20050826Motion to compel.pdf

- j"' !:_
t:'
..
:' L(,L L J
1LED
7.u05 AUG 26 Pic, 3:
Dean J. Miller
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, ill 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ioe~mcdevitt-=.m.iller .com
ILl 110 puBLIC
;JT ILlllES CONr11SSION
Attorneys for Level Communications, LLC ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF LEVEL 3
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC'S PETITION
FOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 252(B) OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS
AMENDED BY THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
AND THE APPLICABLE STATE LA WS FOR
RATE, TERMS , AND CONDITIONS OF
INTERCONNECTION WITH QWEST
CORPORATION
Case No. QWE-O5-
MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
COMES NOW Level # Communications, Inc.
, ("
Level 3") by and through its attorneys
and pursuant to IPUCRP 221 et. seq. moves the Commission for an order compelling Quest
Corporation ("Qwest") to provide proper responses to Level 3' s First Set of Interrogatories filed
on June 3 , 2005. More specifically, Level 3 movers for an order compelling Qwest to fully
respond to.
As a preliminary matter, Level 3 respectfully requests expedited consideration of this
motion. Level 3 requests expedited consideration in order to receive supplemental responses
before rebuttal testimony is due on September 16, 2005
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 1
Procedural Background
After a year of negotiations with Qwest, Level 3 filed a Petition for Arbitration on June 3
2005, seeking resolution of, among other things, four basic interconnection rights:
Issue 1:Whether each Party bears its own costs of exchanging traffic at a single
Point of Interconnection per LATA.
Issue 2:Whether Level 3 may exchange all traffic over the interconnection trunks
established under the Agreement.
Issue 3:Whether Qwest's election to be subject to the ISP-Remand Order for the
exchange of ISP-bound traffic requires Qwest to compensate Level 3 for
ISP-bound Traffic at the rate of $0.0007 per minute of use.
Issue 4:Whether Qwest and Level 3 will compensate each other at a rate of
$0.0007 per minute of use for the exchange ofIP enabled or Voice over
Internet Protocol traffic.
On August 3 2005, the Commission issued Procedural Order No. 29819 which
established the following procedural schedule:
August 12, 2005 Simultaneous Direct Testimony
August 26, 2005 Discovery Requests Re: Direct Testimony
September 6, 2005 Discovery Responses
September 16, 2005 Simultaneous Rebuttal Testimony
September 27 2005 Final Prehearing Conference
October 4-, 2005 Hearings
October 21 2005 Post-Hearing Briefs
November 10 2005 Arbitrator s Initial Decision
November 28, 2005 Objections to Initial Decision
December 5 or 6, 2005 Oral Argument to Commission
December 30, 2005 Commission Decision
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 2
II.Standards
Discovery procedures before the Commission are governed by IPUCRP 221 et. seq.
Unless otherwise provided discovery is guided by the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. Parties
my obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to he subject matter involved in the
pending action. IRCP 26(b)(1). It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be
inadmissible at the trial of the information sought appears reasonably likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Id.
Both the Commission s rules and the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure authorize
comprehensive pretrial discovery and are intended to facilitate and simplify the issues and avoid
surprises at trial. As demonstrated below, Level 3 seeks information that is either directly
relevant to the disputed issues in this docket or could reasonably lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Qwest' s refusal to respond to Level 3' s legitimate discovery requests is
contrary to this Commission s rules and Idaho law, and has prejudiced Level3's ability to
properly prepare for hearing. Unless this Motion is granted, Qwest's failure to provide sufficient
responses will also deprive the Commission of the ability to make an informed decision based on
all relevant facts in this proceeding.
III.Argument
The issues in this arbitration go to the core of Level 3' s ability to offer technologically-
innovative and cost-effective services on competitive terms, and to make efficient use of its
network without the imposition of legacy obligations and costs. Level 3' s Data Requests are
intended to gather information that will support Level 3' s argument that Qwest is attempting to
force Level 3 into one-sided interconnection requirements designed to offset Qwest's loss of toll
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 3
revenues due to wider adoption of broadband and other technologies, including Level 3'
Internet protocol. Qwest's objections to these requests are meritless, and its failure to provide
adequate responses threatens Level 3' s ability to draft testimony and prepare for trial.
