20021101Opposition to Motion to Continue Hearing.pdf

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING - 1
::ODMA\GRPWISE\MT.MTPO.BOI_MT1:419536.1
Conley Ward ISB #1683
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, )
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS )
COMPANY OF IDAHO, CENTURYTEL ) CASE NO QWE-T-02-11
OF IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM )
STATE, POTLATCH TELEPHONE COMPANY )
and ILLUMINET, INC. ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
) CONTINUE HEARING
Complainants )
)
QWEST CORPORATION, )
)
Respondent. )
Come Now the Complainants and Intervenor Electric Lightwave, Inc. (“ELI”) in the
above entitled matter (collectively the “Complainants), by and through their attorneys of record,
and file this Opposition to the “Motion To Continue Hearing” (the “Motion”) by Qwest
Corporation (“Qwest”) in the above-referenced proceeding. For the reasons stated herein, the
Complainants oppose Qwest’s last minute efforts to delay a hearing aimed at resolving the

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING - 2
::ODMA\GRPWISE\MT.MTPO.BOI_MT1:419536.1
improper imposition of SS7 message charges upon certain of the Complainants. Qwest’s
apparent inability to explain its witness’s testimony based on the existence of a relationship
between Qwest and Syringa Networks, LLC forms no basis for a continuance, nor do any efforts
to paint the Motion as attempts to “clarify” issues before the Commission or “narrowing of the
issues and the possibility of settlement.” Motion at 2. Qwest has had a copy of all of the
documents referred to in Mr. Creason’s testimony at all relevant times. Far from not creating
prejudice to any party as alleged by the Motion (see

id.), the Complainants have dedicated
resources in place to proceed with the hearing as scheduled. Therefore, the Motion should be
denied outright and the November 6, 2002 scheduled hearing in this matter should proceed.
According to Qwest, the continuance is being sought to “allow Qwest the opportunity to
conduct discovery, and to prepare and file testimony in response (to) the Direct Testimony of
Charles H. Creason, received by Qwest on October 21.”1 See Qwest Motion at page 1. As
indicated in Mr. Creason’s rebuttal testimony, he is appearing on behalf of the ITA, one of the
Complainants in this case, to rebut the direct testimony of Scott McIntyre which includes
“inaccurate and misleading characterizations of Syringa and the SS7 service it provides.” See

Creason Testimony at p. 2. Mr. Creason’s rebuttal testimony was filed on October 18, 2002, the
date that rebuttal testimony was due in this proceeding. In short, there would be no Creason
rebuttal testimony if Qwest had not filed Mr. McIntyre’s direct testimony concerning Syringa.
Qwest further complains in its Motion that Mr. Creason was not previously identified as a
witness. Obviously, until Qwest’s direct testimony was filed, the Complainants would not be

1 The Idaho Telephone Association (“ITA”), which is sponsoring Mr. Creason, notes that the title
of Mr. Creason’s testimony contains an inadvertent typographical error in that the title should
reflect the fact that Mr. Creason’s testimony should be “Rebuttal Testimony” and any
inconsistencies within the text should likewise be corrected. These inadvertent errors will be
corrected when Mr. Creason takes the stand.

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING - 3
::ODMA\GRPWISE\MT.MTPO.BOI_MT1:419536.1
aware of the need for or the extent of rebuttal testimony.
Qwest next complains that Mr. Creason’s testimony appears to rely upon a contract with
a previously unidentified entity, System Seven. This is another straw man. Mr. Creason
discusses the history of System Seven, which was purchased by Syringa, as background
information in his rebuttal testimony. (It should be noted that System Seven ceased to exist as of
June 21, 2001.)
In light of these facts, there is no basis for a continuance. Qwest’s own actions initiated
the need for the Creason rebuttal testimony. For Qwest to now suggest that it was somehow
surprised by an issue it raised can hardly form the basis for a continuance.2 At best, Qwest can
explore any factual issues when Mr. Creason takes the stand at the hearing. Accordingly, Qwest
has demonstrated no factual basis for the Commission to grant any continuance. Rather, the
Commission should admonish Qwest for its eleventh hour tactics and proceed directly with the
November 6, 2002 hearing as scheduled.
Similarly, the Commission can dismiss outright Qwest’s unsupported contentions that the
continuance will somehow “narrow” or “clarify” the issues in this case. The Complainants are
fully confident in the Commission’s ability to ascertain and identify those issues that require its
decision-making, and post-hearing filings by the parties to this proceeding are more than
adequate to assist those efforts. Equally uncompelling is Qwest’s suggestion that the
continuance will elicit potential “settlement” discussions. Although the complaint was filed only
after extensive efforts were made to resolve the issues without formal Commission resolution,

