the clutch light and experienced rotor rpm loss and engine over speed . The V-drive belts appeared to have rolled off the sheaves, and the clutch actuator was engaged. The forced landing was determined to be from the V belts rolling off the drive sheaves for unknown reasons.

12112/2007 Plant City. FL (NTSB ID NYC08LA060) - Robinson R22 Beta, N7188J - The pilot detected a "strong odor of burning rubber, a loss of power, the clutch warning light illuminated, and the helicopter yawed. The drive belts were twisted, torn, and off of their respective drive pulleys. The impact was determined to be from excessive slack and breakage of the drive belts.

06/21/2009 Del Ray Beach, FL (NTSB ID ERA09LA360) - Robinson R-22 Beta helicopter, N2306T - The student and instructor noticed the clutch light and low rotor light were illuminated during the flight and subseq uent crash. The forward vee belt left black residue on the front side of the pulley and shaft. The rear vee belt was broken in two and also had breaks in the center between the two v sections. No other anomalies were noted .

07/ 15/2010 West Melbourne. FL (NTSB ID ERA IOLA361) - Robinson R22 - The pi lot reported the clutch light illuminated and the pilot felt the aircraft vibrate. A witness reported seeing a belt, approximately 4-5 feet in length, falling from the helicopter. The pi lot stated that the

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 17 of28

R0528

engine rpm went high and the rotor rpm continued to fall. The nose continued to tuck forward and he felt that the response with aft cyclic was limited or not at all there. One of the V-belts had broken with a clean break. A section of the belt was recovered away from the main wreckage, and the remai ning portion was found entangled in the other V- belt's system.

Robinson, as the helicopter manufacturer and type certificate holder has a basic responsibil ity to review this information and develop design improvements to mitigate risk. These accidents should have put Robinson on notice that there is a safety issue with the design of the helicopter and appropriate actions should have been completed to mitigate this risk.

"Before issuance of SFAR No. 73 in 1995, the Robinson R-22 experienced a higher number of fatal accidents due to main rotor/ail-frame contact than other piston-powered helicopters. Many of these accidents were caused by low rotor revolutions per minute (RPM) or low "G'' conditions that resulted in mast bumping or main rotor-airframe contact accidents. " 21

Due to the propensity of vee-belt failures in the subject helicopter, the NTSB and other govern ment agencies have issued reports, bulletins and other warnings. These investigations should have also put Robinson on notice that there is a serious design issue in regards to the drive system and vee-belt alignment. Robinson should have completed a root cause investigation and implemented corrective actions to mitigate these risks. In December 1992, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendation A-92-1 22 thru -124 relating to Robinson R22 vee-belt failures. This NTSB analysis was initiated after a pilot was forced to conduct an emergency autorotation in an R22HP helicopter due to failure of the vee-belts. In this specific incident, corros ion of the lower sheave created sharp edges in the grooves and damaged the v-belts. "The manufacturer [Robinson] has identified the factors which can lead to premature fail ures of the vee-belts and has issued Service Bulletin (SB) 66, dated April 19, 1991, and Service Letter (SL) 39 issued on the same date. SB 66 requires a one-time visual inspection of any wear patterns in the grooves of the lower sheave. The condition of the lower sheave is indicative of upper sheave wear patterns. If the patterns are markedly dissimi lar, the manufacturer recommends immed iate replacement of the belts and inspection of the sheaves as described in SL 39."

Australian Government Civil Aviation Safety Autho ritv - Airworthiness Bulletin 63-006, "This AWB has been raised in response to continuing reports of R22 main rotor drive sysrem failures, including low time-in-service main rotor drive belt failures. Investigations into local and overseas defe ct reports and fatal accidents involving the Robinson R22 helicopter show a significant number of occurrences thar involve catastrophic failure of the main rotor drive belts. Main drive belt failures may be attributed to a number of possible causes, which are now considered under the headings of Maintenance related considerations and Operational related considerations. " 23

The Austral ian Transportation Safety Bureau also issued an extensive report relating to the reliability of the Robinson R22 helicopter belt drive system on 30 April 2013.

22 FAA Docket No.: FAA-2002-13744, Amendment No. SFAR 73-2 23 Australian AWB 63-006 was issued 14 August 2009

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 18 of28

R0529

"The ATSB 's experience, together with service reports and advice from RHC, has demonstrated that the drive belts have a greater overall likelihood of failure when compared with other components in the rotor drive system. Failures have been reported to occur suddenly and without obvious warning to the pilot.

During the 8-year period between 2004 and 2012, there have been eight significant incidents or accidents reporled to the ATSB, where failure or degradation of the vee-belts has been central to the occurrence event. Jn most instances, belt failure has led to a successful landing or the occasional hard landing or rollover. However, !here have been lYvo fatal R22 accidents in which the pilot has been unable to successfully manage the emergency aulorotation following v-belt failure.

Jn addition to the ATSB 's occurrence database, a search of the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA 's) service difficulty report (SDR) database was conducted lo gauge the prevalence of v-belt problems reported by Australian operators. The SDR database contained a collection of reports from the Australian Robinson R22 flying and maintenance community. As plotted in Figure 6, the yearly number of reported v-belt failures rose and fell without any apparent pattern; however, a peak developed during the 2009 operating period. The failure rate has since declined since the introduction of the Revision-Z belts in March 2010. "

Reported damage and/or failure m echanism · 1983 to 2012 14

,, l 10 l:•ceso,,.e bell -;,1 I o Edge col'll laiU1e

"'''°''"'"""ll" I• 0 ShO>YO She;ive m.s.abgnment DSpl1: I. Slretc,,.., to ~mrls • T~ ~n<I d1sbone • !.lanu~cw•t"Q fault a Rolled out d • heave

~ i • sn.....e wear/c:a""'ll"

I I Ii •f'~ 1lu1e mode not odentf<ed

:I I #~~~#~~~~~#~~#~##~~~~~ Ytar

It is important to understand that the above statistics are based on incidents and accidents where the belt malfunction was known to the investigative party. Many times, especially where pi lot, occupant or witness account is not available, a belt fail ure will go unnoticed. This is in part due to propensity for the

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ales Page 19 of28

R0530

sheaves to become further misaligned in the impact sequence and due to the large number of post impact fires that have occurred in the Robinson line of helicopters.

Alternative Belt Drive Designs:

Belts are commonly used on piston powered helicopters as they provide a relatively light weight and simplistic method of engine to rotor engagement after start. This type of design has been around for many years and is probably most prevalent on the very similar and common Schweizer 300 series helicopter (aka the military TH-55 which was designed in the mid I950 's). The mi litary used the TH-55 for training purposes for approximately 60 years without the adverse history of belt failures. This is because the two primary belt sheaves are in direct parallel alignment and use an id ler sheave (pulley). The idler sheave allows tension to be applied to the belts while maintaining the angular alignment of the drive and driven sheaves. This is the standard in fixed drive sheave alignment and is the recommendation by the largest belt manufacture in the world, Gates Rubber Company. This is also in accordance with standard professional mechanical engineering design. The design alleviates uneven belt wear, progressive belt stretch and variable stretch on individual belts as found in the Robinson piston models. The idler pulley in the Schweizer 300/TH-55 is also spring loaded, per the Gates recommendation for automatic tensioning. 24

Upper I Driven Sheave

Idler Pulley

.... ~ j

"•

Lower I Drive Sheave

Figure 10- Drive Belt Design in the Schweizer 300

24 Schweizer 300 Illustrated Parts Catalog

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 20 of28

R0531

Another piston powered helicopter that incorporated aligned drive sheaves and an idler pulley was manufactured by Enstrom. It should be noted that the Enstrom idler is also spring loaded which alleviates the plethora of problems encountered in the Robinson system due to sheave misa lignment.

Dri ven Sheave

Figure 11 - Enstrom Design Investigation Methodology:

While investigating this crash, I followed the guidance and investigative techniques found in numerous widely accepted accident investigation manuals, including but not limited to the !CAO Manual of Aircraft Accident Investigation, the US Navy Aircraft Accident Investigation Handbook, the US Air Force Guide to Mishap Investigation, the US Army Accident Investigation Manual , the Canada Transportation Safety Board Investigations Manual and the University of Southern California Aircraft Accident Investigation Manual. I also relied upon my experience and education and all available information to analyze the failures and ascertain the most likely cause of this crash.

Conclusions

I. Mrs. Ates was a passenger in N28 l RG during the subject flight and had no responsibil ities regarding the piloting or operation of the helicopter.

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 2 1 of28

R0532

2. Mr. Christopher Yeager was qualified and properly certificated to act as pilot in command of N281 RG during the subject flight that ultimately resulted in this crash. 3. Weather conditions at the time of the crash were considered and determined not to be a causal factor to this crash. 4. Analysis of the engine did not reveal any pre-impact anomalies that would have adversely affected engine power production 5. Special Federal Air Regulation (SFAR) 73 requires awareness training to be completed on a recurrent basis. The concept of issuing a training requirement to address the inherent design deficiencies in the R22 is unreasonably dangerous and doesn't represent sound engineering practice. Design deficiencies need to be addressed and corrected from the engineering level; training is not the answer. 6. Low rotor rpm in Robinson piston helicopters has been subject to numerous investigations and review of certification and can result in catastrophic flight maneuvers causing complete loss of control. 7. The Robinson R22 helicopter does not comply with FAR 27.141 in that it requires exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength which is the reason for the multiple FAA certification reviews and development of SFAR 73 . 8. Design of the main and tail rotor drive system in the R22 causes asymmetric loading of the forward and aft v-belts. 9. The subject v-belts had accumulated approximately 26.3 hours of operations since new and Peter Riedl testified that new v-belts are more vulnerable to fai lure during the first 50-hours of operation. Furthermore, new v-belts are stickier and more vulnerable to coming out of the grooves, especially if the sheaves are misaligned. 10. The FTIR analysis of the lower sheave at McSwain Engineering did not reveal material transfer from the v-belts within the forward two grooves; whereas belt material was found in the aft two grooves. This indicates that the forward belt disengaged the forward grooves; this caused the clutch annunciator bulb to illuminate. 11. The clutch annunciator light bulb filament exhibited hot stretch which indicates that the bulb was illuminated at impact due to the loss of one of the drive belts. 12. Failure I disengagement of the forward v-belt resulted in a sudden loss of power being transmitted to the main and tail rotor drive systems and forced pilot Yeager to execute an emergency autorotation. 13. The condition of the belt tension actuator post-accident was consistent with the in-flight loss of the forward V-belt. 14. The location of the fire damaged belt material post-accident is consistent with the displacement of the forward V-belt prior to impact. 15. The design of the belt drive system on the R22 is intolerant to a belt fai lure and is not designed to properly handle belt failures in flight.

Aeroscope lnc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 22 of28

R0533

16. The design of the Robinson belt drive system is defective and unreasonably dangerous and a breach of ordinary care in aircraft design and manufacture because it uses sheave misalignment to tension the belts, contrary to belt manufacturers' design speci ti cations and generally accepted engineering pri nciples. 17. The design of the belt drive system is defective and unreasonably dangerous because it does not use a conventional spring loaded idler pulley. 18. Standard industry and mechanical engineering practice is to tension belts in an al igned condition often usi ng an id ler pulley. 19. The belts are loaded and stretched progressively greater moving for to aft and from the front band of each V belt to the rear. This goes against professional mechani cal engineering and industry standard drive belt design. 20. Robinson helicopter has a long history of belt fai lure and is aware of the tendency for new belts to fail. 2 1. Robinson failed to warn pilots and owners of their helicopters of the dangers associated with premature belt fail ure and the li kelihood of belt failure during high power settings. 22. Robinson failed to inform the FAA of the issues with premature belt fai lures in their helicopters and fai led to request an Airworthiness Directive addressing the issue. 23 . Robinson inadequately issued a Notice To Ferry Pilots warning them of the dangers associated with belt failures in their helicopters instead of correcting the problem and then later negligently removed that notice from service. 24. Gates Rubber Company determined that none of their belts should be used in aircraft and stopped allowing Robinson to install them in their helicopters due to the dangers in the Robinson design.

We hold these opinions to a reasonable degree of certainty in our field. We reserve the right to make changes as new information is obtained.