Accordingly, Level 3 respectfully requests that the Commission grant this motion and
order Qwest to respond to these requests immediately.
Data Request No. 4-Qwest Internet Access Service
Level3's Data Request No.4 asks the following:
Does Qwest have an affiliated Internet Service Provider ("ISP") that offers
Internet access services in the state? If so, please identify the affiliates, and state
the number of end user and wholesale customers in the state for each Qwest ISP
affiliate?a. Please identify each telephone company end office in the state in which Qwest
affiliate ISP has collocated equipment such as modem banks, DSL equipment
routers, A TM switches or other equipment. Please identify the telephone
company that owns/operates each such end office.b. Please list each local calling area within the state in which the affiliate
maintains a physical presence.
Qwest responded with the following objection on July 7, 2005:
Qwest objects to the request that it "state the number of end user and wholesale
customers in the state for each Qwest ISP affiliate" on the basis that the
information requested constitutes a trade or business secret and is highly
confidential and proprietary. Qwest further objects that the information requested
is not relevant and that it does not appear the request is reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Notwithstanding its objections, Qwest responds that two of its affiliates offer
internet access services in Idaho: Qwest Communications Corporation and Qwest
!nterprise America, Inc.
Qwest's objections are unfounded. First, Qwest's confidentiality objections are moot
because the parties have signed a Protective Agreement in this docket specifically for the
purpose of facilitating the exchange of confidential and competitively-sensitive business
information.
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 4
Second, Qwest's objection on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is, without more
insufficient as a matter of law. More importantly, this objection is factually incorrect. Level3'
Data Request No.4 is indeed relevant to Issue 3 in the Petition and to whether the geographic
location of the ISP is relevant to the compensation exchanged by the parties for the transport and
termination of ISP-bound traffic. Level 3 contends that the jurisdiction of calls should be
determined by the NP A-NXX, in accordance with the long-standing industry practice. Qwest, on
the other hand, is attempting to rate traffic based upon the physical location of the customers, not
the NP A-NXX. Request No.4 is intended to elicit information that will assist Level 3 in
rebutting Qwest's position.
Finally, Qwest's response is not responsive to the request , Qwest ignored the questions
arbitrarily offered the name of two Qwest affiliates providing Internet access in Idaho. Request
No.4 seeks end office and local calling area information, not the names of the Qwest affiliates
that provide Internet access service.
Data Request Nos. 11 and 5(e)--Qwest's VoIP Service
Level 3's Data request No. 11 provides:
Please provide the total number of VoIP customers Qwest has in the State as of May 1
2005. How many VoIP terminals does that number represent?
Qwest responded to this request as follows:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that the information sought constitutes a trade
or business secret and is highly confidential and proprietary to Qwest or its affiliates.
Qwest further objects that the information requested is not relevant. Furthermore, it does
not appear the request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
Qwest's objections are without merit. First, as discussed about, the Commission has
issued a Protective Order in this proceeding. Accordingly, Qwest's confidentiality and trade
secret arguments are moot. Second, Qwest's general objections that the request seeks irrelevant
information is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence are
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 5
without more, insufficient as a matter of law. Moreover, Request No. 11 is indeed relevant to
Disputed Issue 4-whether Qwest and Level 3 will compensate each other at the rate of $0.0007
per minute-of-use for the exchange ofIP enabled or Voice over Internet Protocol ("VOIP"
traffic. Level 3 contends that VoIP traffic is not subject to access charges. Qwest seeks to
impose access charges on certain VoIP traffic. The information requested in Request No. 11 is
necessary to demonstrate the impact that Qwest's VoIP proposal will have on Level 3. Qwest
should be required to respond to Request No. 11.
Level3's Data Request No. 5(e) provides:
Does Qwest purchase any wholesale VoIP services from any other provider? If so
please name the provider(s) and the state(s) in which service(s) is/are purchased.
