20061201notice_of_oral_argument_order_no_30195.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
December 1, 2006
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
MOUNTAIN STATES, INC.,CASE NO. QWE-06-
COMPLAINANT
NOTICE OF
vs.ORAL ARGUMENT
QWEST CORPORATION,ORDER NO. 30195
RESPONDENT.
On August 21 , 2006, AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. filed a
complaint against Qwest Corporation, alleging that Qwest entered into "secret" interconnection
agreements with Eschelon Telecom and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. The
Complaint alleges a claim of breach of contract, stating that Qwest violated unspecified terms of
an interconnection agreement between AT & T and Qwest (the "Interconnection Agreement") by
not disclosing these "secret" agreements. Complaint at 7-
The Commission issued a summons to Qwest to respond to the Complaint on
September 6, 2006. The Commission also granted the Motions for Limited Admission filed by
AT&T's out-of-state counsel. Order No. 30125. Qwest timely filed its response to the
Complaint as a Motion to Dismiss on September 27, 2006. AT&T timely filed its Response to
Qwest's Motion to Dismiss on October 26, 2006. On October 27, 2006, Qwest filed two
Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice for its out-of-state counsel.
On November 7, 2006, Qwest filed a Motion for Oral Argument with respect to the
issues presented in the Motion to Dismiss. On November 22, 2006, AT&T filed its response
joining in Qwest's request.
THE MOTIONS FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
Pursuant to Procedural Rule 43 , out-of-state counsel for Qwest filed Motions for
Limited Admission with the Commission for the purpose of appearing in this matter. Those
filing were:
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
ORDER NO. 30195
Douglas RM. Nazarian
Hogan & Hartson
III South Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Peter S. Spivack
Hogan & Hartson
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Each Motion avered that a copy of it and the requisite fee were submitted to the Idaho State Bar.
IDAPA 31.01.01.43.05(c); Bar Rule 2220). We find that the Motions meet the requirements of
Rule 43 and grant the Motions.
DISCUSSION
A. The Complaint
Before taking up the Motions, we must first address deficiencies in the Complaint.
Exhibit I , purported to be the Interconnection Agreement, is not fully executed and is missing 10
pages. In other words, it is not the Interconnection Agreement approved by this Commission. In
addition, there is no reference in the Complaint as to when and in what Order it was approved by
the Commission. We find that it is necessary for the Commission to have a complete copy of
the agreement that was filed and approved by the Commission. AT&T shall have seven (7) days
from the service date of this Order to file the complete, fully executed Interconnection
Agreement that was approved by the Commission and identify the Order that approved the
Agreement.
B. The Motions for Oral Argument
Qwest's Motion for Oral Argument was based on its belief that oral argument would
allow the parties to clarify the issues and provide information about Qwest's Motion to Dismiss
and the subsequent filings. AT&T agreed with Qwest, and joined in the Motion for Oral
Argument.
We find that oral argument may be helpful in clarifying the issues that have been
raised by the parties in the Motion to Dismiss and responses thereto. In addition to receiving the
parties' arguments regarding those issues , we also direct the parties to address other issues that
have not yet been raised but appear intertwined in the subject of jurisdiction and the processing
of this Complaint. More specifically, the parties shall address the issues that appear below in
their briefs and their oral arguments.
1. Is AT&T's claim in this matter governed by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 or Idaho state law?
federal
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
ORDER NO. 30195
2. What is the effect and meaning of the Governing Law provision (Section
21.1) of the Interconnection Agreement with respect to the Complaint?
3. Evidence filed by the parties seems to indicate that AT&T and Qwest had
a "dispute" regarding the Interconnection Agreement during its term
regarding the "secret agreements.What actions have been taken by
either party to resolve this dispute under Section 27 of the
Interconnection Agreement? What effect and meaning does Section 27.1
have with respect to the present dispute? What effect and meaning does
Section 27.2 of the Interconnection Agreement have with respect to the
present dispute?
4. What is the effect, if any, of Idaho Code 9 61-642 on AT&T's claim in
this matter?
5. How does Idaho Code 9 62-605(b) confer either jurisdiction or venue on
this Commission to hear this matter?
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Commission shall hear oral argument in
this matter on JANUARY 24, 2007 AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE COMMISSION HEARING
ROOM, 472 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, BOISE, IDAHO
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the DEADLINE FOR QWEST TO
SUBMIT ITS BRIEF IN THIS MATTER IS DECEMBER 22, 2007 The DEADLINE
FOR AT&T TO SUBMIT ITS BRIEF IN THIS MATTER IS JANUARY 10, 2007. All
briefs must comply with Rule 62 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure. IDAP A 31.01.01.62.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that if the parties desire to submit exhibits, each
party is assigned the following exhibit numbers:
AT&T Communications: Exhibit Nos. 1-100
Qwest Corporation:Exhibit Nos. 201-300
All exhibits must comply with the requirements of Rule 231 of the Commission s Rules of
Procedure. IDAPA 31.01.01.01.231.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the oral argument in this matter will be held
in facilities meeting the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).
Persons needing the help of a sign language interpreter or other assistance in order to participate
in or to understand testimony and argument at a public hearing may ask the Commission to
provide a sign language interpreter or other assistance at the oral argument. The request for
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
ORDER NO. 30195
assistance must be received at least five (5) working days before the oral argument by contacting
the Commission Secretary at:
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Fax)
Mail: secretary(fYpuc.idaho.gov
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all proceedings in this case will be held
pursuant to the Commission s jurisdiction under Title 62 of the Idaho Code and specifically
Idaho Code 9 62-615(1). The Commission may enter any Order consistent with its authority
under Title 61.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all proceedings in this matter will be
conducted pursuant to the Commission s Rules of Procedure, 31.01.01.000 et seq.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed by
Messrs. Douglas R. M. Nazarian and Peter S. Spivack are hereby granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties in this proceeding serve all papers
hereafter filed in this matter on all parties of record. Qwest is represented by the following for
purposes of service:
Mary S. Hobson
999 Main, Suite 1103
Boise, ID 83702
Mail: mary.hobson(fYqwest.com
Douglas R.M. Nazarian
Hogan & Hartson
111 South Calvert St.
Baltimore, MD 21202
Mail: drmnazarian(fYhhlaw.com
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service among the parties shall be accomplished
by electronic mail pursuant to Rule 63 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA
31.01.01.063. Any document being filed with the Commission shall be e-mailed to each attorney
of record for each party.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AT&T shall file a complete, fully executed copy
of the Interconnection Agreement and identify the Order that approved such Agreement within
seven (7) days after the service of this Order.
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
ORDER NO. 30195
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit briefs on the dates set forth
above and an oral argument shall be heard on January 24, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission
Hearing Room.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this :J60f4.-
day of November 2006.
I2t lfU--PAUL KJELL NDER, PRESIDENT
d.~
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ENNIS S. HANSE , COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
ORDER NO. 30195