20050121Answer and Motion.pdf

Mary York, Esq. (ISB No. 5020)
HOLLAND & HART, LLP
Suite 1400, U.S. Bank Plaza
101 South Capitol Boulevard
Post Office Box 2527
Boise, Idaho 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
T. Scott Thompson, Esq.
Brian M. Josef, Esq.
Rita Tewari, Esq.
Cole, Raywid & Braverman, LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.
Second Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Meredith R. Harris, Esq.
AT&T Corp.
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, New Jersey 07921
[phone]
RECEIVED
Robert M. Pomeroy, Esq. (CSB Ncf%&~
HOLLAND & HART, LLP
8390 E. Crescent ParkwaySuite 400 iiJ ,d F'1jBL~C
Greenwood Village, CO 80111-2smLrr!ES COt"iJ-i/SSIOH
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
innS JAN 21 Fi1
Attorneys for AT&T Corp. and AT&T
Communications of the Mountain States, Inc.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
AT&T CORP., a New York Corporation;
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
MOUNTAIN STATES, INC., a Colorado
Corporation
Complainants
vs.
QWEST CORPORATION, a Colorado
Corporati on
Respondent.
) AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION
) TO QWEST'S MOTION TO
) PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
) DISCOVERY AND MOTION
) REQUESTING PRE-HEARING
) CONFERENCE TO REVISE
) PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
Case No. ATT-O4-
AT&T Corp., and AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. (collectively
AT&T"), by and through its attorneys, Holland & Hart, hereby files the following Answer in
Opposition to Qwest's Motion to Propound Additional Discovery and Motion Requesting Pre-
Hearing Conference to Revise Procedural Schedule.
I. INTRODUCTION
AT&T opposes Qwest's Motion on the grounds that it attempts to draw irrelevant issues
into the proceedings and draw the Commission s attention away from the simple fact that Qwest
is charging AT&T unlawful conduit rental rates far in excess of those it charges other
communications companies.
To begin, Qwest provides no justification for propounding additional rounds of
discovery. Qwest had all of the information it needed to ask these questions in its first round of
discovery but simply chose not to.
In addition, Qwest has provided no legal support for its position that the Commission
must hold an evidentiary hearing in this case. All precedent points to the opposite conclusion:
that Summary Judgment is an appropriate and accepted method the Commission may use to
reach decisions.
Qwest's attempt to impose an evidentiary hearing into this process will complicate the
issues and distract the Commission from the core issue in this case: that Qwest charges AT&T
more for conduit than Qwest charges other carriers providing the same services. Put simply, an
evidentiary hearing will provide no further relevant information to assist the Commission in
resolving this dispute or other virtue. As described in further detail below, all of the factual
issues Qwest raises either are not genuinely in dispute, are not relevant to the legal issues before
the Commission, or are issues of law appropriate for Summary Judgment.
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 1
Finally, to the extent the Commission grants Qwest's motion for an evidentiary hearing,
it should first decide as a matter of law Qwest's affirmative defense in which it challenges the
Commission s jurisdiction over the case, generally. For that reason, AT&T requests that, to the
extent the Commission grants Qwest's motion, the Commission also order that prior to any
hearing sufficient time be allocated to permit briefing and resolution of the issue of the
Commission s jurisdiction that Qwest raised in its Answer.
11.NO ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY IS REQUIRED
As with the Motion to Compel Qwest filed on January 3 , 2005 , AT&T believes that
Qwest's true motive in filing this Motion to Propound Additional Discovery is twofold: (1) to
attempt to use the Commission to obtain discovery related to the other proceedings that it is not
otherwise entitled to receive, and (2) to obfuscate the real issues in this proceeding in an effort to
increase AT&T's expenses and delay AT&T'entitlement to just, reasonable, and non-
discriminatory conduit rental rates.