Qwest responded to this request as follows:
Qwest objects to this subpart to the extent that it seeks information concerning Qwest'
purchases of services outside the state of Idaho and outside the 14-state territory in which
Qwest operates as an incumbent LEC. This request is overly broad and burdensome and
seeks information and that is irrelevant. Furthermore, the subpart does not appear to be
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Qwest's objections fail. First, Qwest has provided no authority for the proposition that
discovery is limited in scope to the state of Idaho. AS discussed above, Section 251 (c) of the
Telecommunications Act requires ILECS to provide interconnection on a nondiscriminatory
basis. The information sought by Level 3 is critical to determining whether Qwest's proposals in
this arbitration discriminate against Level 3 relative to the manner in which Qwest interconnects
with itself, its affiliates, and other carriers throughout its service territory. At a minimum, Qwest
should be compelled to respond with Idaho-specific data. Second, for the reasons given above
Qwest's objection that the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without more, is legally insufficient.
There is no legal basis for limiting the scope of Level 3' s discovery to interconnection by
Qwest with other CLECs and its affiliates and subsidiaries within this state and preventing
discovery regarding Qwest's interconnection with these same parties in other jurisdictions.
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 6
Qwest is providing more favorable and, hence, discriminatory interconnection to any other
CLEC or to Qwest's affiliate or subsidiary anywhere, not just in the state where an arbitration is
occurring, such discrimination is directly relevant to the issue of whether in this proceeding.
Qwest is providing nondiscriminatory access to Level 3 in compliance with its obligations under
Section 251(c)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act"
Section 251 of the Act and the FCC's rules governing interconnection compel an analysis
of Qwest' s interaction with other CLECs and its affiliates and subsidiaries beyond the
boundaries of any particular state. Section 251 (c )(2) is unequivocal. ILECs must provide
interconnection that is "equal in quality to that provided.. .to itself or to any subsidiary, affiliate
or any other party to which the carrier provides interconnection.ILECs must also offer "rates
terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable., and nondiscriminatory, in accordance with.. .the
requirements of this section and section 252.2 Thus, ILECs cannot offer interconnection to one
CLEC on more favorable terms or conditions than it offers any other CLEC.3 In addition, the
ILEC cannot favor its affiliates or subsidiaries with more favorable terms and conditions of
interconnection than it offers to CLECs. To allow an ILEC to avoid the nondiscrimination
obligations outlined in the Act would undermine the most fundamental principles in the Act:
putting CLECs on equal footing with each other and the ILECs.
As the FCC noted in the Non-Accounting Safeguards Order:
A BOC may have an incentive to discriminate in providing exchange access services and
facilities than its affiliate s rivals need to compete in the interLATA telecommunications
services and information services markets. For example, a BOC may have an incentive
to degrade services and facilities furnished to its affiliate s rivals, in order to deprave
those rivals of efficiencies that its affiliate enjoys. Moreover, to the extent carriers offer
1 47 U.C. ~ 251(c)(2)(C).
47 U.C. ~ 251(c)(2)(D).
3 This conclusion is reinforced by the requirements of section 252(i) of the Act which provides
that a local exchange carrier must make any interconnection provided under an agreement
approved under the Act to which it is a party available to any other requesting
telecommunications carrier upon the same terms and conditions as those provided in the
agreement.
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 7
both local and interLA T A services as bundled offering, a BOC that discriminates against
the rivals of its affiliates could entrench its position in local markets by making these
rivals ' offerings less attractive.
This is the very reason the nondiscrimination obligation applies to affiliates and subsidiaries.
Moreover, the nondiscrimination obligation applies without regard to the geographic
boundaries. The law does not limit the nondiscrimination obligation to within the borders of any
particular state. Thus, the interconnection Qwest provides to other CLECs or to its affiliates or
subsidiaries outside of Colorado is just as critical to ascertaining whether Qwest is offering
nondiscriminatory interconnection to Level 3 as the interconnection Qwest provides within a
particular state. Both sets of information are relevant to Qwest' s compliance with its legal
nondiscrimination obligation. Level 3' s discovery on Qwest's interconnection with other CLECs
and its affiliates and subsidiaries should be permitted and not in any way limited by irrelevant
and artificial geographic boundaries. To do otherwise, would completely undermine the
nondiscrimination obligation set forth in Section 251 (c )(2).