Sincerely, Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 23 of28

R0534

Appendix 1 - Items Reviewed

I. NTSB Report and Docket 2. Photos 3. Correspondence 4. Notes 5. Maintenance records 6. Pilot Logs 7. Pilot training records 8. Discovery documents 9. Documents produced by Robinson I0. Documents produced by Joyce Ates 11. Federal Air Regulations 12. Robinson R22 Maintenance Manual 13. Robinson R22 Pilot Operating Handbook 14. Robinson R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog 15. Robinson Safety Notices, Alerts, Service Bulletins, etc. 16. FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet for airframe and engine 17. Witness statements 18. Similar accident data 19. FAA Airmen Information 20. Weather data 21. Documents produced by HSI 22. Fire Department records 23. Depositions

Activities

I. 22 January 2014 wreckage inspection at the facilities of Air Salvage of Dallas in Lancaster, TX 2. I9 August 2014 wreckage disassembly at the facilities of Air Salvage of Dallas in Lancaster, TX 3. 17 March 2015 wreckage inspection at the facilities ofMcSwain Engineering in Pensacola, FL

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 24 of28

R0535

Appendix 2 - Curriculum Vitae

COLIN A. SOMMER, P.E.

CURRENT POSITION

Vice President and Aircraft Mishap and Failure Investigator with Aeroscope, Inc. Aeroscope, Inc. performs engineering services related to aviation accident analysis, forensic engineering, computer modeling, failure analysis and testing of airframes, engines, and aircraft systems. Aeroscope has investigated in excess of I000 aircraft accidents and incidents including the well-known crashes of TWA 800, United 232, United 585, Continental 1713, USAir 427, Alaska Airlines 261 , Silk Ml 185, Flash Air 604, SAS SK686, Air Algerie Flight 6289, Helios 522 and the crashes that killed the former governor of Missouri and golfer Payne Stewart. Aeroscope was also hired by the State of Florida to aid the criminal prosecution resulting from the crash of Value Jet 592.

EDUCATION

+Bachelor of Science Engineering - Civil and Environmental Engineer Emphasis in Structural Design University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Dean 's Honor List two semesters

+NTSB Academy, Washington DC, Aircraft Accident Investigator Training Program. Training included: Accident Investigation, Failure Analysis of Airframes and Engines, Mid-air Collisions, In-flight Breakups, Fault Tree Analysis, Piston and Turbine Engine Failures, Pre and Post impact Fire Analysis, Metallurgy, Pathology, Biomedics, Crash Survivabil ity, Aircraft Performance, Impact Kinematics, Propeller Analysis, Aviation Weather, Aircraft Maintenance, and many others. (May I0, 2004)

+Southern California Safety Institute, Aircraft Accident Jnvestigation Training Program . Training included: Investigation Methodology, Causation Theory, Wreckage Pattern Analysis, Aviation Operations, Weather, Aircraft Performance, Aircraft Maintenance, Human Factors, Crash Survivability, Structural Analysis, Fire Damage, Reciprocating and Turbine Engine Failure, Propeller Analysis, Metallurgy and Material Science, Aircraft Structure and System Design, Impact Dynamics and Kinematics, Aerodynamic Loading, Aeromedics, and many others. (October I0-21 , 2005)

+Teledyne Continental Motors Aviation Technician Advanced Training Program. Training included: 40 hours of advanced factory training, with focus on General Engine Theo1y of Operation, Crankcase Threading, Crankshaft Component R & R, Cylinder R & R, I00-Hour/Annual Inspection Fuel Injection System Fuel Pump Adjustment, Cylinder Borescope Inspections, TCM Ignition Systems and Service Bulletin Exercises. (June 20-25, 20 I0)

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 25 of28

R0536

CURRICULUM VITAE COLIN A. SOMMER, P.E. Page Two

+ FAA Ratings Private Pi lot Certificate- Single Engine Land (September I, 2006) Multi Engi ne Land (October 14, 2011) Instrument Airplane (March 17, 2009)

+Routine training in numerous aspects of aircraft accident reconstruction and failure analysis

+Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) I Engineer in Training (ElT) Completed. (July 5, 2007)

+ Principles & Practice of Engineering Exam (PE) Completed (June 9, 2008)

+Licensed Professional Engineer - State of Michigan No. 6201055608 (September 4, 2008)

+Licensed Professional Engi neer - State of Colorado No. PE-43554 (September 22, 2009)

ENGINEERING EX PERIENCE

+I have personally investigated over 350 different aircraft accidents incl uding: -Alaska Airlines Flight 261 McDonnell Douglas MD 83 -Si lk Air Ml 185 Boeing 737-300 -Oklahoma State Basketball Team King Air 200 -Governor Mel Carnahan Cessna 335 -Payne Stewart Learjet 35 -Fl ash Air 603 Boeing 737-300 -Air Algerie Flight 6289 -ComairFlight 191 -Helios Flight 522 -Many other single and multi-engine aircraft both piston and turbine as well as helicopter

+I have personally investigated accidents involving the following equipment types: -Aero Commander -Beech General Aviation -Aerospatiale/Eurocopter -Beech King Air 90, 200 -Airbus 310, 320 -Beech 1900 -Air Tractor -Bellanca -Allison/Rolls Royce Engines -Bell Helicopters -American Champion -Boeing 737, 767, 777, Vertol -Astra -Bombardier Challenger, CRJ -Augusta Helicopters I 09, 11 9 -Caterpillar Fork Lift

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 26of28

R0537

CURRICULUM VITAE COLIN A. SOMMER, P.E. Page Three

-Cessna General Aviation -Mitsubishi MU-28 -Cessna Citation -Mooney -Commander Aircraft -Piper General Aviation -Cirrus Aircraft -Pilatus PC-12 -De Havilland -Pratt & Whitney Engines -Diamond Aircraft -Precision Airmotive -Ercoupe -Rans -Express -Raytheon -Revolution Mini 500 -Fairchild/Swearingen -Rockwell OV- 10 -Garrett Engines -Robinson Helicopter -Grumman American -Rotax Engines -Gulfstream -Schweizer Helicopter -Hawker -Sikorsky S-58, S-61. S-76 -Hughes Helicopters -Taylorcraft -Kaman Helicopters -Teledyne Continental Motors -Lancair -Textron Lycoming Engines -Lake Ai rcraft -Turbo Mecca Engi nes -Learjet -Ultralight -MBB Helicopters -Vans -McDonnell Douglas MD-80, DC- I0 -Westwind -McDonnell Douglas Helicopters -Zivco -Mitchell Wing

PROFESSIONA L MEMBERSH IPS

+International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISAS I) +Vice President Colorado/Wyoming ISA SI Chapter + Aircraft Owners & Pi lots Association (AOPA) + National Council of Examiners for Engineering & Surveying (NCEES) (June 26,2009)

AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION

+Fixed Wing Accident Reconstruction Analysis and Testing +Helicopter Accident Reconstruction Analysis and Testing +Flight Path Analysis +Mechanical, Pneumatic and Hydraul ic Systems + Aircraft Performance +Aircraft Auto Pilot Systems + Aircraft Navigation Systems +Ai rcraft Design and Operation +Aircraft Control Systems +Aircraft Fuel Systems +Aircraft Crashworthiness +Helicopter and Fixed Wing Structural Design and Failure Analysis

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings- Ates Page 27 of28

R0538

CURRICULUM VITAE COLIN A. SOMMER, P.E. Page Four

+FAA Regulations +FAA Airworthiness Directives +Vehicular Kinematic Impact Analysis and Mathematical Modeling of Crashes +Pressurization Systems +Aircraft Vacuum Systems +Carburetor Design and Operation + Rotorcraft Aerodynamics +In-Flight Break Up +Video Animation +Aircraft Systems Analysis +Fluid Mechanics +Internal combustion engine failures +Fuel Injection Systems +Turbine engine failures +Mid Air Collisions +Post Impact Fire Investigation +Aircraft Crash Survival Design +Aircraft Avionics +Aircraft Engine Vibration +Wire Strike Protection +Aircraft Stall Protection

PUBLICATIONS

+Robb, Gary C. (2010). Helicopter Crash litigation. Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company Inc. - Technical Advisor and Contributor

Aeroscope Inc. Report of Findings - Ates Page 28 of28

R0539

Inc. REPORT ON THE CRASH OF Robinson R-22 Beta II, N281RG, which occurred near Houston, Texas on September 10, 2012

My name is William S. Lawrence. I am a retired Colonel of the United States Marine Corps. This is my report in the case of Ates/Yeager v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and Helicopter Services, Inc. Since my retirement from the Marine Corps in 1991 , I have consulted in aviation matters. I was engaged by Stevenson-Murray and The Ammons Law Firm of Houston, Texas, in the fall of 2014, to consult in the above-titled matter. This action concerns the crash of a Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter, N28 I RG . Thi s crash occurred near Houston, Texas. It occurred on September 10, 2012, and resulted in the deaths of Christopher Yeager and Joyce Ates of Midwest City, OK.

I served as a Marine Corps aviator from 1966-1991 , and have accumulated over 4,000 flight hours in over 120 types, models, and series of aircraft. Since 1991 , I have flown both mi Iitary and civi Iian aircraft in the pursuit of aircraft investigati ons to include the ownership and operation of a Beech Bonanza fixed wing aircraft. I attended the U. S. Navy Test Pilot School from 1978-1979 and served as an engineering and experimental test pi lot for over I 0 years. At the time of my retirement, I was the senior active test pilot in the Marine Corps and in command of all rotorcraft flight testing for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. By virtue of my experience and qualifications, I am an associate fellow in the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. I have extensive experience evaluating flight characteristics of helicopters, including the evaluation of both existing and experimental flight control systems. Attached are my current

R0540

CV, Rates & Fees Schedule, a list of publications authored, and a li st of testimony by affidavit, deposition, and/or at trial in the past 4 years.

I was retained in the fall of 2014 to consu lt relative to this crash . I have been furnished with the fo ll owing material related to this crash. In addition, I attended a wreckage inspection conducted at McSwain Engineering in Pensacola, FL, on 17-1 8 March 2015. Because of the ongoing nature of this case and investigation, I expect to receive additional material to review and may have other interaction with personnel involved in this case. I therefore reserve the right to alter this report at some later date to include additions, deletions, and/or changes to the opinions expressed herein. My compensation is dependent neither on testimony nor the outcome of this case.

Received via CD (Materials sent 10-27-14) I. Photos of the scene ( 13 photos) 2. Aeroscope Photos taken inspection 1-22-14 (255 photos) 3. Aereoscope Inc. Photos take n inspection 8-19-14 (I 06 photos) 4 . Han-is County Institute of Forensic Sciences (Autopsy) Scene Photos (84 Photos) 5. Ibid, Scene 2 Photos (72 photos) 6. Ibid, Dental Photographs (I I photos) 7. Ibid, Dental Radiographs (36 images) 8. Ibid, Exam, (60 photos) 9. Ibid, Exam 2 (8 photos) 10. Ibid, Xrays (85 images) 11. Ibid, R-Eye (17 images and files) 12. Ibid, ME0_ 3853 ( I photo) 13. Deposition Subpoena to The Harris Country Institute of Forensic Sciences 14. Autopsy and Toxicology Report, re Christopher Yeager 15. Chris Yeager Training Materials (14 files and fo lders) 16. Deposition of Jarrod A Dannar 17. Deposition of Kiley Montgomery 18. Deposition of Isaac N. Pinson 2

R0541

19. Discovery Responses (4 files) 20. FAA-NTSB Inspection (3 files) 2 1. Local Responders (2 files) 22. Pleadings (3 files) 23. Robinson R-22 (2 PDF files) 24. Chris Pilot Log - ( I PDF file) 25. Chris Yeager Birth Certificate ( I PDF file) 26. Copy of 281 RG Flight Time ( I Excel spreadsheet)

Received via E-mail

1. jatesfederalaviationadministration25834-l (also received via hard copy- 9 pages) 2. NTSB Docket and Docket Items - CEN 12FA621 3. McSwain Report w/enclosures 1-9 4. FAA Accident/Incident Data System Report AS W09 l 2043 5. NTSB Preliminary Report 6. NTSB Factual Report 7. Climatological Data for Houston G. Bush Airport (4 pages) 8. Robinson-produced documents (RobinsonOOO 1-0379) 1 Description of the Accident. N28 I RG, a Robinson R-22 Beta 11, departed the Hooks Memorial Airport in Houston, Texas, about 1200. Onboard were the pilot, Christopher Yeager, and a passenger, photographer Joyce Ates. They flew in the local area until landing at the Baytown Airport in Baytown, Texas about 1425. The helicopter was serviced with 22.9 gallons of 1OOLL gasoline at 1429. At 1500, N28 l RG departed the Baytown airport and was next seen by several witnesses about 1545 maneuvering in the area over a steel pipe yard near the crash location. They were in the area to take photographs.