AT&T opposes generally Qwest's Motion on the grounds that Qwest has failed to
provide any factual or legal support for its claim that additional discovery is necessary. The only
argument Qwest makes in favor of its Motion is that "The additional questions propounded in
Washington go to the heart of several issues in this case. At the same time, they were limited in
scope and clearly within the discovery standard followed by this Commission.This is not
sufficient. Although AT&T is entitled to just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates under both
Washington and Idaho state laws, those laws are not identical. Qwest's cursory explanation fails
to explain the relevance of the Washington requests to the Idaho proceeding. Ultimately, Qwest
1 Motion p.
AT&T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 2
fails to demonstrate why these requests fit within the Commission s discovery standards or even
what issues they will address.
Furthermore, no extenuating circumstances warrant granting Qwest's Motion. Qwest has
had ample time to propound discovery and has failed to show any special circumstances
warranting re-opening of discovery. Qwest's contention that the discovery process has only just
revealed facts on which the parties disagree and that this justifies additional discovery is not
correct. As Qwest discussed at length in its Answer, the parties have been litigating substantially
similar issues in the parallel FCC proceedings, not to mention before other state commissions.
AT&T's claims, defenses and other positions on the issues were disclosed to Qwest in those
other proceedings and Qwest has known about these positions for months?
More specifically, AT&T cannot respond to Qwest's Motion because Qwest has failed to
submit its proposed additional round of discovery or identify the issues or topics on which it
seeks further information.It wants carte blanche on substance number and timing of its
additional requests. Qwest's statement that it intends "to follow up on some of the topics
covered (sic J its earlier discovery in this Idaho case to clarify some of the positions taken by the
AT&T Claimants that relate to the disputed facts" offers little clarification, does not explain why
such follow up could not be accomplished in the set time frame, and makes anYthing other than a
general opposition to this request impossible. AT&T is concerned that Qwest is requesting that
the Commission give it leave to engage in a wide-ranging fishing expedition.
With the exception of Qwest Washington Data Request No. 24, Qwest has made no
showing that it could not have propounded these requests previously.For all of the requests
including No. 24, Qwest has made no showing that it was unable to ask these questions in its
2 The issues AT&T presented to Qwest in its proposed Joint Stipulation of Facts were issues presented almost
verbatim to Qwest in the FCC proceeding well before this Idaho complaint was filed.
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 3
previous round of discovery. Nothing in Qwest's requests builds on AT&T responses to Qwest's
First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents or is in any way related to
information that Qwest did not have available to it when it propounded its initial set of
discovery. Accordingly, the Commission should deny Qwest's Motion.
Regarding Qwest's Washington Data Request No. 24, that request states:
In AT&T's supplemental responses to Qwest Data Requests
17(c), 17(e), and 19, AT&T states that AT&T Communications
of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. has owned and operated the
facilities in the conduit at issue since the date on which each
applicable license was executed. AT &T further states that it
believes this information "was known to Qwest or its
predecessors-in-interest from the inception of the General
License Agreement for Conduit Occupancy (Response to17(e)). AT&T makes similar allegations in the other
referenced responses.
Please state, in detail, the basis for AT&T's belief that Qwest
or its predecessors knew that the true occupant of the conduit
was AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest and not
AT &T Corp., the actual licensee. In connection with this
response, please provide all documents that support or refute
this contention. Further, provide the names of all persons,
whether employed by Qwest or its predecessors, who AT&T
contends knew of the conduit occupancy by AT&T of the
Pacific Northwest.
Qwest was free to request this information in its initial set of interrogatories but chose not
to. AT&T's position that Qwest knew or should have known that AT&T Communications of the
Mountain States, Inc. was the true occupant of the conduit should come as no surprise to Qwest.
AT&T disclosed this position and its basis for its position in connection with the FCC
proceeding. Qwest cannot now claim that this is new information on which it should be entitled
to conduct follow-up discovery.