The FCC's rules regarding interconnection provide further guidance on this issue. Rule
51.305( c) and (d) require that evidence of interconnection at a particular point in a network (or at
a particular level of quality), using particular facilities, constitutes substantial evidence that
interconnection is technically feasible at that point, or at substantially similar points in networks
employing substantially similar facilities. In other words, the FCC rules do not limit the
See Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the
Communications Act of 1934 as amended CC Docket No. 96-149 , First Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905 21913 (1996) ("Non-Accounting
Safeguards Order
See also Chase 3000 v. Nebraska Public Service Commission, et aL Case No. CI04-4167
District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska, dated June 29, 2005 (State commission has
jurisdiction to regulate noncompetitive and discriminatory activity between regulated and
nonregulated affiliates pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and failure to do so
would frustrate the purpose of the Act.
47 C.R. ~51.305(c) and (d).
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 8
examination of the interconnection an ILEC is permitting to the ILEC's territory, the particular
state in which the interconnection issue arises, or to any particular geographic area. What is
relevant is whether such interconnection is accomplished with ILEC, not where it occurs.
Therefore, information about Qwest' s networks nationwide is relevant to determining whether
Qwest's interconnection proposals are discriminatory when compared to Qwest's relationships
with its affiliates. Accordingly, this Commission should not limit the scope of discovery in
Idaho.
Requests Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19-Efficient use of Trunk Groups
Request Nos. 12, 13 , 14, 15 , 16, 17, and 19 seek the following information: the use of
combined trunk groups by Qwest and Qwest affiliates; the imposition of separate trunking
obligations up other CLECs by Qwest; the use of traffic apportionment factors, such as percent
interstate usage (PIU) and percent local usage (PLU), by Qwest or any other LEC that delivers
traffic to Qwest; and Qwest's knowledge regarding any state commissions that have required
separate trunk groups. Qwest made a variety of objections, but not are sufficient to justify
Qwest's failure to respond. Specifically, Qwest objected that these requests are generally overly
broad, unduly burdensome, seek information that is not relevant, seek information about Qwest'
affiliates and seek information that the affiliate may consider proprietary, and request that Qwest
7 47 C.R. ~51.305(c)(8) (In the context of the interconnection negotiations (and arbitrations),
ILECs have a duty to provide information necessary to reach an agreement, but the rule
does not restrict that duty to specific geographic areas or based upon jurisdictional lines).
See also In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provision of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Dkt. No 96-, First Report and Order, 11 FCC
Rcd. 15433, ~ 204 205 (reI. August 8 1996) Local Competition Order
Incumbent LECs must prove to the appropriate state commission that
interconnection or access at a point is not technically feasible. Incumbent LECs
possess the information necessary to assess the technical feasibility of interconnecting to
particular LEC facilities. Further, incumbent LECs have a duty to make available to
requesting carriers general information indicating the location and technical
characteristics of incumbent LEC network facilities. Without access to such
information, competing carriers would be unable to make rational network
deployment decision and could be forced to make efficient use of their own and
incumbent LEC facilities, with anticompetitive effects.) (Emphasis added.
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 9
identify individual wholesale customers and disclose information that such customers may
consider proprietary. Additionally, Qwest objected that the requests seek information about
states other than Idaho and are overly broad because they include states in which Qwest is not
the incumbent LEC.
For the reasons given above, Qwest's general objections that these requests are overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and seek information that is not relevant, without more, are legally
insufficient. This information that is not relevant, without more, are legally insufficient. Issue
No.2 involves whether Level 3 may exchange all traffic over the interconnection trunks
established under the Interconnection Agreement. Level 3 seeks to use its existing trunk groups
to exchange all traffic with Qwest, as it has done for many years. Qwest seeks to limit Level 3' s
ability to use trunks efficiently and to force Level 3 to build an inefficient network that mirrors
Qwest's legacy network. Qwest seeks to do this by forcing Level 3 to establish separate Feature
Group D trunks to transmit traffic Qwest contends is "toll" traffic and other traffic that Qwest
admits cannot be accurately rated, but nevertheless contends should be assessed access rates.