Witnesses described the helicopter as being at an altitude estimated from 70 - 500 feet above the ground when first seen. It was spinning around the ma in rotor shaft and descending slowly to the ground. The blades may have been spinning slower than normal but were not

1 Information contained in the "Description of t he Accident" is taken from the NTSB Preliminary Report, CEN12FA621. 3

R0542

coning. The tail rotor may not have been turning. Witnesses' statements vary on these poi nts. No parts were seen to be com ing off of the

12 Q. As rou'\·e described it, the spitting and helicopter and there was no smoke. 13 the sputtering of the engine, did that include any 14 m"\ing of the engine that you noticed? One of the local witnesses testified that 15 A. Yes. Yes, the motor would go high, 16 full -- like foll idle, and then back down and the engine was miss ing and erratic.2 17 start spitting and sputtering, and then back up to 19 a full idle, a foll speed -- or throttle, to me, The descent accelerated and N28 l RG hit 19 ) "OU know. the ground upright on a heading of 190° magnetic, exp loded, and burned. First responders noted the two occupants still moving in the wreckage fo llowing the crash, but they were soon consumed by the fire 3.

The following statement is taken from the full narrative of the NTSB Preliminary report: "The main fuel tank was partially consumed by fire and the rear exterior skins were bulged and slightly deformed . A puncture hole was observed in the fuel tank and also through the firewall that sat below the tank. The puncture came from the bottom up. The #2 spark plug that sat directly underneath the puncture hole exhibited damage to the top of its ignition lead. The tank' s fuel cap was secure to the tiller neck and the fuel finger-screen was absent of debris."

Meterology. The NTSB reported weather at the accident site to be clear with visibility in excess of l 0.0 miles. The temperature was 31 °C and winds were calm. 4

Climatological data from the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, located some 13 miles from the crash site, showed weather at the time of the crash: skies were clear with a few scattered clouds at 20,000 feet, visibility was in excess of l 0.0 miles, the temperature was 30.6°C and winds were out of 130° at l 0 knots.

2 Pinson Depo, p 20 3 Ibid, p 32 and Inspector Glen Longnion's statement in NTSB Docket 4 CEN12FA621 4

R0543

Figure 1 - Robinson R-22 Beta Exemplar Photograph

Robinson R-22. 5 The Robinson R-22 is a two-place light utility helicopter produced by the Robinson Helicopter Company. It was designed by Frank Robin son in 1973 , received FAA certification, and has been in production since 1979. The R-22 has a very low inerti a rotor system and does not incorporate a hydraulic system . Therefore, fl ight contro l inputs are controlled by push/pull rods with no hydraul ic assistance. The fli ght controls are very sensiti ve and require a light touch to prevent over-controlling. Because of issues relating to flight controls and a teetering rotor system, the FAA mandated that all pilots desiring to fl y Rob inson R-22 helicopters receive specia l instruction and a special fli ght check, SFAR-73, unique to the Robinson helicopter.

The R-22 was designed as a light two-place, single reciprocating-engine hel icopter with a semi-rigid two-blade rotor system, a two-bladed tail rotor, and it is equ ipped with skid-type

5 Wikipedia, "R-22 Beta" 5

R0544

landing gear. The main rotor has a teetering hinge and two cone hinges. The tail rotor has only a teetering hinge.

Power is transmitted from the engine to the rotor system throu gh two dual V-belts running on matching multi -groove sheaves. Figure 2 is from the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau A0-20 I 1-060 Final Report. The upper driven sheave is mounted on the tail rotor drive shaft next to a fl exible coupling and is raised and lowered relative to the engine-mounted driving sheave by means of a small electric gear motor. During shutdown, the gear motor is used to lower the top sheave to loosen the drive belts. For startup, the engine is sta11ed with the belts loose, allowing the engine to run without spinning the rotor system. Immediately after engine start, the clutch switch located in the

Figure 2 - R-22 Drive Syst em cockpit is closed by the pilot, powering the gear motor to slowly move the top sheave up to flight position, which tightens the belts. The gear motor is thereafter controlled by a pressure-sensin g switch, automatically maintaining proper belt tension during fl ight as the belts warm up and stretch. A caution light illuminates whenever the actuator is operating, either engaging, disengaging, or retensioning the belts. The light stays on until the belts are tensioned or completely disengaged. Safety Notice 28 contains the following notation: " It is normal for the clutch light to occasionally come on while in flight for a short tim e .. . usually not more than 3 or 4 seconds ... to retension the belts. However, if the clutch light flickers or stays on for a longer time than usual .. . immediately pull the CLUTCH circuit breaker ... and make a normal power- on landing.'· 6 The operating handbook says to pull the CLUTCH circuit breaker if the light

6 SN-28 6

R0545

comes on in flight and does not go out within 7 or 8 seconds. 7 The tai l rotor drive shaft is also driven by the main transmission ; the semi-conical gear box delivers power to the main rotor shaft through a pair of splash -lubricated spiral bevel gears.

It is worthwhile to note that, when the sheaves are relaxed , they are parallel. When the clutch is engaged and the upper sheave is driven to expand, it does so via a hinge point on the forward end of the sheave. Therefore, the further the sheave is driven, the greater the angle of incidence between the upper and lower sheaves. Th is results in unequal tension on the two belts with the aft belt having the greater tension. And, to a lesser extent, each individual belt has uneq ual tension increasi ng from forward to aft.

A sprag clutch is built into the center o f the top sheave to allow the rotor system to continue to rotate in the event of engine failure, al lowing the R22 to enter autorotation and land in a controlled manner. Because the main rotor has very littl e mass and inertia, autorotation in an R22 requires careful and proper execution to assure a successful outcome.

The R22 is powered by a horizontally mounted Lycoming 0-320 (0-360-J2A on the Beta 11), four-cylinder, air-cooled, normally aspirated, carburetor-eq uipped piston engine. It is fueled with I OOLL grade av iation gasoline. Coolin g is provided through a direct drive sq uirrel-cage cooling fa n.

Helicopter Services Incorporated R-22 Beta II, N281RG. N28 IRG , Serial Number 4250, was was manufactu red by the Robinson Helicopter Company in 2007. It was powered by a Lycomin g I0-360-J2A engine, serial number L-40494-36A, rated at 145 horsepower. The engine had a total time of 2,200 hours with 24 hours since overhaul. It was registered to Helicopter Services Inc, 1993 1 Steubner Airline Road, Spring, TX.

N28 I RG was maintained in accordance with the Manufacturer's Inspection Program. The last inspection had been completed on August 3 1, 20 12, with a total ai rframe time of 2,004 hours.8 At the time of the crash, the NTSB noted a total airframe time of 2,028 hours.9

7 Robinson R22 Pilot's Operating Handbook 7

R0546

Christopher J. Yeager. Chris Yeager was born December 30, 1971. He was 40 years old at the time of his death. He received his private pilot' s certificate #3440977 on October 6, 2009. Commercial rotorcraft privileges were added on October 29, 2011. His last flight review had been successfully conducted in a Robinson R-22 on July 26, 2011. He had completed the required SFAR-73 training. At the time of his death, he had accumulated a total of757 flight hours with 619 hours in the R-22. He had 40.0 flight hours in the last 30 days and 132.7 in the last 90 days. He had a current first class medical certificate issued December 16, 2011.

Joyce A. Ates. Joyce Ates was a freelance photographer who specialized in aerial photography of businesses. She and her husband would print and sell the prints to the businesses involved. Ms. Ates was born August 17, 1942 and lived in Midwest City, OK. She had been shooting aerial pictures for about l 5 years and Ates' family commented to a local news source that she loved to be in the air. She even owned and operated her own glider. A wife, mother, and grandmother, Joyce Ates was 60 years old at the time of her tragic death .

Ms. Ates was a passenger in N281 RG. She had no crew responsibilities and therefore I have been given no material to ind icate that action or inaction on her part was connected in any way with the crash.

Helicopter Services, Incorporated. Helicopter Services, Inc. owned and operated N28 I RG under a Part 135 (on demand air taxi) certificate. The accident flight on September I 0, 2012, was conducted under Part 91 regulations. 10

Maintenance procedures were investigated by the NTSB. Additionally, the mechanic that had mos t recently worked on N28 l RG was drug-tested. Results for alcohol and drugs came back negative for Benito Perez as the result of tests conducted on the day after the crash, September 11 , 2012. 11

Power Loss in the Robinson R-22 Helicopter. Characteristics unique to the R-22 affect the ability of the aircrew to conduct a successful landing in the event of a power loss.

8 Data relating to N281RG is taken from the NTSB Factual Report Aviation 9 Jatesfederalaviationadministration25834-1 ! O NTSB Docket 11 Yeager000344, 000345, 000407, 000408 8

R0547

I. Rotor Inertia. Rotational system decay is directly proportional to applied torque and inversely proportional to the moment of inertia (Newton 's second law applied to rotation). Moment of inertia is determined by the weight of the system and radial distribution of the weight: I = L,mr2

Designers control this parameter, the result being either a high or low inertia rotor. To minimize rotor RPM decay during a power loss, a high inertia rotor is preferred. 12 The Robinson R-22 series has among the lowest inertia rotor systems in the helicopter industry. A Robinson factory trained instructor, who has testified for Robinson in aviation litigation, has written that a pilot has 1.6 seconds to lower the collective and regain lost rotor RPM before the ability to control the aircraft is lost. 13

The Robinson Helicopter Company has acknowledged this by the incorporation of three safety notices in the Pilot's Operating Manual. Two of these notices address low rotor RPM stall. 14 The third warns instructors aga inst unannounced throttle chops. 15 Surprise throttle chops will result in a precipitous rotor RPM decay if the student does not immed iately reduce the collective.

2. Indications of rotor RPM loss. All helicopters incorporate a sprag clutch in the main tran smission . It resembles a rol ler bearing, but instead of cylindrical rollers, non - revolving asymmetric figure-eight shaped sprags are used. When the unit rotates in one direction the rollers slip or free-wheel , but when a torque is applied in the opposite direction, the rollers tilt slightly, producing a wedging action and binding because of friction. The sprag clutch allows power to be tran sferred to the main rotor, but allows the rotor to freewheel in the event of a power failure. In most helicopter drive trains, a power loss associated with an engine malfunction resu lts in an instantaneous rotor RPM loss easily recognizable by the aircrew.

12 George. H. Sanders, Dynamics of Helicopter Flight (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1975), p197 13 Philip.greenspun.com/flying/robinson-r22 14 SN-10 and SN-24 15 SN-27 9

R0548

In the Robinson R-22, however, between the main transmi ssi on and the rotor is the sheave mechanism described above. Therefore, with a properly-operating engine producing power, a loss of tension in the sheave system will result in rotor RPM degradation in a non-linear gradual process rather than an easily-recognizable instantaneous loss. The sprag clutch will slip intermittently, and indications of rotor RPM loss wi II be inconsistent. With the loss of one of the dual Y-belts, tension is reduced and the belts begin to slip, resulting in a gradual rotor RPM loss. The actuator senses the loss of tension and tries to expand to retension the belts, but the time required to retension the belts is greater than the time available before helicopter control is lost. The aircrew has difficulty identifying the loss of tension as an emergency requiring immediate action because of its confusing characteristics. As previously noted , the Robinson Operating Manual tells the pilot that it is common for the CLUTCH light to illuminate periodically during flight.

3. Operational Considerations Following the Loss of a Vee-Belt. The catastroph ic loss of power in a helicopter almost invariably results in the immediate loss of rotor RPM , loss of engine RPM, warning lights and/or audio, and the physical reaction of the helicopter, usually a yaw perhaps accompanied by a nose tuck. Even in the case of a drive shaft failure, the loss of rotor RPM, warning lights and/or audio, and physical reaction serve to alert the pilot to take immed iate action. Experienced helicopter pilots are "spring- loaded" to take the appropriate action. Those rare crashes preceded by a partial power loss with unusual characteristics are those most likely to lead to confusion and ultimate disaster 16. The loss of a V-belt in a Robinson helicopter will present the pilot with an unexpected and confusing scenario. There is nothing in the operating manual or the factory training to prepare any pi lot for this scenario. There is no information in the manual that addresses belt fa ilure procedures.