2 Qwest’s counsel was informed on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 that the Complainants
opposed the request for continuance by ITA’s counsel (who in turn spoke for all of the
Complainants). Contrary to any suggestion by Qwest (see

id., at 3), there was no need for
redundant calls by counsel for any other of the individual Complainants.

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING - 4
::ODMA\GRPWISE\MT.MTPO.BOI_MT1:419536.1
Qwest has failed to initiate any substantive discussions in an effort to resolve those issues since
the filing of the Complaint. Further, the intrastate issues raised in Idaho are the same that have
been raised in other states and, the Complainants are not aware of any efforts by Qwest to pursue
substantive discussions in those jurisdictions. At best, therefore, Qwest’s claims are simply
“boilerplate” with no substantive underpinnings.
Finally, Qwest’s intimation that no “party will be prejudiced” by a grant of its Motion
(id.) is equally without basis. As the Commission is undoubtedly aware, it was difficult to set the
November 6th hearing date in the first place. Multiple attempts were made months ago to find an
alternative date when it appeared that it would conflict with another unrelated hearing in which
Complainants’ attorneys would be participating. Finding an alternative date proved to be
impossible at that time. If anything, the schedules of witnesses, attorneys and the Commission
have now become less capable of change within a reasonable time period. Further, all of the out-
of-town witnesses have airplane and room reservations based upon the existing schedule.
Accordingly, any delay in the November 6th hearing date will, in fact, prejudice the
Complainants, let alone continue to drag out the resolution of issues of which Qwest has been
fully apprised for a considerable amount of time.
In light of the foregoing, the Complainants respectfully submit that the Motion should be
denied. There is no rational basis upon which the Motion could be granted, and the suggestions
offered by Qwest provide none. The issues raised by the Complainants need to be adjudicated
by the Commission. The hearing should proceed on November 6, 2002.

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING - 5
::ODMA\GRPWISE\MT.MTPO.BOI_MT1:419536.1
Respectfully submitted this 1st day of November 2002.
Conley Ward

Morgan W. Richards

Thomas J. Moorman

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING - 6
::ODMA\GRPWISE\MT.MTPO.BOI_MT1:419536.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 1st day of November, 2002, I caused a true and
correct copy of the foregoing OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING to be served by
the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Mary S. Hobson
STOEL RIVES LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702-5958
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile
Stephanie Boyett-Colgan
QWEST SERVICES CORP.
1801 California St., 47th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile
Conley Ward
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
Post Office Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile
Clay Sturgis
Senior Manager
MOSS ADAMS LLP
601 W. Riverside, Suite 1800
Spokane, WA 99201-0663
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile
Lance A. Tade, Manager
State Government Affairs
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF IDAHO
4 Triad Center, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84180
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile
Thomas J. Moorman
KRASKIN, LESSE & COSSON
2120 L St. NW, Suite 520
Washington, D.C. 20037
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile
Richard Wolf, Director
Contracts & Regulatory
ILLUMINET, INC.
Post Office Box 2909
Olympia, WA 98507
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING - 7
::ODMA\GRPWISE\MT.MTPO.BOI_MT1:419536.1
F. Wayne Lafferty
LYKAM SERVICES, INC.
2940 Cedar Ridge Dr.
McKinney, TX 75070
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile

Morgan W. Richards