More important, this request (like the others Qwest proposes to propound) does not meet
the Commission s standard for discovery:it is not "reasonably calculated to lead to the
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 4
discovery of admissible evidence. ,,3 Qwest has failed to make any showing that this information
is relevant to the parties ' claims or defenses. Regardless of which entity occupies the conduit
Qwest has an obligation under state and federal law to provide just, reasonable and
nondiscriminatory rates. Qwest's failure to understand which entity occupies the conduit does
not alleviate it of that legal responsibility.
At most, the issue suggested in Qwest's Answer , to which this alleged question relates, is
whether AT&T Corp. assigned its rights under the conduit occupancy agreement without
Qwest's approval. Yet, Qwest has not stated any claim of such an "unauthorized" assignment
and even if it had, whether AT&T had breached Article 18 of the conduit agreement is not
legally relevant to whether Qwest has been overcharging AT&T for conduit occupancy for
years.4 AT&T has not brought a claim sounding in contract: AT &T' s sole basis for relief is its
entitlement to just, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates in accordance with Idaho Code
61-315 61-501 61-502 61-503 61-514 and 61-641 and 47 U.C. 9224.
Accordingly, the Commission should deny Qwest's Motion.However, should the
Commission permit Qwest to propound additional discovery, fairness dictates that AT&T should
also be permitted to propound additional discovery. Although AT&T had hoped this proceeding
would remain focused on the core issues in this case, Qwest clearly seeks to draw in collateral
issues. To the extent that the Commission permits Qwest to do so, AT&T will need the
opportunity to conduct additional discovery to prepare responses to these collateral issues.
3 I.R.
P. 26(b); In The Matter Of The Petition Of IAT Communications, Inc. dba Ntch-Idaho, Inc. Or Clear Talk
For Designation As An Eligible Telecommunications Carrier 2003 Ida. PUC LEXIS 154 (Oct. 23 , 2003).4 Qwest has not and could not allege any damage or injury even if such an "unauthorized" assignment - from the
parent to its wholly-owned subsidiary - had occurred. Qwest has been fully, indeed excessively, compensated.
There is no charge by Qwest that there has been any damage or injury to the facilities. The issue, like all of the
issues raised by Qwest, is a patent "smoke screen" - a legal and factual irrelevancy meant to hide Qwest's obvious
violation of the law.
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 5
III.QWEST'S INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMISSION'S HEARING
REQ UIREMENT IS FLAWED
Qwest's argument that the Commission is not empowered to render a decision on
AT&T's Complaint without a formal evidentiary hearing is superficial and unsupported by law.
Conspicuously absent from Qwest's Motion is any legal basis for its conclusion that the
Summary Judgment Motions and Hearings on those Motions will not satisfy the Commission
statutory requirements.
Qwest's interpretation is overly literal. Nothing in the statutes under which AT&T seek
relief-Idaho Code 99 61-315 61-501 , 61-502, 61-503 , 61-514 and 61-641-specify that the
Commission must hold a live trial-type evidentiary hearing with detailed live testimony from a
long list of witnesses that likely would have little or nothing to add to the record necessary for
this Commission to reach a decision here.Moreover Qwest overlooks the fact that the
Commission is empowered to hold a hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment. 5 There
no reason to believe that such a hearing would not satisfy any statutory requirement to conduct a
hearing.Indeed, Qwest has cited no law supporting its arbitrary distinction between an
evidentiary hearing and a hearing on a dispositive motion. As a result, AT&T respectfully
requests that the Commission reject Qwest's claim that applicable statutes mandate an
evidentiary hearing, and resolve AT&T's Complaint based on a Motion for Summary Judgment.
IV.NO MATERIAL FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE
At the outset, AT&T believes that Qwest's assertion that there are genuine issues of
material fact in dispute is premature. The parties have not met to discuss a statement of
See IDAP A ~ 31.01.01.254 (The Commission may set and hear oral argument on any matter before it on
reasonable notice according to the circumstances).