16 I have investigated many power losses, and, in the course of my career as a test pilot, failed innumerable engines in flight to investigate the characteristics of power loss. 10

R0549

When the belt fails, tens ion wil l be insufficient to provide normal drive power to the upper sheave. The CLUTCH light will illuminate and rotor RPM will begin to deteriorate. The fo llowing Note appears in the Robinson R-22 Pilot's Operating Handbook. "The clutch light may come on momentarily during run-up or during flight to retension the belts as they warm-up and stretch slightly. This is normal. If, however, the light flickers or comes on injlight and does not go out within 7 or 8 seconds, pull the CLUTCH circuit breaker, reduce power, and land immediately. Be prepared to enter autorotation. Inspect drive system fo r a possible malfimction." 17 Since the pilot is unaware of what has occurred, he or she will be faced with the dilemma of whether to tum the CLUTCH off to avoid the possibility ofover-tensioning the belts. That action would unknowingly result in the continuing deterioration of rotor RPM. The pilot is in the position of being confronted by an emergency about which there is no information, and for which there is no warning, there is no training, and there are no procedures. It should be noted that the NTSB found that the CLUTCH light, examined in their laboratories. exhibited "hot coil stretching'", indicating that the bulb was illum inated at the time of the crash. 18

Robinson Helicopter Corporation Corporate Knowledge and Procedures. The Robinson Helicopter Corporati on representative testified that Robinson has a duty to se ll only products that have been properl y designed, constructed, tested, and that are safe and reliable. Further, they have a responsibility to warn customers using their products of any known danger involving that product. And further, Robinson has a responsibility to determine the root cause and corrective action of any com ponent part failure. 19

However, based on my knowledge and experience, it must be noted that the Robinson Helicopter Com pany is unique among aircraft manufacturers, and perhaps in the manufacturing

17 Robinson R2 2 Pilot's Operating Handbook, p 3-9 18 NTSB Materials Laboratory Factual Report 19 Riedl depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, pp 11-18 11

R0550

industry. Unlike other aircraft manufacturers, Robinson does not retain records unless mandated by the government. They do not retain accident investigations, do not retain feedback from serv ice centers, and do not retain any documentation of crashes. They do not have or maintai n any database of malfunctions or failures. 20 Robinson does not have a safety committee. 21 Robinson has never done an accident reconstruction. 22 The Robinson "Accident Investigator" has testified that he did not know what " failure modes and effects analysis" is. 23 In fact, Robinson does not try to find a cause for the crash of one of their helicopters.24 Robinson does not draw conclusions, and does not consider that it is their responsibility to find out why their helicopters crash. 25 Actually, Robinson does not conduct an accident investigation, despite sending individuals titled as "Accident Investigators" to the crash site. Robinson simply compiles factual data with no comment, analysis, conclusion, or recommendation, and, when al lowed, throws the data away. In another case, Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, a ferry agreement was produced by the Robin son Helicopter Company. When asked about that agreement in th is case, Robinson representatives stated that they no longer had any copy of this agreement. They did not use the agreement any longer and had thrown away all copies.

Robinson's "Experience" with Vee-Belts. Robin son representatives were deposed in the matter of Long-Holtmeier v Robinson. Those representatives included the head of Engineering, Peter Riedl. both "Accident Investigators" Ken Martin and Thom Webster, and a Robinson test pi lot, Jack Fleming. Testimony related to the vee-belt-dri ven sheave system is germane in this matter.

First, Robinson ' s test pilot testified that he had " never heard of a vee belt roll ing off the sheave .. . or breaking". 26 A Robinson "Accident Investigator" testified that he had "never heard ofa problem with vee-belts breaking ... off tracking ... coming off sheaves .. . becoming

20 Riedl depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 157ff 21 Riedl depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 223 22 Webster depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 20 23 Martin depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 17 24 Webster depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 70 25 Webster depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 77, Martin depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 35 26 Fleming depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 30 12

R0551

misaligned ... over stretching .... " 27 despite the fact that he had already previously testified to known failures. 28 However, the head of Robinson Engineering testified that " Robinson knows of belts that have failed in service" 29 and, in fact, testified about such failures. 30 It is also noted that, at that time, each ferry pilot was required to sign a "Ferry Pilot Notice - Helicopter Limitations", which states, in part, "New V-belts are especia lly vulnerable at high power settings as they are still quite stiff and not yet broken in". 31

On January 18, 2005, Robinson conducted a belt removal tiedown test as the result of a crash in Canada in which the vee-belts were involved. 32 It is noted that there was apparentl y no test plan, no data cards, no recorded data, no analysis, and no recommendation.

Jack Fleming, the "test pilot'', didn't know the purpose of the test, didn 't know what he was supposed to do until he got there, didn 't know what kind of engine was in the helicopter, didn't know the results of the test, has never done anything like it since, and doesn't know of any other similar tests ever conducted.33

Ken Martin, the engineer, testified as to conduct of the test. Th is test was performed '"in conjunction to an accident in Canada where there was some black rubbery material on two of the forward sheave grooves, four of the forward sheave grooves ... an attempt to try to figure out what could have caused that" .34

The test did not replicate conditions that would exist in a catastrophic belt fai lure or off- tracking. In the event of a catastrophic belt fa ilure, the actuator would require at least 15 seconds to retension, and since that would exceed the allowable time limit, the pilot wou ld be required by the operating manual to turn off the clutch. 35 It is unknown how much retensioning would be required to reach the desired range. It is also unknown what effect a missing belt would have on

27 Martin depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 53 28 Martin depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 32-33 29 Riedl depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 77 30 Riedl depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 176 31 This quote is taken from the Robi son ferry agreement, produced in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson as RHC-00026 32 Martin depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 29 33 Fleming depo, p 34ff 34 Martin depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 29 35 Martin depo in Long/Holtmeier v Robinson, p 68 13

R0552

operating RPM. It is unknown to Robinson what effect losi ng a belt would have on in stantaneous drive dynamics. There is simply no data to substant iate the impact of a catastrophic belt failure. However, it will certainly resu lt in a loss of friction avai lable to transfer power from the lower powered sheave through the belts to the upper sheave.

Opinions. Based on my consultation with others in volved in this liti gation, my background, training, and experience, and the review of the various material s received, I have fo rmed certain opin ions that I expect to present in court. The opin ions contained in this report are certain to a high degree and completely and accurately set forth the opinions I have developed in the course of my consultation in this case. However, as stated in the beginning, these opinions may change as the result of future work performed on this crash.

It is my opinion that:

I. Christopher Yeager was properly trained and qualifi ed to serve as the aircraft commander ofN28 I RG on September 12, 20 I0. The NTSB Factual Report clearly details the qualifications Mr. Yeager without question. My training and experience leads me to believe there is no question related Lo the qualifications and abilities ofMr. Yeager. Their signatures on the Ferry Pilot Briefing forms and the release ofN4141l indicate that Robinson accepted their qualifications and abilities. 2. Joyce Ates was a passenger in N281 RG, had no aviation-related responsibilities during the flight, and bears no fault in the crash of the helicopter. Ms. Ates was a professional photographer who was airborne for the purpose of conducting her business. The NTSB did not suggest that she bore any responsibility for the conduct of the flight, and there is no indication that she manipulated the flight controls at any time. 3. Weather and conduct of operations were not causal factors in the crash of N28 I RG. These aspects of the investigation were adequately addressed by the NTSB to the degree that there is no indication that neither of these areas were causal factors. 4. Based on the evidence in this case, one of the two double-vee belts connecting the upper and lower sheaves fa iled in flight, causing a loss of main rotor RPM . I have not been asked to investigate the mode ofpower loss. Aeroscope, Inc. of Denver, CO has investigated the power loss. In my conversations with their representative, I have been

R0553

told that their report will state that a main rotor RPM loss was caused by the in-flight failure of one of the double-vee belts connecting the sheaves. My opinion that one of the two vee-belts failed is based on the Aeroscope analysis and opinion. That opinion is substantiated by my allendance at the wreckage inspection in March, 201 5, during which I observed evidence that one of the two vee-belts had failed during flight. 5. Following loss of the rotor RPM, Yeager found himself in a catastrophic environment for which he had not been trained and about which he had no infonnation, warnings, or procedures. The Robinson Helicopter Company has provided its customers with minimal information in multiple areas. Although Robinson 's corporate representatives acknowledge belt fa ilures and other malfunctions, they have chosen to ignore the subject in their training and manuals. 6. With low rotor inertia, Yeager had even less time to react, and whatever emergency procedures he attempted to employ were unsuccessful in preventing the crash of N28 I RO and the tragic results. With no understanding ofwhat had transpired, and no knowledge, information, training, or procedures from Robinson to employ, Yeager was helpless in preventing the crash. 7. The Rob inson Helicopter Com pany acted with clear and conscious indifference to these pilots and the public in that they had corporate knowledge of actual vee-belt failures and other vee-belt malfunctions, yet never cond ucted testing or training related to any vee- belt malfunction and included no information in the operating handbook related to vee- belt malfunctions. Robinson corporate representatives have testified that they had prior knowledge of vee-belt failures and other malfunctions. They also have testified that they never conducted tests related to vee-beltfailures. lt is also clear that they never conducted testing intended to investigate relevant vee-belt ma(functions that they knew to have occurred in their products. Further, any mention of vee-belt failure or malfimction is notably absent in the pilot 's operating handbook. Robinson knowledge related to malfunctions of the vee-belts is also indicated by their statements in the ferry agreement that they claim to no longer possess. I have seen and relied on this document in other Robinson litigation matters and have quoted f rom that document in the body of this report.

R0554

8. The Robinson Helicopter Company acted with clear and conscious indifference to these pilots and the public in their failure to warn of dangers that the company knew to exist about its products. Robinson corporate representatives have testified that they know of vee-belt failures and other malfunctions. But there is no information given to pilots during training concerning vee-belt malfunctions. There is no information in the p ilot 's operating handbook related to vee-belt malfunctions. There are no emergency procedures related to vee-belt malfunctions. Further, there are no tests or failure modes and effects analysis on how vee belt failures will manifest themselves. 9. The Robinson Helicopter Company has acted with clear negligence and a conscious disregard of safety in their indifference to known failures in the vee-belt-driven sheave system that provides power to the main rotor system . Robinson representatives have testified that they know of belt failures. Their testimony related to belt testing shows a clear lack of concern, lack of documentation, lack ofappropriate testing, and lack of warning related to this phenomenon. Their failure to warn Robinson operators of the R22 and R44 continues despite clear and convincing evidence that failures have and continue to occur.

W. S. Lawrence August 4 , 2015

R0555

R0556

R0557

R0558

R0559

R0560

R0561

CAUSE NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce § A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES and § NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. §

ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RULING ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. (“Robinson” and/or “Defendant”) and files this, its Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections, and in support thereof respectfully shows the Court the following:

I. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, Nathan S. Ates, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates; and Nathan M. Ates (collectively “Ates” and/or “Plaintiffs”), served written discovery on Robinson concurrently with filing the present lawsuit. Robinson timely provided its objections and responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests on September 30, 2014. Nearly six months later, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, misrepresenting to the Court that the parties had conferred prior to its filing. Plaintiffs’ motion

R0562

included a request to compel Robinson to produce evidence of its net worth. After subsequently conferring, Robinson offered to produce many responsive documents (although not evidence of its net worth) subject to a protective order, but Plaintiff would not agree to the protective order proposed by Robinson and re-set its motion to compel for hearing.

The parties appeared before the Court regarding Plaintiffs’ motion to compel on May 11, 2015. During the hearing, all arguments on Robinson’s objections were passed and not presented to the Court. Despite the fact that no arguments were presented to the Court and Plaintiffs’ request for a ruling on Robinson’s objections was passed at the hearing, Plaintiffs’ filed a proposed order attempting to obtain a ruling on Robinson’s objections to Plaintiffs’ First Requests for Production.

On July 3, 2015, Robinson filed its objections to the entry of any order sustaining and/or overruling Robinson’s objections to Plaintiffs’ First Requests for Production prior to the presentation of all arguments relating to said objections to the Court for consideration. A copy of Robinson’s objection is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Since the May, 2015 hearing, Robinson has produced a significant number of documents and served its Amended Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production on July 24, 2015. A copy of Robinson’s Amended Objections and Responses is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.

II. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Plaintiffs’ motion summarily states that Robinson has not responded adequately to its discovery requests, and seeks to compel production. However, Robinson’s responses were complete and asserted reasonable objections where necessary. Robinson has produced the non-proprietary responsive documents which could be identified based on the requests it was served. Robinson’s responses further directed Plaintiffs to documents which were publicly available, and

R0563

stated clearly what documents are not within its possession and/or control.

Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are not aimed at finding information which supports or is related to their theory as to the cause of the helicopter crash the subject of this suit. Rather, Plaintiff does not have a theory of what caused the helicopter to crash. By Plaintiffs’ own admission, the purpose of their overly broad and inappropriate requests is to “establish a theory about the accident.” This constitutes an improper fishing expedition prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Supreme Court of Texas.

In addition to these responses, due to the vastly overbroad nature of many of the requests, Robinson notified Plaintiffs where a response required a clarification so that Robinson could ascertain what documents were being requested. Plaintiffs did not respond to these requests. A copy of Robinson’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.

Robinson has adequately responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Additionally, Robinson has produced information that was produced in the Yeager case, which is a nowresolved matter which arose out of the same helicopter accident. Plaintiffs were never a party to that case, the cases were filed at vastly different times, and were never deemed related or consolidated, yet, Robinson has produced said documents in the spirit of cooperation in the discovery process, despite never being served with any discovery requests seeking these documents to which Robinson could respond.