Information related to Qwest's current practices, the practices of its affiliates, and the obligations
imposed on CLECs with whom Qwest exchanges traffic is central to understanding and rebutting
Qwest's position in these proceedings. This information will assist Level 3 in drafting its
rebuttal testimony and preparing for hearings, and will be helpful to the Commission in reaching
a decision on the matter.
As discussed above, the Parties have signed a Protective Agreement in this proceeding.
Accordingly, Qwest's confidentiality and trade secret arguments are moot. Moreover, Qwest has
made no showing that the information is proprietary to its customers as asserted in its objections.
Qwest simply speculates that the information "may" be considered proprietary. This is not
sufficient to overcome the heavy burden that rules promoting broad discovery place upon the
party objecting to discovery.
Additionally, as discussed above, Qwest cites no authority to support the proposition of
information regarding its affiliates and information about its business activities outside of Idaho
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 10
are not within the realm of discovery. This information is material to these proceedings. Section
251 (c) of the Act requires incumbent LECs, such as Qwest, to provide nondiscriminatory access
to interconnection. The information sough by Level 3 is critical to assessing whether Qwest'
proposals in this arbitration discriminate against Level 3 relative to the manner in which Qwest
provides interconnection to itself, its affiliates, and other carriers throughout its service territory.
F or example, to the extent that, in Idaho or elsewhere, Qwest has not required its affiliates or
other CLECs to separate traffic onto different trunks and has employed PIUs, PLUs, or some
other traffic allocation factor to rate traffic, or has itself asserted its right to commingle traffic on
trunk groups, such information is directly relevant to Level 3' s ability to rebut Qwest's
imposition of separate trunking requirement on Level 3 and bears directly on whether Qwest's
proposal is discriminatory.
Furthermore, Qwest did not even provide information for Idaho. Given the fact that
Qwest's other objections to these requests are baseless, at a minimum Qwest should be required
to respond with Idaho specific data.
For the foregoing reasons, Level 3 respectfully requests that the Commission order Qwest
to respond to Request Nos. 12, 13 , 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19.
Request No. 19 - Efficient Use of Trunk Groups
Level 3' s Data Request No. 19 provides:
Please state whether Qwest is aware of any state commission that has required
separate trunk groups for transit traffic. If your answer is anything other than an
unqualified "" please identify each state that Qwest believes had required
separate trunk groups for transit traffic and provide a complete citation to such
order.
Qwest responded to this requests as follows:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that the term "transit traffic" may be
ambiguous.
The term to which Qwest objects
, "
transit", is widely understood within the industry to
refer to the carriage of traffic that is rated as "local" (or otherwise considered "local") between
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT -
three interconnecting LECs.Even assuming Level 3' s definition of transit was somehow
different, Qwest could easily explain - as it has done in many other requests - the assumptions
under which it answers the question. Accordingly, Level 3 requests that the Commission order
Qwest to respond to Request No. 19.
Request Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 - Qwest's FX and FX-
Like Services
Request Nos. 22, 23, 24 , 25 , 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 seek information regarding Qwest
services that Qwest considers to be FX or FX-like.Specifically, if Qwest offers FX-like
services, these requests seek service identifications and product descriptions, the number of
customers and lines in Idaho, the length of time that the service has been offered, the number of
ISPs who purchase the service, whether Qwest has billed or received reciprocal compensation or
other terminating compensation for calls received from Qwest's FX or FX -like customers and
details regarding such billings, and whether Qwest has paid access charges to the originating
carrier for calls originated by another carrier and terminated to a Qwest FX or FX -like customer.
(See Chart 2 for a complete recitation of these requests and Qwest's objections and responses).
Qwest objects to these requests on the grounds that they seek information from beyond
Oregon, seek publicly available information that Level could obtain from Qwest's
tariffs/catalogs, seek trade secret or confidential information, are overly broad, are unduly
burdensome, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
With regard to Request No. 22 and 24, Qwest also objects that the requests relate to information
about the business purposes of its customers that Qwest does not retain, and that such
information may be proprietary to its customers. Qwest's objections have no merit and should
be rej ected.
