1ST.docx

DONALD L. HOWELL, II
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
472 WEST WASHINGTON STREET
PO BOX 83720
BOISE,  IDAHO  83720-0074
[phone]
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BEFORE  THE  IDAHO  PUBLIC  UTILITIES  COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION)
OF U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.)CASE  NO.  USW-S-96-5
FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS)
RATES AND CHARGES FOR)STAFF’S RESPONSE   
REGULATED TITLE 61 SERVICES.)TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
)REQUEST OF U S WEST
)COMMUNICATIONS ON
________________________________________)REHEARING
The Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its attorney of record, Donald L. Howell, II, Deputy Attorney General, hereby responds to U S WEST Communications, Inc.’s First Request for Production to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Staff dated  August 11, 1998.  The Staff witness available to partially answer these data requests is Wayne Hart.
Request No. 1001: For the period July 1, 1988 and the present, please list by providing the date and the subscriber’s telephone number each and every complaint or inquiry received by the Commission, its Staff, or any member thereof from a customer of U S WEST which dealt, in whole or in part with U S WEST’s provision of “toll restriction” or toll blocking services.  Please exclude from this list any complaints or inquiries dealing with services for the blocking of 900 or 976 calls unless those complaints or inquiries also involve toll blocking.
Response No. 1001:  See objections and response to request No. 1002.
Request No. 1002:For each complaint or inquiry listed above, please provide a full description of the nature of the complaint or inquiry and how the customer’s question or complaint was answered or resolved.
Response No. 1002:  The Commission Staff objects to answering discovery request Nos. 1001 and 1002 because the request is unreasonable, unduly burdensome and redundant to the discovery already had in this case.  In Order No. 27659 issued July 27, 1998, the Commission granted U S WEST’s Petition for Reconsideration and decided to reconsider its decision to re-regulate “toll restriction” pursuant to Idaho Code § 62-605(5).  The rehearing schedule contained in that Order contemplated that the Commission would complete its rehearing in nine weeks or by October 2, 1998.  In coordinating the hearing schedule with U S WEST, it is Staff Counsel’s recollection that neither party concluded there was a need to conduct discovery.  The issue of discovery was discussed but discarded.  Thus, it is surprising at this late phase of the case, and more than two weeks after the issuance of Order No. 27659, that the Company now requests discovery.
In its Petition for Reconsideration, U S WEST did not seek to conduct further discovery or offer additional evidence.  More specifically, the Company stated that it sought reconsideration of the claw-back issue “based upon this Petition and the exhibits filed herewith.  In the event that the Commission deems that additional written briefs or evidentiary hearings would be helpful in aiding its determination of these issues, U S WEST stands ready to respond to such Commission guidance.”  Petition for Reconsideration at 2.  None of the exhibits filed with the Petition addressed toll restriction.  Order No. 27659 at 4.  
Data request Nos. 1001 and 1002 ask for information extending back more than 10 years in time.  For the years 1988 and 1989, there are in excess of 1,050 complaints retained in off-site storage.  These complaints are not grouped by type of complaint or inquiry but are maintained in alphabetical order by the subscriber’s name.  These records are not in an electronic medium.  Requiring Staff to retrieve these documents, review each and every complaint, and then create the requested lists is unreasonable, unduly burdensome, and expensive given the constraints on the Staff’s schedule.
For the years 1990 through 1998 (YTD), the Staff has received more than 10,500 complaints, comments, or inquiries regarding U S WEST’s service.  These electronic records are “coded” to reflect the only or the primary reason for the complaint/inquiry.  However, not until 1994 did the Staff create a code for “toll restriction.” If toll restriction were not the primary reason for the inquiry/complaint from 1994 through the present and during the period there was no reason code for complaints/inquiries from 1990 through 1994, then the narrative portion of each complaint would have to be examined to determine if the complaint/inquiry concerned toll restriction.  Even with the electronic records, the Staff may have used more than 20 different shorthand derivatives to represent toll blocking or toll restriction services (e.g., toll restricted, toll res., toll rest., toll restrict, T. rest., T. Res., TR, T.R., LD restricted, LD blocked, etc.).  Requiring Staff to search more than 10,000 documents is unreasonable, unduly burdensome, and expensive given the constraints on the Staff’s schedule.
In addition, the Staff has already provided U S WEST an electronic copy of the bulk of the requested information in response to a previous production request in this case.  The electronic data represents complaints, inquiries and comments from 1990 through the third quarter of 1996 in a searchable format.  Also provided in a response to request No. 1001 and 1002 is a listing of complaints/inquiries from third quarter of 1996 to the present that contained the term “toll restriction” in the narrative portion of the complaint.
Finally, since July 1995, the Staff has “E-mailed” nearly all complaints and inquiries to the Company.  The E-Mailed complaints and inquiries contained not only the relevant data about each complaint but the narrative description accompanying each complaint or inquiry.  Consequently, the Staff asserts that it has already provided the requested information.  Staff insists that it is reasonable for the Company to utilize its own resources and the information previously provided to it to obtain the data it seeks.  The burden of reviewing the requested information is substantially the same for the Company as the Staff.  PUC Rule 228.01.