III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

Although the scope of discovery is broad, requests must show a reasonable expectation of obtaining information that will aid the dispute's resolution. In re American Optical, 988 S.W.2d 711, 713, (Tex. 1998); In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). Thus, discovery

R0564

requests must be "reasonably tailored" to include only relevant matters. Id. Discovery may be limited by the legitimate concerns of the producing party of avoiding harassment, disclosure of privileged information, or overly broad requests. Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569, 573 (Tex. 1984), overruled on other grounds sub nom; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992). The trial court has great discretion in determining whether the discovery request involves unnecessary harassment or invasion of personal or property rights. Lunsford, 746 S.W.2d at 473; Kern v. Gleason, 840 S.W.2d 730, 736 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1992, orig. proceeding).

The rules of procedure provide that the scope of discovery includes any unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject of the action, even if it would be inadmissible at trial, as long as the information sought appears "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a); see also In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). (orig. proceeding). Information is relevant if it tends to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the information. Tex. R. Evid. 401.

"Generally, the scope of discovery is within the trial court's discretion," but "the trial court must make an effort to impose reasonable discovery limits." In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152. Thus, because discovery may not be used as a fishing expedition, discovery requests must be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the case. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152; In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d at 713. A reasonably tailored discovery request is not overbroad merely because it may include some information of doubtful relevance, and "parties must have some latitude in fashioning proper discovery requests." Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995).

R0565

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193 provides that a party objecting to discovery must state specifically the legal or factual basis for the objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.1(a). Moreover, a party is required to object to discovery “if a good faith factual and legal basis for the objection exists at the time the objection is made.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.1(c). The objections raised by Robinson are thoughtful, thorough, and in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Robinson’s objections to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests should be sustained. Robinson’s Objections to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production 1

Plaintiffs’ requests for production are not reasonably limited in time and/or scope and are thus, overly broad. While many of Plaintiffs’ requests do not contain any limitation as to time or scope, the ones that attempt a temporal limitation seek information covering the last twelve years, which is beyond the scope of information relevant to the current proceedings and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Indeed, a discovery order "requiring document production from an unreasonably long time period" is "impermissibly overbroad." In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d at 301 (quoting In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152).

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ requests are not reasonably tailored in time or scope and are unduly burdensome. For example, Request No. 1 seeks “all documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to each and every investigation of a Robinson R22 helicopter that you have ever been a part of during the last twelve years.” As written, the request seeks production of every single document relating to any helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the

1 A true and correct copy of Robinson’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein. Robinson’s objections provide a thorough explanation of the objections raised to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.

R0566

same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. The majority of Plaintiffs’ requests are similarly overbroad, burdensome, and have no connection to the present case.

Plaintiffs broadly contend that “evidence of incidents involving other products besides the exact model at issue can be admissible, and therefore, obviously discoverable.” [emphasis added]. However, what Plaintiffs’ argument fails to demonstrate is that the discoverability of incidents involving other products is not unlimited. Indeed, the Supreme Court has limited discovery in several product-liability cases when a discovery order covered products "the plaintiff never used." In re Graco Children's Prods., 210 S.W.3d 598, 600-01 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding); see In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d at 180 n.1 (providing that a request was overly broad when it sought information on a product different from the allegedly defective product at issue); In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d at 713 (reversing a discovery order regarding respiratory equipment the plaintiffs never alleged they used); Texaco, Inc., 898 S.W.2d at 814 (reversing a discovery order regarding substances to which the plaintiffs never alleged exposure); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Lawrence, 651 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tex. 1983) (reversing a discovery order regarding vehicles without the fuel filler-neck that was allegedly defective).

"A central consideration in determining overbreadth is whether the request could have been more narrowly tailored to avoid including tenuous information . . . ." See In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 153. Plaintiffs’ requests are not reasonably tailored to any relevant product defect, and thus, are impermissibly overbroad. See In re Graco Children's Prods., 210 S.W.3d at 601. Rule 196 requires that a request for production “must specify the items to be produced or inspected, either by individual item or by category, and describe with reasonable particularity

R0567

each item and category.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.1(b). Plaintiffs’ requests fail to provide the level of specificity required by the Rules.

Moreover, the information sought by Plaintiffs as requested constitutes nothing more than a mere fishing expedition, prohibited by the Supreme Court in Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989). At the time Loftin was issued, Rule 167 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure governed the discovery and production of documents and other tangible things and placed similar limitations on the scope of discovery as the current Rule 196. The Supreme Court held that “[u]nlike interrogatories and depositions, Rule 167 is not a fishing rule. It cannot be used simply to explore. You are permitted to fish under deposition procedures, but not under Rule 167. The Motion for Discovery must be specific, must establish materiality, and must recite precisely what is wanted. The Rule does not permit general inspection of the adversary's records.” Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Tex. 1989). The same limitations apply to Rule 196.

In applying the limitations found in Loftin, the Supreme Court held that where the Plaintiff admitted that the documents requested were to “explore whether he can in good faith allege racial discrimination,” the requests were the “very kind of ‘fishing expedition’” prohibited by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Dillard Dep't Stores v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995). Unlike depositions and interrogatories, requests for document production may not be used simply to explore. Loftin, 776 S.W.2d at 148; Dillard Dep't Stores, 909 S.W.2d at 492.

By their own admission, Plaintiffs admit their requests are aimed to “establish a theory about the accident.” This is precisely the type of fishing expedition prohibited in Loftin by the Supreme Court of Texas. Plaintiffs’ initial investigation prior to bringing suit should have revealed at least some potential cause(s) of the accident. Discovery should then be properly and

R0568

reasonably tailored to prove/disprove and expand/narrow the initial theories. The idea that Plaintiffs cannot possible form any theory as to the cause of the accident by which discovery can be reasonably tailored is absurd and does not allow Plaintiffs unlimited freedom to propound overly broad and burdensome discovery requests that exceed the scope of permissible discovery, are not reasonably tailored and “seek simply to explore.”

Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ complain that Robinson did not provide the proper information to locate and obtain certain document, rather than provide the documents themselves. The documents requested are publically available and are just as easily obtained by Plaintiffs’ as by Robinson. Pursuant to Rule 196.3, the responding party, in lieu of producing documents, is permitted to provide the requesting party a reasonable opportunity to inspect the responsive documents. Robinson has done just that. Robinson has identified the location of the documents, provided that location to Plaintiffs, who have the reasonable opportunity to inspect and/or obtain the documents at any time they choose. Additionally, these items have been made available as they are kept in the ordinary course of business, which is permitted by Rule 196.3. Robinson provides such documents to customers, prospective customers, etc., by having them available on their website.

While the objections and responses provided to Plaintiffs speak for themselves, Robinson has provided further explanation for the basis of its objections below:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to each and every investigation of a Robinson R22 helicopter crash that you have been a part of during the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of every single document relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or

R0569

accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the requests seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request number 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney- client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: A full and complete copy of all investigation reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that have been prepared by you or provided to you regarding a Robinson R44 helicopter model crash during the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of every single document relating to any R44 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are

R0570

factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the requests seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction. Robinson further objects on the basis that the request seeks information relating to model R44 helicopters, however, the accident aircraft was not a R44.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney- client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: A full and complete copy of all investigation reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that have been prepared by you or provided to you regarding a Robinson R22 helicopter model crash during the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of every single document relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material

R0571

connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the requests seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request number 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; duplicate of request number 1 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney- client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any malfunction and/or failure that resulted in a crash that you have been made aware of regarding a Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of every single document relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material

R0572

connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the requests seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request numbers 1 and 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any malfunction and/or failure that resulted in a crash that you have been made aware of regarding a Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of every single document relating to any R44 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material

R0573

connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the requests seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction. Robinson further objects on the basis that the request seeks information relating to model R44 helicopters, however, the accident aircraft was not a R44.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney- client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all incidents (including crashes) involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of every single document relating to

R0574

any R44 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the requests seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction. Robinson further objects on the basis that the request seeks information relating to model R44 helicopters, however, the accident aircraft was not a R44.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is duplicative of request number 5 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney- client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all incidents (including crashes)

R0575

involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of every single document relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the requests seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request numbers 1 and 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; duplicative of request number 4 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non- objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model for death and/or personal

R0576

injury as a result of a crash or incident during the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of documents relating to any R44 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the request is not limited to settlement agreements to which Robinson is a party, seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction. Indeed, the documents requested subject to mutual confidentiality provisions, which constitute a material part of the agreements and cannot be produced. Robinson further objects on the basis that the request seeks information relating to model R44 helicopters, however, the accident aircraft was not a R44.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

R0577

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crash/incident during the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of documents relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the request is not limited to settlement agreements to which Robinson is a party, seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction. Indeed, the documents requested subject to mutual confidentiality provisions, which constitute a material part of the agreements and cannot be produced.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R44

R0578

helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death.

As written, the request seeks production of documents relating to any R44 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the request seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on- going litigation in another jurisdiction. Robinson further objects on the basis that the request seeks information relating to model R44 helicopters, however, the accident aircraft was not a R44. The request further seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege. Robinson does not maintain organized files of closed cases, making the request unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

R0579

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death.

As written, the request seeks production of documents relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the request seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on- going litigation in another jurisdiction. The request further seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege. Robinson does not maintain organized files of closed cases, making the request unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: A full and complete copy of all opinions, articles, bulletins, memoranda, and/or presentations that you have issued pertaining to aerial photography services utilizing R-22 and/or R-44 helicopters

R0580

during the last twelve years.

The documents requested have previously been produced and/or identified in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non- objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: A full and complete copy of all safety reports, issued by your Safety Committee, regarding the helicopter model at issue.

Robinson does not have a “Safety Committee.” Robinson has previously produced and/or identified the relevant safety notices.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope and time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request number 4 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because

R0581

Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any accident reconstruction, in whole or any part, relative to this case.

Robinson has previously produced a copy of the RHC Accident Report relating to the subject accident.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request numbers 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any accident reconstruction relative to any case involving a Robinson R22 helicopter in the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of every single documents relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material

R0582

connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the request seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents containing confidential information; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) that have discussed, analyzed, and/or concluded the possible cause(s) of the crash subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request numbers 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents not within the

R0583

actual or constructive control of this party; calls for a legal conclusion; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege and the trade secret privilege. Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) that have discussed the analytics, investigations and/or conclusions regarding cause(s) of crashes in which Robinson R-22 helicopters have been involved during the last twelve years.

As written, the request seeks production of documents relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the requests seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents containing confidential information; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this

R0584

request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: A full and complete copy of the operating manual pertaining to the Robinson R22 helicopter model.

This information has been provided to Plaintiffs as it is kept during the ordinary course of business and is available for inspection and/or copying at Plaintiffs’ convenience, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.3.

RESPONSE: This is publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: A full and complete copy of the operating manual pertaining to the Robinson R44 helicopter model.

This information has been provided to Plaintiffs as it is kept during the ordinary course of business and is available for inspection and/or copying at Plaintiffs’ convenience, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.3.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, This is publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: A full and complete copy of your corporate policies and procedures, including any mission statements, code of conduct, and/or any statements covering business ethics and safety procedures for your company.

The requested information is wholly irrelevant to the issues in the present case. The request as written is vastly overbroad and requests everything from Robinson’s dress code, to accounting procedures, and everything in between. Moreover, Robinson’s design and production regulations are dictated by the FAA.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible

R0585

scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All documents, correspondence, and/or communications submitted to NTSB during the last twelve years which involve R-22 helicopter crashes resulting in personal injury or death.

As written, the request seeks production of documents relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the request is not limited to documents submitted to the NTSB by Robinson, but rather any individual or entity in the world. The request further seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All witness statements that were obtained relative to the incident subject of this suit.

Robinson has previously produced the RHC Accident Report in connection with the crash the subject of this suit.

R0586

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is vague, overly broad, duplicative of Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosures; and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it will supplement this response and will produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that Robinson maintains suggest pilot error occurred during the crash subject of this suit.

Robinson has previously produced the RHC Accident Report in connection with the crash the subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it will supplement this response and will produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All documents addressing or discussing the belt drive system and power failures associated with the Robinson R22 helicopter model.

The request, as written, requests over thirty years of engineering work product, as well as service difficulty and incident information, which is maintained by the FAA and the NTSB, not Robinson.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and

R0587

contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: A full and complete copy of all service bulletins and safety notices issued for Robinson R-22 helicopters and Robinson R-44 helicopters during the last 12 years.

This information has been provided to Plaintiffs as it is kept during the ordinary course of business and is available for inspection and/or copying at Plaintiffs’ convenience, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.3.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: A full and complete copy of all service bulletins and safety notices withdrawn for the Robinson R-22 helicopter.