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 6
stipulated facts, or even to determine which facts are indeed in dispute.More important
however, AT&T believes that any issues on which the parties could possibly disagree will not
affect the Commission s ability to render a decision on the question presented by AT&T'
Complaint, namely, whether AT&T is and has been entitled to just, reasonable and
nondiscriminatory conduit rates, which are at least equal to those Qwest charges other
communications carriers.
Qwest identifies three categories of facts that it asserts "are or may be in dispute.
AT&T addresses each in turn.
First, Qwest alleges that the issue of "whether Qwest's predecessor had actual knowledge
of the true occupant of the conduit" is in dispute. 8 This is neither a material fact nor is it
genuinely in dispute. Although AT&T believes it is quite clear that Qwest has had knowledge of
the true occupant of the conduit, ultimately, this issue is not relevant or material to AT&T's legal
right to the same non-discriminatory conduit rates Qwest charges other carriers.
It is irrelevant to the application of Idaho Code 99 61-315 61-501 61-502 61-503 61-
514 and 61-641 or 47 U.C. 9 224 whether Qwest's predecessor had actual knowledge of the
true occupant of the conduit.Even if, as Qwest asserts, it did not know that AT
Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. was the entity occupying the conduit, as opposed
to American Telephone and Telegraph, it does not change the fact that AT&T Communications
of the Mountain States, Inc., which is certified by the Commission to provide both local and
interexchange service, and its parent AT&T Corp. are legally entitled to be charged only just and
6 On December 29 2004, AT&T's counsel forwarded to Qwest's counsel a draft Joint Stipulation of Facts. Qwest's
only response was to file a Motion to Compel on January 3, 2005 and its Motion requesting an evidentiary hearing.
AT&T has not received a proposed stipulation from Qwest or comments on AT&T's draft.7 Qwest Motion ~ 8, p. 4.
Id.
AT&T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 7
reasonable rates on a nondiscriminatory basis. Idaho Code 99 61-315 , 61-501 , 61-502, 61-503
61-514 and 61-641; see also 47 U.C. 9 224.
At most, the issue suggested in Qwest's Answer , to which this alleged question relates, is
whether AT&T Corp. assigned its rights under the conduit occupancy agreement without
Qwest's approval. Yet, Qwest has not stated any claim of such an "unauthorized" assignment
and even if it had, whether AT&T had breached Article 18 of the conduit agreement is not
legally relevant to whether Qwest has been overcharging AT&T for conduit occupancy for
years.9 AT &T has not brought a claim sounding in contract: AT &T' s sole basis for relief is its
entitlement to just, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates in accordance with Idaho Code
61-315, 61~501 , 61-502, 61-503, 61-514 and 61-641 and 47 U.C. 9 224.
Second, Qwest alleges that the issue of "how the contract rates were arrived at" is in
dispute.lO Again, this issue is not relevant, and thus not a "material" fact. Idaho Code 99 61-
315 , 61-501 , 61-502, 61-503 , 61-514 and 61-641 entitle AT&T to just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory conduit rental rates. Qwest has admitted in its Answer that the conduit rental
rate it makes available pursuant to its SGA T is a just and reasonable rate. 11 It is irrelevant how
the contract rates were arrived at in 1988. Since that time, the law has changed, and Qwest is
required, by its contract with AT&T and otherwise, to charge AT&T no more than a just and
reasonable rate on a nondiscriminatory basis.
9 Qwest has not and could not allege any damage or injury even if such an "unauthorized" assignment - from the
parent to its wholly-owned subsidiary - had occurred. Qwest has been fully, indeed excessively, compensated.
There is no charge by Qwest that there has been any damage or injury to the facilities. The issue, like all of the
issues raised by Qwest, is a patent "smoke screen" - a legal and factual irrelevancy meant to hide Qwest's obvious
violation of the law.10 Qwest Motion ~ 8, p. 4.
