Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050620Qwest objections Level 3 requests.pdfMary S. Hobson STOEL RIVES LLP 101 S Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900 Boise, ill 83702-5958 Telephone: (208) 389-9000 Facsimile: (208) 389-9040 msho bson~stoel. com ECEPlED LZlILED _~,,~",! 2DU5 JUy;! 2(j P11 4:43 '--1- iQt :JiG PUBLIC i iLl ItS eOf'lt"11SS10N 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 Laws for Rate, Terms, and Conditions of Interconnection with Qwest Corporation CASE NO. QWE-05- QWEST CORPORATION' OBJECTIONS TO LEVEL 3's FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Qwest Corporation (Qwest), by and through its undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to Idaho Public Utilities Commission Rule of Procedure 225., hereby files its objections to Level 3 Communications, LLC's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for the Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions. GENERAL 0 BJECTIO NS Qwest objects to Leve13 Communications, LLC's ("LeveI3') First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Leve13's discovery ), on the basis that the discovery is duplicative, burdensome, overly broad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Qwest objects to items "A" and "" in Level3's "Definitions and Instructions" on the basis that they are unduly burdensome and overbroad. Qwest further objects that these items may require Qwest to produce information concerning documents that are a matter of public record or in the hands of third parties, and which is as readily accessible to Level 3 as to Qwest and for which Qwest should not be required to provide a detailed explanation in the manner solicited therein. Qwest objects to item "D" in Level3's "Definitions and Instructions " which attempts to provide definitions, and to all of Level 3's discovery that purports to include these definitions on the basis that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek to include affiliates, individual persons, and organizations that are not parties to this arbitration. Qwest therefore, puts Level 3 on notice that for purposes of its Responses to Discovery, the terms Qwest" and "company , except where specifically identified otherwise, refer to Qwest Corporation, the incumbent LEC with whom Level 3 seeks an interconnection agreement. Qwest objects to all data requests, definitions and instructions and, in particular item "E" in Level 3's "Definitions and Instructions" to the extent that they instruct Qwest to divulge documents the are subject to the attorney/client and/or work product privileges, or that are confidential or proprietary and for which no reasonable accommodations are made to preserve their confidentiality. Qwest also objects to the extent the instruction requires that Qwest produce documents that are available in the public domain or that are in the hands of third parties and therefore readily accessible to Level 3 without resorting to burdensome discovery. Qwest objects to item "F" in Level3's "Definitions and Instructions" on the basis that it is duplicative of item "B" and is, therefore, subject to the objections contained in paragraph 2 above and for the further reason that item "F" appears to also require Qwest to be responsible for the entire universe of documents that are not in its possession, custody and control in contravention of Idaho R. Civ. p~ 34 (a). Qwest objects to item "0" in Level 3's "Definitions and Instructions" to the extent that it requires Qwest to produce, as separate documents, each copy of a given document that may display a "modification" as described in this item, regardless of its significance. Adherence to this instruction would greatly increase the burden of Level 3's discovery, require the duplication of countless pages, and yield nothing to value. To the extent that the same instruction is contained in item "" Qwest's objections herein also pertain to that item. Qwest objects to item "H" in Level3's "Definitions and Instructions" to the extent that it exceeds the requirements for a privilege log under Idaho law. Qwest objects to item "I" in Level 3's "Definitions and Instructions" to the extent that it requires Qwest to identify witnesses for the introduction of discovery responses when Qwest has no knowledge of which responses Level 3 will seek to introduce at hearing. To the extent that Level 3 merely seeks information about the person(s) responsible for preparing the response, that information is requested in Interrogatory No. Qwest objects to item "J" in Level3's "Definitions and Instructions" and the instructions generally on the grounds that they are unduly burdensome. Qwest will answer interrogatories and respond to data requests in reasonable detail to the extent that such requests have not been objected to. Qwest also objects to item "J" to the extent that it seeks information in addition to that Qwest is obliged to produce under the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. 10.Qwest objects to all ofLevel3's discovery to the extent that it is not confined to the state of Idaho and to issues that are before the Idaho Public Utilities Commission in this arbitration proceeding. OBJECTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS Attached hereto as Appendix A are Qwest's objections to individual interrogatories requests for the production of documents, and requests for admissions propounded by Level 3. Qwest reserves the right to raise such further objections and make such additional legal arguments as may be appropriate as the actual intent and scope of Level 3 's discovery requests becomes more clear. Dated thiJ-o ay of June, 2005 Mary S. H son Stoel Rives LLP Attorneys for Qwest Corporation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 20th day of June, 2005, I served the foregoing QWEST CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS TO LEVEL 3's FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS upon all parties of record in this matter as follows: Jean Jewell, Secretary Hand DeliveryIdaho Public Utilities Commission U. S. Mail 472 West Washington Street Overnight DeliveryO. Box 83720 Facsimile Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 Email 11 ewell~puc.state.id. us Weldon Stutzman Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 West Washington Street O. Box 83720 Boise, ill 83720-0074 Telephone: (208) 334-0318 weldon. stutzman~puc. Idaho. gov Hand Deli very U. S. Mail Overnight Delivery Facsimile Email Dean J. Miller McDevitt & Miller LLP 420 West Bannock Street O. Box 2564 Boise, Idaho 83702 Hand Delivery U. S. Mail Overnight Delivery Facsimile Emai1 Erik Cecil Regulatory Counsel Level # Communications, LLC 1025 Eldorado Boulevard Broomfield, CO 80021 Hand Delivery U. S. Mail Overnight Delivery Facsimile j \ Stacy S ers Legal Secretary Stoel Rives LLP Appendix A Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01- 0011 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0011 For each response provided to an interrogatory or Request for the Production of documents, please provide the name, title and work address of any person that assisted in the preparation of the response. Please include a list of each of the interrogatories or data request responses in which the person assisted. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request in so far as it requires Qwest to compile " a list of each of interrogatories or data request responses in which the (previously identified) person assisted" since no such list exists, and the information may be as readily compiled by Level 3 as by Qwest. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-0021 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0021 For each person that Qwest intends to call as a witness in this proceeding,provide the following: that witness' name, address and business affiliations;b. copies of all documents relied upon by the witness in preparation of their testimony;c. copies of all documents prepared by the witness that reference, refer or relate to the issues in thisproceeding.d. a statement describing the opinions held by the witness that are relevant to this proceeding.e. if the person has previously appeared as a witness in any regulatory proceeding, under the 1996 Act, provide copies of all testimony that the person has submitted in each suchproceeding. RESPONSE: b. Qwest objects to this subpart on the basis that it is overly broad and it necessarily calls for speculation since Qwest has not yet prepared itstestimony. Qwest further objects that it is duplicative of other, more narrowly drafted requests.c. Qwest objects to this subpart to the extent that it seeks documents that are subject to the work product or attorney/client privilege. Qwest further objects that it is overly broad and burdensome, and that it is seeks information that is not relevant. Qwest finally objects that the subpart does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence.d. Qwest objects to this subpart on the grounds that it violates IPUC Rule225. 01.a. and that it calls for speculation since it is not known how the issues will be framed and what opinions held by Qwest' s witnesses may berelevant.e. Qwest obj ects to this subpart on the basis that it is overly broad andburdensome. Qwest further obj ects that it is seeks information that is not relevant, and that the subpart does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By way of further obj ection, Qwest notes that to the extent its witnesses have previously filed testimony in other regulatory proceedings, that information is a matter of public record and may be obtained from the regulatory agencies in which such testimony wasfiled. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0031 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0031 Please provide the following data:a. By LATA, the number of Qwest local calling areas in each LATA in thestate; The number and locations of Qwest I s end offices in state; The number and locations of Qwest' s tandem offices in state, as well as the tandem type (access, local, access/local); The number of access lines (loops) in the state, broken out by type such as analog, DSO, DS1, etc, by business and residence. The number of local calls and local minutes of use per month and per year for business and residential end user customers in the state. If Qwest does not classify calls or minutes into a category denominated"local," please so state and identify the categories into which Qwest classifies its traffic. If Qwest does classify calls and/or minutes into a category denominated 'I local," please use that definition to respond to this question, and also explain how Qwest determines what traffic to classify as "local. RESPONSE:e. Qwest obj ects to this subpart on the basis that it does not maintain the information requested and that to attempt to compile the requestedinformation, if that were possible, would require Qwest to undertake special studies that would be overly burdensome and unreasonably expensive. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0041 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0041 Does Qwest have an affiliated Internet Service Provider (II 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. Please identify each telephone company end office in the state in which the Qwest affiliate ISP has collocated equipment such as modem banks, DSL equipment, routers, ATM switches or other equipment. Please identi fy the telephone company that owns/operates each such end office.b. Please list each local calling area wi thin the state in which the affiliate maintains a physical presence. RESPONSE: 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 obj ects 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. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-0051 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0051 Does Qwest or any affiliate of Qwest offer Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") to end users in this state? If so, a. Please identify the specific entity that offers the service and explainthat entity's relationship to Qwest. Please state how many end use customers and how many wholesale customers in the state the Qwest VoIP provider has.c. Please list each local calling area within the state in which the affiliate maintains a physical presence. Please identify each telephone company end office in the state in which the Qwest affiliate VoIP provider has collocated equipment such as media gateways, DSL equipment, routers, ATM switches of any other related equipment necessary for providing VoIP service. Please identify the telephone company that owns/operates each such end office. Does Qwest purchase any wholesale VoIP services from any other provider? If so, please name the provider (s) and the state (s) in whichsuch service (s) is/are purchased. RESPONSE:b. Qwest obj ects to this subpart that it state how many end use and how many wholesale customers in the state the Qwest ISP VoIP provider has" 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 it does not appear the request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.d. Qwest objects to this subpart to the extent that its seeks information concerning Qwest' s affiliates I network configurations in territory not served by Qwest as the incumbent LEC.e. Qwest obj ects to this subpart to the extent that it seeks information concerning Qwest I s 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 that isirrelevant. Furthermore, the subpart does not appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0061 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0061 Please describe any traffic exchange arrangements of any description applicable to enhanced or Internet Enabled services such as Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") that Qwest or any Qwest affiliate operating inthe state has with: ' other ILECs; CLECs; or, any other parties. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the grounds that this arbitration is between Qwest Corporation, the incumbent LEC, and Level 3. The arrangements a Qwest affiliate may have with other LECs , particularly those in other states, are not relevant. Qwest further obj ects that the request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Qwest also objects that to the extent Qwest has interconnection agreements with other LECs, those public records are on file with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and may be obtained readily by Level 3 from that source. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-0071 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0071 Please provide the total number of VoIP traffic minutes the Qwest network transported in this State: 2003. 2004. 2005. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad and ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-0081 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0081 Of those VoIP traffic minutes provided in response to the question above, please provide the total number of VoIP traffic minutes that Qwest or Qwest's affiliates carried to or from their own customers in this State in 2002 and 2003. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that the information concerning the volumes of use of Qwest' s customers and those of Qwest' s affiliates constitute trade or business secrets and are highly confidential andproprietary. Qwest further obj ects that the request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0091 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0091 What are Qwest' s plans for providing VoIP to its customers, either through Qwest itself, by means of any affiliate or through a third party? Provide all documents related to Qwest' s plans. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it seeks highly confidential and proprietary information concerning its business plans and, potentially, the plans of its affiliates. Qwest also objects that the request appears to seek opinion or policy not previously written or published in violation IPUC Rule 225.01. a. Finally, Qwest obj ects that the request calls for speculation and does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-0101 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0101 What IP voice products do Qwest or Qwest' s affiliates offer to customers in the state? Please describe and provide all related relevant documentation regarding how Qwest provides any VoIP , IP enabled, Voice embedded IP communications, or enhanced services to its end user or enhanced service provider customers or affiliates such as using PRIs or some otherarchi tecture a. Please describe the architecture by which Qwest provides these serviceswithin the state. Please describe the architecture by which Qwest provides these services wi thin the state, but outside of Qwest' s incumbent LEC operatingterritory. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request to the extent that the information concerning products and services provided by Qwest to the public is readily available from public sources and, therefore, may be readily obtained by Level 3 without resort to the discovery process.b. Qwest obj ects to this subpart on the basis that the arrangements Qwest may have with other carriers in geographical areas outside the area in which it acts as the incumbent LEC are not relevant. Qwest further obj ects that the subpart does not appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-T- 05 - L3C 01-0111 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0111 Please provide the total number of VoIP customers Qwest has in the State as May 1, 2005. How many VoIP terminals does that number represent? RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects 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 obj ects that the information requested is not relevant. Furthermore, it does not appear the request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0121 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0121 Please identify every state in which Qwest combines local and toll traffic (including either interLATA or intraLATA toll traffic , or both, as the case may be) on the same trunk group at any point in Qwest I s transmission of traffic. For each such state , please indicate which of the followingsi tuations apply:a. Local and toll traffic combined on a direct trunk group between two endoffices;b. Local and toll traffic combined on a trunk group between a Qwest end office and a Qwest tandem; Local and toll traffic combined on a trunk group between a Qwest end office and a third party carrier (CLEC, ILEC, IXC) switch; Local and toll traffic combined on a trunk group between a Qwest tandem and a third party (CLEC, ILEC, IXC) switch; and/ore. Local and toll traffic combined on a trunk group between two Qwest tandems. For purposes of this question, please use Qwest' s own definitions of "local"and "toll" traffic, but provide a brief explanation of how Qwest classifies traffic into those categories. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request to the extent that it seeks information about states other than Idaho and is so over broad as to include states in which Qwest is not the incumbent LEC. Qwest further obj ects that the request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is not relevant to the subj ect matter in the pending action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0131 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0131 In which states, and in which local calling areas in those states, do Qwest's CLEC affiliates combine their own local and toll (IntraLATA and InterLATA) traffic on a single trunk? RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request to the extent that it seeks information about the activities of Qwest affiliates in states other than Idaho and is so over broad as to include states in which Qwest is not the incumbent LEC. Qwest further obj ects that the request is burdensome, seeks information that is not relevant to the subj ect matter in the pending action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0141 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0141 In which states does Qwest combine CLEC local and toll (IntraLATA and InterLATA) traffic on a single trunk? Please provide a list of all CLECs for whom Qwest combines, or has combined, local and toll (IntraLATA and InterLATA) traff ic on a singletrunk. Please provide the month and year when Qwest started to combine traffic in each state where Qwest combines CLEC local and toll (IntraLATA and InterLATA) traffic. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request to the extent that it seeks information about states other than Idaho and is so over broad as to include states in which Qwest is not the incumbent LEC. Qwest further obj ects that the request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is not relevant to the subj ect matter in the pending action, and is not reasonably calculated tolead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Qwest also obj ects to this request to the extent it requests that Qwest identify individual wholesale customers and to disclose information that said customers may considerproprietary. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0151 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0151 Does Qwest believe that it will receive materially more or less intercarrier compensation from Level 3 if Qwest prevails in its proposal to require Level 3 to establish multiple or separate trunking facilities for Transit Traffic, InterLATA traffic, and any non-local or non-intraLATA traffic (see Petition, Tier I, Issues 2 and 4)? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified no," please explain in detail the basis for your answer, including all workpapers underlying any calculations involved in supporting that answer. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for speculation and is impossible to answer without making assumptions concerning volumes and traffic mix that are not contained in the record. Qwest further obj ects the request appears to seek opinion or policy not previously written or published in violation IPUC Rule 225.01. a. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0161 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0161 For each state in which Qwest operates as an ILEC, please identify each CLEC wi th which Qwest (a) exchanges local and toll (IntraLATA and InterLATA) traffic on a single trunk group and (b) uses a a Percent Local Use (PLU) or similar method of establishing the apportionment of local vs. toll traffic on the combined trunk group. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it seeks information about Qwest operations in states other than Idaho. Qwest further obj ects that the request appears to seek information about specific Qwest wholesale customers that is not relevant and may not be appropriately disclosed in this case. Finally, Qwest obj ects that the request seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter in the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0171 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications , LLC REQUEST NO:0171 For each state in which a Qwest CLEC affiliate combines local and toll(IntraLATA and InterLATA) traffic on a single trunk group, please state whether Qwest 1 s CLEC affiliate uses a Percent Local Use (PLU) or similar other method of establishing the apportionment of local vs. toll traffic on the combined trunk group. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it seeks information about Qwest I s affiliate's operations in states other than Idaho. Qwest further that the request seeks information that is not relevant to the subj ect matter in the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0181 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0181 Please describe each system and/or method that Qwest uses to track or estimate the amount of local and toll traffic exchanged with a CLEC. Please specifically state whether each such system and/or method is capable of distinguishing between IntraLATA and/or InterLATA calls on the one hand, and calls that are in-state versus out-of-state on the other. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it seeks information about Qwest operations in states other than Idaho. Qwest further obj ects that the request seeks information that is not relevant to the subj ect matter in the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0191 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0191 Please state whether Qwest is aware of any state commission that has required separate trunk groups for transit traffic. If your answer isanything other than an unqualified "no," please identify each state that Qwest believes has required separate trunk groups for transit traffic and provide a compete citation to such order. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it the term "transit traffic" may be ambiguous. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0221 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0221 Unless your answer to Question #21 above was an unqualified "no," pleaseidentify:a. the number of customers in this state who subscribe to or purchase Qwest I s FX service; the number of FX lines that Qwest provides in this state; how long FX service has been available from Qwest; and, the number of ISPs to whom Qwest provides such service. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request in so far as it seeks information about the volumes of Qwest' s retail business, on the basis that such information constitutes a trade or business secret and is confidential and proprietary toQwest. Qwest further obj ects on the basis that it does not retain information about the business purposes of its retail customers and that such information may be proprietary to Qwest' s customers. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0231 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications , LLC REQUEST NO:0231 Please state whether Qwest offers any FX-Like Service, other than service specifically described as Foreign Exchange. If the answer is anything otherthan an unqualified "no," please state the name of each such FX-Like Service and provide service descriptions (including, but not limited to, tariff pages) for each such FX-like service. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request to the extent that it seeks information concerning Qwest I s product offerings in states other than the state of Idaho. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0241 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0241 Unless your answer to Question #23 above was an unqualified "no," please identify: the number of customers in this state who subscribe to or purchase each of the FX-Like Services identified in response to the precedingquestions; the number of lines in this state over which Qwest provides each of the FX-Like Services identified in response to the preceding questions; how long each FX-Like Service has been available from Qwest; and,d. the number of ISPs who purchase each of the FX-Like Services identified in response to the preceding questions. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request and its subparts in so far as it seeks information about the number of customers and lines it is serving, on the basis that such information constitutes a trade or business secret and is confidential and proprietary to Qwest. Qwest further obj ects on the basis that it does not retain information about the business purposes of its customers and that such information may be proprietary to Qwest I s customers. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0251 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0251 Wi th respect to Qwest I s FX and FX-Like services: a. Please explain the circumstances under which calls from a subscriber to Qwest FX or FX-like service are rated as local versus toll, and provide all documentation supporting your answer. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request and its subparts on the basis that the terms "toll" and local" are not defined and may be ambiguous in this context.Qwest further obj ects on the basis that the request is overly broad and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-0261 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0261 Please state whether Qwest or any Qwest affiliate has ever billed or demanded paYment of access charges from an incumbent LEC for calls originated by Qwest I s end user to an incumbent LEC' s FX or FX-Like customer. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is not limited to the state of Idaho and is otherwise overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, and does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0271 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0271 Please state whether Qwest has ever billed or received reciprocal compensation or other terminating compensation for calls received from an incumbent LEC or any CLECs for termination to Qwest' s FX or FX-like customers? Please explain your answer , including but not limited to (a) the dates upon which you first began billing incumbent LECs or CLECs for suchcompensation; (b) the amount of compensation received from incumbent LECs and CLECs; and (c) describe any changes you may have made to your billing policies with respect to calls terminating to your FX or FX-like customers. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is not limited to the state of Idaho and is otherwise overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, and does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0281 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0281 Are there any circumstances in which Qwest has paid access charges to the originating carrier for a call originated by another carrier and terminated to a Qwest FX or FX-like customer? If your answer is anything other than anunequivocal fi no," please describe all circumstances under which Qwest has made such paYments. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it is not limited to the state of Idaho and is otherwise overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, and does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-0291 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0291 Please state whether independent LEC with Service that permits be assigned a numberarea. Qwest knows, or has reason to believe, that any whom Qwest has EAS arrangements provide FX or FX-Like customers physically located in another rate center to that is local to the rate center included in Qwest' s EAS RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is not limited to the state of Idaho and is otherwise overly broad and unreasonably burdensome. Qwest further obj ects that the service offerings of independent LECs in Idaho are available from said LECs and are filed as a matter of public record with the IPUC where they are as readily available to Level 3 as to Qwest. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0361 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0361 Please describe the facilities (switches, optical fiber, multiplexer, etc. that Qwest uses or expects to use in delivering traffic from its end users to Level 3. Assume for purposes of this question that Level 3 and Qwest interconnect at a single POI in a LATA and that Qwest is responsible for delivering its originated traffic to that POI. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that the phrase "uses or expects to use" calls for Qwest to speculate about possible future conditions. Qwest further obj ects that this request is ambiguous such that Qwest cannot determine what specific information Level 3 is seeking. This request may also be overbroad and unduly burdensome depending on what detailed information Level 3 is seeking. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-0371 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0371 Please state whether the facilities Qwest uses or expects to use in delivering traffic from its end users to Level 3 as stated above differ in any way based on whether the traffic is classified as "local" or "toll. II If your answer is anything other than an unqualified "no," please explain in detail the basis for your answer. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that the phrase "uses or expects to use" calls for Qwest to speculate about possible future conditions. Qwest further obj ects that this request is ambiguous such that Qwest cannot determine precisely what information Level 3 is requesting. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-0381 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0381 Please describe the facilities (switches, optical fiber , multiplexer , etc. that Qwest uses or expects to use in delivering traffic from Level 3 to Qwest I s end users. Assume for purposes of this question that Level 3 and Qwest interconnect at a single POI in a LATA and that Level 3 is responsible for delivering its originated traffic to that POI. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that the phrase "uses or expects to use" calls for Qwest to speculate about possible future conditions. Qwest further obj ects that this request is ambiguous such that Qwest cannot determine precisely what information Level 3 is requesting. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0391 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0391 Please state whether the facilities Qwest uses or expects to use in delivering traffic from Level 3 to Qwest I s end users as stated above differ in any way based on whether the traffic is classified as "local" or "toll. If your answer is anything other than an unqualified "no," please explain in detail the basis for your answer. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that the phrase "uses or expects to use" calls for Qwest to speculate about possible future conditions. Qwest further obj ects that this request is ambiguous such that Qwest cannot determine precisely what information Level 3 is requesting. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-0411 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0411 How many physical POIs exist in Idaho between Qwest and CLECs? RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it is unreasonably burdensome and that response would require a special study. Qwest further obj ects that the request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-0431 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:0431 How many CLECs in Idaho connect to Qwest I s network by means of (a) a Qwest-supplied entrance facility running between Qwest' s network and a CLECswitch; (b) a CLEC-supplied facility delivered to Qwest' s network at or near a Qwest central office building; or (c) some other means? RES PONSE : Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it is unreasonably burdensome and that response would require a special study. Qwest further obj ects that the request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-001A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:001A The location of the POI between Qwest and Level 3 in Idaho does not determine whether Qwest has an obligation to pay reciprocal compensation to Level 3 forLevel 3 I S transport of Qwest' s traffic. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-002A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:002A The location of the Level 3 I S switch in Idaho does not determine whether Qwest has an obligation to pay reciprocal compensation to Level 3 for Level3' s transport of Qwest' s traffic. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-005A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:005A Qwest currently has agreements with one or more other incumbent local exchange carriers in Idaho under which Qwest provides transit traffic connection for those incumbent local exchange carriers to other carriers. Customers of Qwest I s own Idaho intrastate FX service do not pay toll charges on their FX interexchange calls, regardless of the distance of the call. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to the form of this request on the basis that it contains two distinct statements that are not appropriately combined in a single request for admission. Idaho Case No. QWE-05-L3C 01-011A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:011A Federal law currently does not permit the imposi tion of carrier accesscharges on information services. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-012A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:012A Interconnection contract language should be as consistent as possible with applicable federal law and regulations. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-013A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:013A Wireline local exchange services offered in Qwest' s 14 -state area are provided through legal entities which operate within authorized regions subj ect to regulation by each state in which they operate and by the Federal Communications Commission. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it seeks a characterization of Qwest' s operations in states other than Idaho and is otherwise overlybroad, ambiguous and burdensome. Qwest further obj ects that the request appears to call for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-015A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:015A Qwest has transported VoIP traffic over its network in the State ofIdaho. Qwest or Qwest' s affiliates have carried VoIP traffic to or from their own customers in the State of Idaho. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to the form of this request on the basis that it contains two distinct statements that are not appropriately combined in a single request for admission. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-016A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:016A While the deploYment of VoIP will result in increased competition for Qwest 1 s core wireline voice services, it also presents growth opportunities for Qwest to develop new products for its customers. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it solicits an opinion on a mat ter that can only be the subj ect of speculation. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01- 01 INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:017A Qwest favors federal and state legislative and regulatory policies which support the development of facilities-based competition. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it is ambiguous and seeks an opinion on a matter that is necessarily subjective and therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-018A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:018A The FCC's rule defining the "telecommunications" subj ect to reciprocal compensation is stated at 47 CFR ~ 51.701 (b) . RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. further obj ects that the cited federal regulation speaks for itself.Qwe s Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-019A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:019A FCC Rule 47 CFR ~ 51.701 (b) makes no reference of any kind or in any way to a category of traffic known as "local. RESPONSE: Qwest objects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. further obj ects that the cited federal regulation speaks for itself.Qwest Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-020A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:020A The Communications Act of 1934 , as amended, contains no definition of "local" telecommunications , "local" calling, or "local" exchange areas. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery. further objects that the cited federal statute speaks for itself.Qwest Idaho Case No. QWE-05- L3C 01-024A INTERVENOR:Level 3 Communications, LLC REQUEST NO:024A All calls to ISPs for purposes of Internet access are subj ect to the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC. RESPONSE: Qwest obj ects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore not an appropriate subj ect for discovery.