This information has been provided to Plaintiffs as it is kept during the ordinary course of business and is available for inspection and/or copying at Plaintiffs’ convenience, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.3.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the

R0588

extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Final engineering drawings which describe and identify the R-22 helicopter such as that involved in the incident subject of this suit, including part drawings, depictions of the configuration, specified tolerances, U.S. Government and Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. specifications, engineering orders, "Operation Sheet" a/k/a Outside Data Sheet setting out required specific tooling, inspection requirements, finish coating, process specifications, identification requirements, packaging requirements and any special facilities required for production. This request includes the supporting documentation for the power transfer system and fuel system of the R-22, including belt drive system, fuel tank location, fuel tank liners, clutch system and wiring diagram.

The request, as written, requires over 30 years of engineering work product which includes each and every document describing the design, engineering, and build information for the entire helicopter and each and every component. Not only is this request vague, oppressive, and harassing, producing such documents would be potentially catastrophic to RHC's ongoing competitive viability in the global market. Further, production of this breath of documents represents a danger to public safety via the real potential for the manufacture and sale of substandard counterfeit aircraft parts.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

R0589

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all belt manufacturing changes, including changes from Gates to any other manufacturer, involving the Robinson R22 helicopter model from 2003 to the present.

As written, the request seeks confidential information, trade secrets, and information protected by attorney work product privilege. Further, these documents are not maintained by Robinson as they relate to a supplier who has not been a current supplier for many years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Records identifying each and every crash in which any R-22 helicopter models have been involved including but not limited to crash date, crash location, root cause analysis, investigation materials, identity of investigators and exact model of helicopter involved from 2003 to the present.

As written, the request seeks production of documents relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the request seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on- going litigation in another jurisdiction.

R0590

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Documents reflecting the identity of members of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.'s Safety Committee, including official capacity and/or office held by each, from original establishment of any committee dealing with helicopter safety of Robinson-manufactured helicopters, to the present.

This request seeks information wholly irrelevant to the present suit. If Plaintiffs are attempting to identify persons with knowledge of relevant facts, Robinson refers Plaintiffs to its Rule 194 disclosures, which is the proper vehicle for obtaining such information. Additionally, Robinson does not have a “Safety Committee.”

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential and proprietary; violates third-party’s privacy rights and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: All documents provided to customers purchasing the R-22 helicopter from Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., i.e., warranty information, brochures, guarantees, user guides, etc. from 2003 to the present.

As written, the request seeks documents provided to each and every purchaser of a R22 helicopter during the last twelve years. The request is not reasonably tailored to the documents that are typically provided during any sales transactions, but as written, would include copies of sales contracts, finance agreements, documents specific to a particular purchaser, etc. Additionally, the documents requested are either duplicative of other

R0591

requests seeking warranting information, product brochures, etc., or wholly irrelevant to the present suit. Additionally, the request seeks information not within the active or constructive control of Robinson. Robinson’s helicopters are sold to customers via dealers. Beyond the manuals (previously produced), Robinson has no way of knowing or discovering what is provided to individual customers by its dealers.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29 [sic]: All Exhibit "A's" attached to any protective order entered on behalf of and/or for the benefit of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., including those executed by consulting witnesses and/or testifying witnesses who have or may have reviewed documents related to Robinson R-22 helicopters.

The request seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege. Robinson does not maintain organized files of closed cases, making the request unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is vague; overly broad; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30 [sic]: All documents which reflect testing of the belt drive system such as that utilized on the Robinson R-22

R0592

helicopter subject of this suit, including but not limited to stretching of belts, conditioning of belts, instructions for belt replacement, instructions for belt inspection and instructions for handling any belt "failure."

This request seeks information that has been previously produced and/or identified. The request also seeks information maintained by the FAA and NTSB, and thus, not in the actual or constructive control of Robinson.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31 [sic]: All documents which evidence and/or reflect instructions for response to rotor power loss while piloting a Robinson R-22 helicopter.

The documents requested have previously been produced and/or identified in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Information reflecting the net worth of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that is seeks privileged financial records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson further objects to the extent that the request seeks

R0593

information that is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and is duplicative of request number 22 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant, and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. Robinson incorporates by reference its prior briefing to the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals on this issue.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: All documents exchanged between Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and Helicopter Services, Inc. which resulted in HSI becoming a factory-authorized Robinson Helicopter Service Center.

The information sought in this request has been previously produced to the extent it is maintained by Robinson.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: All documents which evidence inspections, reviews, audits or any other documents submitted by HSI to Robinson in order to maintain its designation with Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

The information sought in this request has been previously produced to the extent it is maintained by Robinson.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: All documents which reflect, depict and/or outline the training of HSI technicians, service and/or repair personnel, by

R0594

Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. personnel and/or its representatives, authorizing HSI to service the R-22 helicopter in question.

There are no documents responsive to this request other than the information contained in the Robinson maintenance manual, which has previously been produced and/or identified.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All photographs of post-crash R-22 helicopters from 2003 through the present.

As written, the request seeks production of documents relating to any R22 helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the requests seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Produce all documentation evidencing and/or reflecting post-crash fuel fed fires from 2003 through the present, involving R-22 and/or R-44 helicopters.

As written, the request seeks production of documents relating to any helicopter crash, in any jurisdiction in the world, for any reason whatsoever,

R0595

regardless of the cause of the crash and/or any material connection to any issue in the present case, whether the investigation and/or accident presents the same or similar issues to the present case, or are factually similar to the present case. Additionally, the requests seeks documents and information that is not in Robinson’s active or constructive possession or control and/or may be subject to a protective order, confidential settlement agreement, or on-going litigation in another jurisdiction. Robinson further objects on the basis that the request seeks information relating to model R44 helicopters, however, the accident aircraft was not a R44.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: All deposition transcripts of the following individuals, which are maintained by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and/or its counsel:

a. Robert McSwain, McSwain Engineering, Inc. b. William "Bill" Carden, McSwain Engineering, Inc. c. Sri Kumar, Ph.D., Safety Research Institute d. Colin Sommer, Aeroscope, Inc. e. WilliamS. Lawrence, Colonel USMC (Ret' d), ConsulAir, Inc. f. Joseph L. Burton, M.D. g. Dr. Kenneth Orloff, Orloff Consulting

R0596

Robinson does not maintain organized files of closed cases, making the request unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the request to the extent that it seeks information unrelated to the accident aircraft and/or outside the scope of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: To the extent that Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. maintains it is self-insured, produce any and all documents which evidence or reflect all financial limitations and/or restrictions relative to the incident in question.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; is duplicative of request number 6 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; and is duplicative of Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosures.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: All documents obtained from the NTSB including but not limited to photographs, statements and /or conclusions relative to the R-22 helicopter subject of this litigation.

Robinson has previously produced the RHC Accident Report in connection with the crash the subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope; and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: All documents which evidence or reflect the decision to line, not to line and/or to delay lining the aluminum fuel tanks of the R-22 Robinson Helicopter with alternative materials.

As written, the request is overly broad and seeks confidential, proprietary, trade secret information.

R0597

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: All documents reflecting the decision to line, not to line and/or to delay lining the aluminum fuel tanks of the R-44 Robinson Helicopter with alternative materials.

As written, the request is overly broad and seeks confidential, proprietary, trade secret information.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves

R0598

the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: All maintenance manuals associated with the Robinson R-22 Beta distributed during the regular course of business by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. over the last twelve years.

The most current information responsive to this request has been provided to Plaintiffs as it is kept during the ordinary course of business and is available for inspection and/or copying at Plaintiffs’ convenience, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.3.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel should be denied in all respects and Robinson’s objections to Plaintiffs’ requests for production should be sustained.

IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. respectfully requests that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production be denied in all respects, that the Court sustain Robinson’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production, Robinson be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in responding to the present motion, and that Robinson be granted such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which it may show itself justly entitled.

R0599

Respectfully submitted,

COATS & EVANS, P.C.

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 Email: coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 Email: evans@texasaviationlaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003

Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that pursuant to Rule 21a of The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure a true a correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered to all counsel of record on this the 12th day of August, 2015.

MARK T. MURRAY Via Electronic Filing STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com

DON SWAIM Via Electronic Filing CUNNINGHAM SWAIM, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Ste. 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-646-1495 dswaim@cunninghamswaim.com /s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats

R0600

EXHIBIT "A"

Post Office Box 130246 Office: (281) 367-7732 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 Facsimile: (281) 367-8003

George Andrew (“Drew”) Coats Direct: (832) 541-8134 Coats@TexasAviationLaw.com

July 3, 2015

Honorable Mike Miller Attn: Gabriela DeLaRosa 11th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 9th Floor Houston, TX 77084

Re: Cause No. 2014-34635; Nathan S. Ates, et al v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et al; In the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas

Dear Judge Miller:

In response to Plaintiff’s letter of June 30, 2015 and proposed Orders on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. (“Robinson”) submits the following for the Court’s consideration.

An order sustaining and/or overruling Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s discovery request should not be entered at this time because all arguments on the objections were passed at the May 11, 2015 hearing and were not presented to the Court.

Additionally, Robinson has produced a significant number of documents since the May 11, 2015 hearing and anticipates serving amended discovery responses within the next week.

Sincerely,

COATS & EVANS, P.C.

/s/ George Andrew Coats

George Andrew “Drew” Coats

cc: Mark T. Murray, Stevenson & Murray, via electronic filing Don Swaim, Rose Walker LLP, via electronic filing

www.TexasAvaiationLaw.com R0601

EXHIBIT "B"

NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES § and NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants.

DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. ("Robinson") hereby serves this its Amended Responses Plaintiffs NATHAN S. ATES’, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES and NATHAN M. ATES (“Plaintiffs’”) First Discovery Requests for the purpose of this action only without admitting in any way or to any extent the relevance to this cause of action or the admissibility as evidence of any statement or document provided herein, and without prejudice to subsequently discovered facts or information relevant to these requests. Robinson’s discovery is not completed at this time, and, as such defendant reserves the right to supplement any and all responses herein by reason of subsequently discovered information.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Robinson submits the following general objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions,

R0602

Definitions and Discovery Requests which apply to each and every request contained in Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to Robinson. For convenience, these general objections are set forth below and are not necessarily repeated after each request. The assertion of the same, similar or additional objections to a specific request does not waive any of Robinson’s general objections as set forth below:

1. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek to expand the scope of, or impose upon Robinson obligations greater than those required by the applicable rules of the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or applicable orders of this Court.

2. Robinson reserves the right to challenge the competency, relevancy and admissibility, at trial or any subsequent proceeding, in this or any other action, of any information produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests.

3. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they are directed to or made on behalf of entities or persons who are not parties to this case or over whom Robinson has no control.

4. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests on the grounds that they are ambiguous, vague, overly broad, oppressive and unduly burdensome, and seek information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

5. Robinson bases its responses on information currently available to it, after reasonable inquiry, and Robinson reserves the right to amend and/or supplement its objections and responses to conform to information and documents which may be obtained through ongoing discovery and investigation, in accordance with the Rules of

R0603

Civil Procedure governing discovery.

6. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they attempt to elicit protected documents or information subject to the attorney client privilege; the work product doctrine; a joint or common defense privilege; the confidentiality of documents containing the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories of Robinson or its attorneys; or seeks materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or information that is proprietary in nature. Robinson asserts each and every one of the foregoing privileges and protections applicable to the information sought to the fullest extent provided by law, applicable rules, current and future case management orders.

7. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek documents or information not within Robinson’s possession, custody or control.

8. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek information or documents constituting trade secrets, or other confidential, research, development, commercial, financial and/or proprietary information.

9. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek information which is within Plaintiffs’ knowledge, possession, custody or control, or otherwise accessible to Plaintiffs from other sources with substantially the same or greater facility than Robinson.

10. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they are unlimited in time, or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to

R0604

this litigation, and to Robinson’s products at issue in this case, on the grounds that such requests seek documents neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they include contention interrogatories that solicit premature responses before the close of discovery.

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

Robinson makes the following specific objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions, which objections are incorporated into all of Robinson’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests where applicable. Any omission to refer specifically to such objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions and instructions shall not be deemed a waiver of such objections.

Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and to the extent that Robinson may not be able to ascertain all entities and/or individuals falling within these definitions. Further, Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” to the extent that they seek to expand the scope of, or impose obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

R0605

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

In addition to the documents identified below, Robinson has previously produced the following documents pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request that Robinson provide copies of all documents produced in Cause No. 2013-29873, Paula Yeager, et. al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., et. al., in the 129th Judicial Court of Harris County, Texas. Robinson does not believe the documents are responsive to any of Plaintiffs’ requests for production, but have produced the documents as a courtesy to Plaintiffs.