11 Answer~ 17
, p.
12. 12 Under Article 15 of the conduit agreement, subsequent changes in law were to be adhered to by the parties.
(Complaint Exhibit 4, Art. 15).
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 8
The issue of relevancy aside, there is no dispute over facts. F or example, in discovery
AT&T requested information about how Qwest calculated the $2.75 to $3.25 per foot rates at
issue in this proceeding:
Identify and explain the methodology, formulae, cost accounts, data and/or other
bases, if any, used by Qwest in calculating or formulating the conduit rental rates
assessed under the individual conduit licenses issued pursuant to the General
License Agreement for Conduit Occupancy Between Pacific Northwest Bell
Telephone Company and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company for
the State of Washington dated May, 28 1988 (the " General Conduit License
Agreement") in Idaho. 14
Qwest responded that it did not have any such calculations:
The annual occupancy fees specified in conduit license numbers 88-, 88-, 88-
, 88-, 89-, and 90-2 were individually negotiated between the parties.
Qwest has no records showing the methodologies, formulae, cost accounts, data
and/or other bases for negotiating these rates.
AT&T does not believe that Qwest's response creates a fact in dispute.
Furthermore, when Qwest posed the same question to AT &T during discovery in the
parallel Washington proceeding, AT&T responded that it also had no record of any calculations
or formulae used to reach these rates.16 AT&T fails to see how this creates a dispute of fact.
Both Qwest and AT&T agree that no records of calculations or formulae or how the rates were
established exist. AT &T believes that Qwest is attempting to fabricate a controversy where none
exists-as a deliberate tactic to obscure its refusal to address the issues that legitimately are
dispute.
13
See Qwest Response to AT&T's First Set of Data Requests and Request for Production of Documents , Request
No. AT&T 01-011 I, attached hereto as Exhibit
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 See AT&T's Response to Qwest's Third Set of Data Requests, Request No. 29 (Washington), attached hereto as
Exhibit 2.
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 9
Third, Qwest alleges that the issue of "the facts concerning how to perform a proper cost
and pricing calculation pursuant to the applicable statutory standard" is in dispute.17 This is not a
material fact in dispute. Again, AT&T is hard-pressed to see the factual dispute over this issue.
The issue of what formula, if any, should apply to Qwest's rates is a question of law. Indeed , in
its Answer Qwest admitted that the question of whether Qwest's rates were just , reasonable and
non-discriminatory in accordance with 47 U.C. 9 224 and Idaho Code 9 61-301 is a question of
law and not fact:
Complaint paragraph 14: Qwest's published SGA T conduit rate
set forth below is "just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory" and
consistent with 47 U.C. 9 224 and Idaho Code 9 61-301.
Qwest Answer paragraph 14: The allegations in paragraph 14 of
the Complaint set forth legal argument and conclusions to which
no response is required.
More important, AT&T is not requesting that the Commission develop or otherwise use a
formula to calculate Qwest's rates. As noted above , Qwest has admitted that its SGA T rates are
just and reasonable rates.18 Moreover, Qwest has admitted that the SGA T rates were calculated
using the FCC's conduit rate formula.19 In its Complaint, AT&T also has accepted Qwest's
SGAT rate as a just and reasonable rate for purposes of Idaho Code 99 61-315, 61-501 , 61-502
61-503, 61-514 and 61-641. In other words, the rates themselves are not in dispute. And thus
AT&T simply seeks non-discriminatory access to such rates, which are the same rates that Qwest
charges other carriers pursuant to Idaho Code 99 61-315, 61-501 , 61-502, 61-503, 61-514 and
61-641. AT&T's entitlement to such treatment is a matter of law based on the application of the
undisputed, admitted facts in this case.
17 Qwest Motion ~ 6.18 Answer ~ 17
, p.
12.