For the reasons given above, Qwest's objections that the requests seek information from
outside of Idaho fail. In addition, rather than providing Oregon-specific information Qwest
simply states that the Commission discontinued FX service in Idaho in 1983 , with certain
customers grandfathered. Qwest does not state whether it still serves any of these grandfathered
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 12
customers, nor does Qwest provide any further information about those services. At a minimum
Qwest should be compelled to provide information about its grandfathered customers in Idaho.
Qwest's claim that this information regarding FX-like services is available to Level 3 in
Qwest's tariffs and catalogs is not a valid objection because Level 3 has no idea which services
Qwest considers FX-like. Qwest must make this determination and provide information that it
considers responsive. In addition, Qwest is much more familiar with the content of its tariffs and
catalogs than Level 3 , and it would be significantly easier for Qwest to compile the requested
information. Qwest must be required to produce information pursuant to these requests about
services that it considers to be FX-like.
Qwest's objection that the requests seek information that is confidential or protected as a
trade secret is nullified by the Protective Agreement discussed above.
For the reasons given above, Qwest's general objection that the requests are overly broad
unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, without more, is not legally sufficient.
With respect to Request Nos. 22 and 24 Qwest's objection that its does not retain
information about the business purposes of its customers is off point. It is clear from the plain
terms of Request Nos. 22 and 24 that they do not request information regarding the business
purposes of these Qwest customers.
Qwest's objection that such information may be proprietary to its customers is rendered
moot by the Protective Agreement in this docket. Furthermore, Qwest has made no affirmative
showing that the information is proprietary; rather they simply speculate that it may be. This is
not sufficient to overcome the heavy burden placed upon the party objecting to discovery.
Request Nos. 41 and 43 - POls and Other Facility Connections in Oregon.
Request No. 41 seeks the following information:
How many physical POls exist in Idaho between Qwest and
CLECs?
8 Exhibit A at 13-14.
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 13
Request No. 43 seeks the following information:
How may CLECs in Idaho connect to Qwest's network by means
of (a) Qwest-supplied entrance facility running between Qwest'network and a CLEC switch; (b) CLEC-supplied facility delivered
to Qwest's network at or near a Qwest central office building; or(c) some other means?
Qwest provided the same response to both requests:
Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is unreasonably
burdensome and that response would require a special study.
Qwest further objects that the request does not appear to be
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
These objections, without more, are legally insufficient for the same reasons given above.
Moreover, the objections are not supported by the facts. The information requested in Request
Nos. 41 and 43 is indeed reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
relevant to Issue 1 in the Petition regarding the points of interconnection per LA T A that may be
allowed under the Interconnection Agreement. It is also important for Level 3 to understand
which points of interconnection Qwest considers to be POls under Qwest's interpretation of the
law and which ones Qwest believes do not qualify. Given the importance of this information to
the issues in this case, Qwest should be required to comply.
IV.CONCLUSION
Level 3 understands that discovery is extensive in this proceeding due to the numerous
complex issues on the table, and that the timelines for responses are necessarily short. Level 3
faces the same difficulties as Qwest in this proceeding, and arguably has even fewer resources
than Qwest in which to deal with the large number of discovery requests and tight deadlines.
Level 3 now finds itself in the position of having to dedicate limited resources and time to
prepare and file this motion in order to get Qwest to do what it is obligated by law and
Commission rule to do. Level 3 has been substantially prejudiced by Qwest's failure to comply,
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 14
and respectfully requests that the Commission issue an order by August 5 2005, requiring Qwest
to immediately provide full and proper responses to Level 3' s discovery requests
DATED this~ day of July, 2005.
Respectfully submitted
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller LLP
420 W. Bannock
Boise, ID 83702
Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Counsel for Level 3 Communications, LLC
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the ~ay of August, 2005, I caused to be served, via the
methodes) indicated below, true and correct copies of the foregoing document, upon:
Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
i i ewell~puc.state.id. us
Mary S. Hobson
STOEL RIVES LLP
101 S Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702-5958
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
msho bson~stoel.com
Thomas M. Dethlefs
Senior Attorney
Qwest Services Corporation
1801 California Street - 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Thomas. Dethl efs~qwest. com
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT - 16