• • R44 Belt Removal Tie Down Test (192-193) • Ferry Pilot Notice – Helicopter Limitations (77) • MLB correspondence, drawings, sample certificates of compliance, purchase orders and quotations (149-167) • MLB Corporate Overview (168-191)

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Original and subsequent design drawings and/or blueprints relating to the engine and rotor systems of the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this request inasmuch as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. With waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it did not manufacture the engine installed in the subject helicopter. Robinson further responds that if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is

R0606

overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

More specifically, Robinson cannot produce the requested documents with respect to the engine because Robinson did not manufacture the engine and the requested documents are not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time. More specifically, the request seeks drawings and blue prints that are not specific to the accident aircraft. Additionally, the requested documents contain information that is highly sensitive proprietary and protected trade secrets of Robinson. The confidentiality of such information is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability.

Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, and in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

R0607

• • Drawing A190, Rev Z [V-Belt Sets (Source Control)] (148) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Documents from 2005 to the present referring to or reflecting any operational malfunction, testing malfunction or operational failure or defect of any type with the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this request inasmuch as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, and contains terms and phrases which are ambiguous and undefined and unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Without waiving these objections, if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in time and scope; contains terms and phrases which are ambiguous and undefined; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989).

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or

R0608

occurrence.

The requested documents contain information that is highly sensitive proprietary and protected trade secrets of Robinson. The confidentiality of such information is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, and in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • R22 Service Bulletins, Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

Documents referring to or reflecting any changes, alterations, or modifications in the design instructions or service bulletins for the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further responds that it is not familiar with the term “design instructions” and as such cannot reasonably provide a response. Without waiving these objections, Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins and

R0609

R22 Service Letters. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in time and scope; contains terms and phrases which are ambiguous and undefined; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989).

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

The requested documents contain information that is highly sensitive proprietary and protected trade secrets of Robinson. The confidentiality of such information is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to

R0610

this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Robinson further responds that it is not familiar with the term “design instructions” and as such cannot reasonably provide a response.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins and R22 Service Letters. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. Additionally, in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • FAA Form 8110-3 re: Drawing A190, Rev Z (89)
• • FAA Form 8110-3 re: RTR 009, Rev Z (90)
• • FAA Form 8110-3 re: RTR 009, Rev B (145) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Advertising brochures, safety alerts, safety notices, service bulletins, service letters, service/technical advisories, promotional literature and the like relating to the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving these objections, Robinson refers to the R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The current R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, Robinson Safety Notices and Robinson Safety Alerts are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at

R0611

www.robinsonheli.com. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in time and scope; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989).

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson refers to the R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The current R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance

R0612

Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, Robinson Safety Notices and Robinson Safety Alerts are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. Additionally, in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • R22 Service Bulletins, Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices
• • Current R22 brochure REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

Articles, evaluations, reports, case studies, and the like appearing in aviation or general mechanical engineering periodicals, industry or aviation trade journals, or governmental or aviation groups relative to or concerning any alleged operational or testing malfunction or failure in connection with the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects to this Request inasmuch as it seeks documents which are equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain any file or database of these documents. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in time and scope; seeks information not within the

R0613

actual or constructive control of this party; and seeks information equally available to Plaintiffs; seeks information that as equally cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire as Robinson; and seeks information not within the active or constructive control of this party.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it does not maintain any file or database of these documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

Contracts and/or policies of insurance which might afford coverage to Defendant in the event of a verdict for Plaintiff in the above-styled cause, whether primary, secondary or excess coverage. RESPONSE:

Robinson responds that there is no insurance policy that insures Robinson for claims contained in the subject lawsuit. Robinson has no knowledge of any insurance policies covering third parties for claims contained in the subject lawsuit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

Correspondence between Defendant and Helicopter Services, Inc. regarding the use, experience, anticipated use, flight use, operational concerns, or otherwise specifically pertaining to or governing the maintenance, inspection or operation of the

R0614

helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter and any components of such aircraft manufactured or assembled by Defendant. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson refers Plaintiff to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog, and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989).

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this

R0615

request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson refers Plaintiff to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog, and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. Additionally, in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • Current Robinson Dealership and Service Center Agreement issued to

Helicopter Services

• • 2012 Customer Service Correspondence file for Helicopter Services (3-76) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

For the time period from 2005 to the present, petitions for damages or complaints filed in any court or comparable administrative tribunal in connection with any lawsuits against Defendant in which it is alleged or acclaimed that the helicopter model at issue crashed as a result of design or mechanical failures. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome. Robinson further objects to this request in that it seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case, and as such this information is outside the scope of proper discovery and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

R0616

Robinson further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information which is protected by the attorney work product and/or attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain any database or compilation of responsive documents. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; exceeds the scope of permissible discovery; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; is not reasonably limited in time or scope; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain any database or compilation of responsive documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

Maintenance manuals, parts catalogs, price lists and estimated operating costs

R0617

publications prepared by Defendant and sent to distributors, dealers or repair facilities with respect to appropriate maintenance, inspection and testing of, and parts for, the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson refers to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this

R0618

request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson refers to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. Additionally, in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • Pages 7.50 and 7.52 of the R22 Maintenance Manual (1-2)
• • Excerpts from R22 Maintenance Manual (78, 79, 81-88) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Service difficulty reports generated by Defendant and submitted to any field operatives, dealers, maintenance facilities and distributors with respect to the helicopter model at issue and/or any of its components. RESPONSE:

Robinson responds that Service Difficulty Reports are not generated by Robinson, and such documents are received and maintained by the FAA and are not within Robinson’s custody or control. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; calls for the creation of a nonexistent document; is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; and is not reasonably calculated to lead to

R0619

the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that Service Difficulty Reports are not generated by Robinson, and such documents are received and maintained by the FAA. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

Notices of malfunction or defect reports reported to the FAA or NTSB which in any way relate to tail rotor effectiveness in the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson responds that this Request seeks documents maintained by the FAA, and not in Robinson’s custody or control. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as

R0620

substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that such documents are maintained by the FAA and/or NTSB. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

Internal memoranda including, but not limited to, letters, bulletins, reports, test results, investigative evaluations and the like generated within and by employees of Defendant or at the behest of Defendant relating to any alleged or perceived malfunction, materials problem, operational or maintenance failure or alleged failure with any component of the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson responds it does not believe it is in possession of responsive documents at this time.

R0621

AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

Accident investigation reports or memoranda prepared by or at the behest of Defendant, including reports of all in-house investigations, diagrams, photographs, witness statements, engineering or test reports and memoranda, litigation testing and the like, regarding any crash of the helicopter model at issue (including the subject helicopter in the crash made the basis of this lawsuit).

R0622

RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects to this Request as it seeks documents relating to other helicopters not related to the accident in question without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson also objects to this Request inasmuch as it seeks information protected by the attorney work product and attorney/client privilege. Without waiving this objection, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff

R0623

contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • RHC Accident Report REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Documents, materials, reports or memoranda contained within FAA or NTSB files concerning operation or testing deficiencies or failures, either actual or alleged, relating to the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope, and seeks documents which are proprietary and trade secret in nature. Without waiving this objection, Robinson responds that this Request seeks documents maintained by the FAA and/or the NTSB, and not in Robinson’s custody or control. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; seeks information

R0624

that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

The requested documents contain information that is highly sensitive proprietary and protected trade secrets of Robinson. The confidentiality of such information is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability.

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that such documents are maintained by the FAA and/or NTSB. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

Evaluations, whether conducted internally or externally, at the behest of

R0625

Defendant, upon the subject helicopter, both before and after the crash. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and burdensome as framed. Without waiving this objection, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • RHC Accident Report REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Documents referring to or reflecting any testing, whether operation or field testing or component, experimental or laboratory testing, concerning evaluation of the helicopter model at issue's engine and rotor systems. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks documents which are proprietary and contain trade secrets. Without waiving these objections, if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a

R0626

response. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

The requested documents contain information that is highly sensitive proprietary and protected trade secrets of Robinson. The confidentiality of such information is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • RTR 009, Appendix XIII (91-144)
• • RTR 009, Appendix III (146-147)

R0627

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

Correspondence between Defendant and Helicopter Services, Inc. referring or relating to the proper inspection, maintenance and operation of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request in that it is duplicative in nature. Robinson refers to its response to Request for Production No. 7, which is incorporated herein by reference. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

Correspondence referring to or reflecting proper maintenance, operation, and flight use of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. This Request seeks ‘correspondence’ without indicating between what parties it is referring to. If Plaintiff can clarify this Request, Robinson can attempt to provide a reasonable response. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in time and scope; requests “correspondence” without indicting what parties/entities it is referring to; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks information

R0628

protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; exceeds the scope of permissible discovery; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); and cannot be answered as framed.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

Each and every exhibit that Defendant will offer at trial for any purpose, including all demonstrative exhibits, all substantive exhibits and all tangible, photographic or documentary evidence which Defendant will attempt to show to the jury or otherwise use at the trial of this case. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature at this stage of discovery, and disclosure of such documents and things will be conducted at the appropriate time under the relevant rules of Court. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

Any videotapes, photographs, or other similar evidence in your possession depicting and/or relating in any way to Plaintiff.

R0629

RESPONSE:

Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. AMENDED RESPONSE:

In response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • RHC Accident Report REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

Each and every exhibit, including all demonstrative exhibits, all substantive exhibits and all tangible, photographic or documentary evidence that have been reviewed by or created by your testifying experts or that in any way support or illustrate your testifying experts' opinions that are relevant to this case. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature at this stage of discovery, and disclosure of such documents and things will be conducted at the appropriate time under the relevant rules of Court. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

Your current balance sheet, financial statement or other document(s) sufficient to show your current net worth. For purposes of this request, "net worth" means the difference between total assets and liabilities determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to the Request as it seeks privileged financial

R0630

records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson also objects to this Request as the information requested is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant, and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:

Photographs, videos or maps of the scene of the crash. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome, seeks information which is equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Without waiving these objections, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number

N281RG.

AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; and seeks information equally available to Plaintiffs; seeks information that as equally cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire as Robinson; and seeks information not within the active or constructive control of this party.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states

R0631

that it has previously produced the following documents:

• • RHC Accident Report REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:

All documents supporting your claim that another person or entity is a Responsible Third Party that has not been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE:

Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature, discovery is in progress and the investigation and preparation have not been completed. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request on the grounds that it is premature, discovery is in progress and the investigation and preparation have not been completed; and is duplicative of information properly requested pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

Pilot operating manuals, helicopter operational manuals, or the like, prepared by Defendant for the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE:

Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Flight Training Guide, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, and Robinson Safety Notices. Robinson will produce a full set of R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook and R22 Flight Training Guide are publicly available for

R0632

purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. AMENDED RESPONSE:

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome; and unlimited in time and scope.

Plaintiffs’ request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous in that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time, and seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case or substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Flight Training Guide, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, and Robinson Safety Notices. Robinson will produce a full set of R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook and R22 Flight Training Guide are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. Additionally, in response to the foregoing request, Robinson has previously produced the following documents:

• • R22 Service Bulletins, Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices
• • R22 POH, page 4—7 (80)

R0633

Respectfully submitted,

COATS & EVANS, P.C.

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003

Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

R0634

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney, as attorney of record for the Defendant, certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all parties of record on this the 24th day of July, 2015.

MARK T. MURRAY Via Email and/or Facsimile STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com

DON SWAIM Via Email and/or Facsimile CUNNINGHAM SWAIM, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Ste. 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-646-1495 dswaim@cunninghamswaim.com

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats

R0635

EXHIBIT "C"

NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES § and NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants.

DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. ("Robinson") hereby responds to Plaintiffs NATHAN S. ATES’, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES and NATHAN M. ATES (“Plaintiffs’”) Second Request for Production for the purpose of this action only without admitting in any way or to any extent the relevance to this cause of action or the admissibility as evidence of any statement or document provided herein, and without prejudice to subsequently discovered facts or information relevant to these requests. Robinson’s discovery is not completed at this time, and, as such defendant reserves the right to supplement any and all responses herein by reason of subsequently discovered information.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Robinson submits the following general objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions, Definitions and Discovery Requests which apply to each and every request contained in

R0636

Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to Robinson. For convenience, these general objections are set forth below and are not necessarily repeated after each request. The assertion of the same, similar or additional objections to a specific request does not waive any of Robinson’s general objections as set forth below:

1. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek to expand the scope of, or impose upon Robinson obligations greater than those required by the applicable rules of the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or applicable orders of this Court.

2. Robinson reserves the right to challenge the competency, relevancy and admissibility, at trial or any subsequent proceeding, in this or any other action, of any information produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests.

3. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they are directed to or made on behalf of entities or persons who are not parties to this case or over whom Robinson has no control.

4. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests on the grounds that they are ambiguous, vague, overly broad, oppressive and unduly burdensome, and seek information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

5. Robinson bases its responses on information currently available to it, after reasonable inquiry, and Robinson reserves the right to amend and/or supplement its objections and responses to conform to information and documents which may be obtained through ongoing discovery and investigation, in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery.

R0637

6. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they attempt to elicit protected documents or information subject to the attorney client privilege; the work product doctrine; a joint or common defense privilege; the confidentiality of documents containing the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories of Robinson or its attorneys; or seeks materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or information that is proprietary in nature. Robinson asserts each and every one of the foregoing privileges and protections applicable to the information sought to the fullest extent provided by law, applicable rules, current and future case management orders.

7. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek documents or information not within Robinson’s possession, custody or control.

8. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek information or documents constituting trade secrets, or other confidential, research, development, commercial, financial and/or proprietary information.

9. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek information which is within Plaintiffs’ knowledge, possession, custody or control, or otherwise accessible to Plaintiffs from other sources with substantially the same or greater facility than Robinson.

10. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they are unlimited in time, or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to this litigation, and to Robinson’s products at issue in this case, on the grounds that such

R0638

requests seek documents neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they include contention interrogatories that solicit premature responses before the close of discovery.

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

Robinson makes the following specific objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions, which objections are incorporated into all of Robinson’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests where applicable. Any omission to refer specifically to such objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions and instructions shall not be deemed a waiver of such objections.

Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and to the extent that Robinson may not be able to ascertain all entities and/or individuals falling within these definitions. Further, Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” to the extent that they seek to expand the scope of, or impose obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

R0639

SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to each and every investigation of a Robinson R22 helicopter crash that you have been a part of during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request number 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: A full and complete copy of all investigation reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that have been prepared by you or provided to you regarding a Robinson R44 helicopter model crash during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

R0640

of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: A full and complete copy of all investigation reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that have been prepared by you or provided to you regarding a Robinson R22 helicopter model crash during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request number 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; duplicate of request number 1 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its

R0641

possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any malfunction and/or failure that resulted in a crash that you have been made aware of regarding a Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request numbers 1 and 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any malfunction and/or failure that resulted in a crash that you have been made aware of regarding a Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information

R0642

protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all incidents (including crashes) involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is duplicative of request number 5 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and

R0643

confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all incidents (including crashes) involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; duplicative of request numbers 1 and 13 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; duplicative of request number 4 of Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production; constitutes a mere “fishing expedition” prohibited by the Texas Supreme Court in Lofton v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1989); seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; seeks production of items previously produced; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence; and seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R44 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crash or incident during the last twelve years.

R0644

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: A full and complete copy of all settlements involving a Robinson R22 helicopter model for death and/or personal injury as a result of a crash/incident during the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the

R0645

scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R44 helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: A full and complete copy of all expert reports, generated by you or provided to you, analyzing the Robinson R22 helicopter model during the last twelve years, in reference to personal injury or death.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to

R0646

the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non- objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: A full and complete copy of all opinions, articles, bulletins, memoranda, and/or presentations that you have issued pertaining to aerial photography services utilizing R-22 and/or R-44 helicopters during the last twelve years.

Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: A full and complete copy of all safety reports, issued by your Safety Committee, regarding the helicopter model at issue.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope and time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated

R0647

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request number 4 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any accident reconstruction, in whole or any part, relative to this case.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request numbers 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to any accident reconstruction relative to any case involving a Robinson R22 helicopter in the last twelve years.

R0648

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents containing confidential information; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) that have discussed, analyzed, and/or concluded the possible cause(s) of the crash subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is duplicative of request numbers 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs’ first requests for production; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; calls for a legal conclusion; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege and the trade secret privilege. Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) that have discussed the analytics, investigations and/or conclusions regarding cause(s) of crashes in which Robinson R-22 helicopters have been involved during the last twelve years.

R0649

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; seeks confidential information; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents containing confidential information; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: A full and complete copy of the operating manual pertaining to the Robinson R22 helicopter model.

RESPONSE: This is publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: A full and complete copy of the operating manual pertaining to the Robinson R44 helicopter model.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, This is publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: A full and complete copy of your corporate policies and procedures, including any mission statements, code of conduct, and/or any statements covering business ethics and safety procedures for your company.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is

R0650

propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All documents, correspondence, and/or communications submitted to NTSB during the last twelve years which involve R-22 helicopter crashes resulting in personal injury or death.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All witness statements that were obtained relative to the incident subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is vague, overly broad, duplicative of Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosures; and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it will supplement this response and will produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All reports, memos, conclusions, and/or documents that Robinson maintains suggest pilot error occurred during the crash subject of this suit.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented;

R0651

unlimited in scope; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks documents previously produced; seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks documents protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Robinson states that it will supplement this response and will produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All documents addressing or discussing the belt drive system and power failures associated with the Robinson R22 helicopter model.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: A full and complete copy of all service bulletins and safety notices issued for Robinson R-22 helicopters and Robinson R-44 helicopters during the last 12 years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

R0652

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: A full and complete copy of all service bulletins and safety notices withdrawn for the Robinson R-22 helicopter.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Final engineering drawings which describe and identify the R-22 helicopter such as that involved in the incident subject of this suit, including part drawings, depictions of the configuration, specified tolerances, U.S. Government and Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. specifications, engineering orders, "Operation Sheet" a/k/a Outside Data Sheet setting out required specific tooling, inspection requirements, finish coating, process specifications, identification requirements, packaging requirements and any special facilities required for production. This request includes the supporting documentation for the power transfer system and fuel system of the R-22, including belt drive system, fuel tank location, fuel tank liners, clutch system and wiring diagram.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: All documents, correspondence, and communications (including emails) pertaining to all belt manufacturing changes, including changes from Gates to any other manufacturer, involving the Robinson R22 helicopter model from 2003 to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as

R0653

presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Records identifying each and every crash in which any R-22 helicopter models have been involved including but not limited to crash date, crash location, root cause analysis, investigation materials, identity of investigators and exact model of helicopter involved from 2003 to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks documents not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Documents reflecting the identity of members of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.'s Safety Committee, including official capacity and/or office held by each, from original establishment of any committee dealing with helicopter safety of Robinson-manufactured helicopters, to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome; unlimited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential and proprietary; violates third-party’s privacy rights and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

R0654

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: All documents provided to customers purchasing the R-22 helicopter from Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., i.e., warranty information, brochures, guarantees, user guides, etc. from 2003 to the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; unlimited in scope; not reasonably limited in time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29 [sic]: All Exhibit "A's" attached to any protective order entered on behalf of and/or for the benefit of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., including those executed by consulting witnesses and/or testifying witnesses who have or may have reviewed documents related to Robinson R-22 helicopters.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is vague; overly broad; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege; seeks information protected by attorney-work product privilege; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30 [sic]: All documents which reflect testing of the belt drive system such as that utilized on the Robinson R-22 helicopter subject of this suit, including but not limited to stretching of belts, conditioning of belts, instructions for belt replacement, instructions for belt inspection and instructions for handling any belt "failure."

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and

R0655

exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31 [sic]: All documents which evidence and/or reflect instructions for response to rotor power loss while piloting a Robinson R-22 helicopter.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Information reflecting the net worth of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that is seeks privileged financial records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson further objects to the extent that the request seeks information that is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and is duplicative of request number 22 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant, and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. Robinson incorporates by reference its prior briefing to the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals on this issue.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: All documents exchanged between Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and Helicopter Services, Inc. which resulted in HSI becoming a factory-authorized Robinson Helicopter Service Center.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

R0656

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: All documents which evidence inspections, reviews, audits or any other documents submitted by HSI to Robinson in order to maintain its designation with Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: All documents which reflect, depict and/or outline the training of HSI technicians, service and/or repair personnel, by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. personnel and/or its representatives, authorizing HSI to service the R-22 helicopter in question.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All photographs of post-crash R-22 helicopters from 2003 through the present.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential; seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Produce all documentation evidencing and/or reflecting post-crash fuel fed fires from 2003 through the present, involving R-22 and/or R-44 helicopters.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is confidential; seeks information not within the actual or

R0657

constructive control of this party; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: All deposition transcripts of the following individuals, which are maintained by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. and/or its counsel:

a. Robert McSwain, McSwain Engineering, Inc. b. William "Bill" Carden, McSwain Engineering, Inc. c. Sri Kumar, Ph.D., Safety Research Institute d. Colin Sommer, Aeroscope, Inc. e. WilliamS. Lawrence, Colonel USMC (Ret' d), ConsulAir, Inc. f. Joseph L. Burton, M.D. g. Dr. Kenneth Orloff, Orloff Consulting

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; is propounded for the purpose of harassment; seeks information that is protected by attorney-work product privilege; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the request to the extent that it seeks information unrelated to the accident aircraft and/or outside the scope of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: To the extent that Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. maintains it is self-insured, produce any and all documents which evidence or reflect all financial limitations and/or restrictions relative to the incident in question.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; is duplicative of request number 6 of Plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production; and is duplicative of Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosures.

R0658

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: All documents obtained from the NTSB including but not limited to photographs, statements and /or conclusions relative to the R-22 helicopter subject of this litigation.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope; and seeks information not within the actual or constructive control of this party. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: All documents which evidence or reflect the decision to line, not to line and/or to delay lining the aluminum fuel tanks of the R-22 Robinson Helicopter with alternative materials.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non-objectionable, non- privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: All documents reflecting the decision to line, not to line and/or to delay lining the aluminum fuel tanks of the R-44 Robinson Helicopter with alternative materials.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; vague; ambiguous; unduly burdensome and expensive to produce as presented; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; seeks information that is confidential, proprietary and contains trade secrets; and exceeds the permissible scope of discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ request relating to a model that is not even the

R0659

same model as the accident aircraft is completely outside the scope of permissible discovery. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents protected by the work product privilege, the trade secret privilege and/or protective orders and confidentiality agreements in other cases. Because Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory as to what Plaintiff contends caused the accident, it is impossible to determine if Robinson has documents responsive to so broad a request which might actually be discoverable in this case. To the extent Plaintiff articulates a theory of causation and/or narrows the scope of this request, Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response and produce documents in its possession which are non- objectionable, non-privileged, responsive to this request and pertain to the accident aircraft and/or the subject matter of this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: All maintenance manuals associated with the Robinson R-22 Beta distributed during the regular course of business by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. over the last twelve years.

RESPONSE: Robinson objects to the immediately preceding request to the extent that it is overly broad; not reasonably limited in scope or time; is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to the extent that this request seeks documents unrelated to the accident aircraft without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence.

Subject to, but without waiving any of the foregoing objections, responsive documents are publically available on Robinson’s website: http://www.robinsonheli.com/#

Respectfully submitted,

COATS & EVANS, P.C.

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 evans@texasaviationlaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003

Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

R0660

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney, as attorney of record for the Defendant, certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all parties of record on this the 15th day of July, 2015.

MARK T. MURRAY Via Email and/or Facsimile STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com

DON SWAIM Via Email and/or Facsimile CUNNINGHAM SWAIM, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Ste. 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-646-1495 dswaim@cunninghamswaim.com

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats

R0661

NO. 2014-34635

NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES § and NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants.

ORDER

On this day of , 2015, came on to be heard Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections. After notice to all parties, and upon considering the Motion, any response, the evidence, the pleadings and the arguments of counsel, if any, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs’ motion should be DENIED. It is therefore,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections be hereby DENIED in all respects.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Objections to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production be SUSTAINED.

R0662

SIGNED on , 2015.

PRESIDING JUDGE

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

COATS & EVANS, P.C

By: /s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew “Drew” Coats State Bar No. 00783846 Email: coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans State Bar No. 00795338 Email: evans@texasaviationlaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 Telephone: (281) 367-7732 Facsimile: (281) 367-8003

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.

R0663

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that pursuant to Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered to all counsel of record on the 12th day of August, 2015.

MARK T. MURRAY Via Electronic Filing STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com

DON SWAIM Via Electronic Filing CUNNINGHAM SWAIM, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Ste. 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 214-646-1495 dswaim@cunninghamswaim.com

/s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew “Drew” Coats

R0664

Footnotes

[12] o'clock Position -I 12 - 1c 9 o' clock Posit ion I fl Ij . ' 1 I -· '~ ,!''l~ I ~ I . t ' I ; I ~ .. ... ' . ; l 6 o' clock Posit ion - 6 H MM !' I - 3 o' clock Position 3 ltLIM lf . . I ~.'I '• ·,' j FORW DP-0089-0097 ENCLOSURE2 R0488 J Sample 7 DP-0 123 Sample 8 Sample 11 Sample 9 Sample 12 Sample 10 12 DP-0199 DP-0 183 ENCLOSURE 3 R0489