19 Answer ~ 14, p. 12.
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 10
In sum Qwest raises issues that are irrelevant to AT&T's request for relief, are not
genuinely in dispute, and/or are actually questions of law appropriate for summary judgment.
As such, AT&T requests that the Commission deny Qwest's request for an evidentiary hearing.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD RESOLVE THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
FIRST
In the event that the Commission grants Qwest's request for an evidentiary hearing,
AT &T requests that the Commission first resolve the issue of the Commission s jurisdiction over
this matter so that the parties and the Commission do not undertake the cost of such a hearing
only to risk the Commission holding it does not have jurisdiction afterward.
Qwest alleges, as an affirmative defense, that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over
AT&T's complaint.Although AT&T disagrees with Qwest's position, it is nonetheless
concerned about pursuing a lengthy adjudicatory process - especially if the Commission sets this
matter for evidentiary hearing - with the basic question of jurisdiction overhanging the
proceeding. AT&T sees no reason to consume the Commission s and the parties' resources with
an evidentiary hearing if the Commission would ultimately conclude that it lacks jurisdiction
over the matter. For that reason, in the event that the Commission grants Qwest's request for an
evidentiary hearing, AT&T requests that the Commission set a pleading cycle for briefing of the
issue of the Commission jurisdiction (in the form of a motion for partial summary
determination on Qwest's affirmative defense) and permit sufficient time for any evidentiary
hearing to take place only after the Commission resolves the jurisdictional question.
20 Qwest Answer, ~ 3 , pp. 7-
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 11
VI.CONCLUSION
Because of the disruption to the previous procedural schedule by Qwest's current motion
AT&T does agree that the current procedural schedule should be altered. Otherwise, however
for the reasons set forth above, AT&T respectfully requests that the Commission deny Qwest's
Motion to Revise the Procedural Schedule and Requesting Prehearing Conference. In the
alternative, in the event that the Commission grants Qwest's motion for an evidentiary hearing,
AT&T requests that the Commission order the parties to submit briefing on the question of
jurisdiction before any further action takes place on this docket.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED this 21st day of January, 2005.
AT&T CORP. AND AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
MOUNTAIN STATES, INC.
y Yor , Esq. (ISB No. 5020)
H LLAND & HART, LLP
Suite 1400, U.S. Bank Plaza
101 South Capitol Boulevard
Post Office Box 2527
Boise, Idaho 83701
Robert M. Pomeroy, Esq. (CSB No. 7640)
HOLLAND & HART, LLP
8390 E. Crescent Parkway, Suite 400
Greenwood Village, CO 80111-2800
Richard Wolters, Esq.
Meredith R. Harris, Esq.
AT&T CORP.
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, New Jersey 07921
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 12
T. Scott Thompson, Esq.
Brian M. Josef, Esq.
Rita Tewari, Esq.
COLE, RA YWID & BRAVERMAN, LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.
Second Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 21th day of January, 2005, an original and seven (7) true and
correct copies of AT&T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO
PROPOUND ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-
HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE were delivered to:
Weldon Stutzman
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
wstutzm~puc.state.id. us
D U.S. Mail
Dfilectronic Mail0' Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy (Fax)
D U.S. Mail
D .9Jectronic Mail~Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy (Fax)
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
jj ewell~puc.state.id. us
Mary S. Hobson
Curtis D. McKenzie
Stoel Rives LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise, Idaho 83702
msho bson~stoel. com
D U.S. Mail
Electronic Mail
~Hand Delivered
Overnight Mail
Telecopy (Fax)
Adam L. Sherr
Qwest Corporation
1600 ih Avenue, Room 3206
Seattle, W A 98191
adam. sherr~qwest.com
D U.S. Mail
Electronic Mail
tland Delivered
(2rOvernight Mail
Telecopy (Fax)
3330076 _l.DOC
AT &T'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO QWEST'S MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
DISCOVERY AND MOTION REQUESTING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE TO REVISE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE - Page 14