Request No. 1003:  Please provide all documents, including but not limited to, reports, intake-sheets, diary entries, correspondence, notes, memorandum, or summaries which embody, reflect, report, or otherwise relate to any and all customers inquiries or complaints received by the Commission, its Staff or any member thereof pertaining, in whole or in part, to U S WEST’s provision of “toll restriction” or toll blocking services for the period between July 1, 1988 and the present.
Response No. 1003: The Staff objects to responding to this request for reasons set out in response to data request No. 1002.  Production of the actual electronic documents or facsimiles thereof would be voluminous given the number of years requested and the difficulty in locating the exact records.  Staff renews its previous offer to make the narrative information (the documents) available for those specific complaints/inquiries identified by the Company representatives at the offices of the Staff.
Request No. 1004:   Please list each and every fact upon which you rely in concluding that U S WEST’s provision of the service known as “toll restriction” as a deregulated Title 62 service under the terms and conditions spelled out by U S WEST in its Title 62 price listing catalog (i.e., Section 10.04.04 of U S WEST’s exchange and network service catalog) is adverse to the public interest.
Response No. 1004:  See response to request No. 1005.

Request No. 1005:  Please list each and every fact upon which you relied in concluding the availability or quality of U S WEST’s “toll restriction” under Title 62 is adverse to the public interest.
Response No. 1005: For the reasons set out in response to data request No. 1002, Staff reiterates those pertinent objections here.  Staff witness Wayne Hart’s direct testimony discusses facts to support his conclusion that providing toll restriction as Title 62 service is adverse to the public interest.  Based upon his and other Staff Consumer Investigators’ experiences in assisting customers with toll restriction/blocking complaints and inquiries, he asserts that Title 62 toll restriction is adverse to the public interest.
Request No. 1006:  Please describe in detail any investigation (whether formal or informal) that has been conducted by the Commission or its Staff between July 1, 1988 and the present which related in whole or in part to the quality, availability or terms and conditions of U S WEST’s provision of the service known as “toll restriction” or toll blocking and/or the impact of such provision on customers of U S WEST.  In responding to this data request, please provide the approximate dates of the investigation, the source and nature of any information gathered in connection with the investigation and nay report, finding, conclusion, action plan or other product of such investigation.
Response No. 1006: Staff objects to data request No. 1006 for the pertinent reasons identified in response to request No. 1002.  In addition, Staff is unaware of any investigation conducted by the Commission or Staff relating to toll restriction.  Staff Exhibit Nos. 1310 and 1311 reference “studies” relied upon by the FCC in Docket No. 96-45.  See ¶ 360, 368 in Exhibit 1310 and ¶ 390 and its footnotes in FCC Report and Order No. 97-157 (May 8, 1997).
Request No. 1007:  Please provide all documents which embody, reflect, relate to, report or conclude any investigation described in data request number 1006 above, or which embody, reflect, relate to or report any finding, conclusion, action plan or other product of such investigation.
Response No. 1007: See response to request No. 1006.
Request No. 1008:  For the period between July 1, 1988 and November 26, 1996, please describe in detail any direct contact between any member of the Commission or its Staff and any representative of U S WEST whether in writing, by telephone, E-mail, or through face to face meeting, in which the Commission or its Staff expressed any concern to U S WEST about the quality, availability, and/or terms or conditions of U S WEST’s provision of the service known as “toll restriction.”  In responding to this data request for each contact described please provide the person or persons from both the Commission or Staff and the Company involved in the contact, the date of the contact, whether the contact was in writing or by way of personal meeting etc., and the exact nature of the concern expressed in the contact.
Response to No. 1008:  The Staff objects to responding to this request for pertinent reasons set out in response to date request No. 1002.  In its Motion accompanying its discovery requests, the Company states that the requested “information is uniquely within the possession of the Staff and cannot be obtained by U S WEST in any other matter.”  U S WEST Discovery Motion at 2.  Staff objects to the scope of this data request as it pertains to any present or former Commissioner.  The Commissioners are not a party to this case and are in fact the trier of fact in this case.  The contact that a Commissioner may or may not have had with the Company regarding the issue of toll restriction is not within the possession of the Staff. In addition, since U S WEST seeks information regarding contact with the Company itself, Staff asserts that this information is within the possession or knowledge of the Company.  The Company is in the best possession of knowing whether such contact took place.
In addition, as previously mentioned in response to data request No. 1002, nearly all complaints and comments regarding toll restriction since July 1995 have been routinely “E-mailed” to the Company’s designated contacts for Commission complaints/inquiries.  As indicated in response to request No. 1002, these E-mail contacts have previously been provided to the Company in the normal course of responding to complaints and inquiries.  Production of these documents at this time would be unreasonable and unduly burdensome.
Request No. 1009:  For each contact described in response to data request number 1008, please provide all documents within your possession which embody, reflect or relate to any such contact including but not limited to, diaries, telephone logs, correspondence, reports, and summaries.
Response No. 9: See response to request No. 1008.
DATED at Boise, Idaho, this   21st  day of August 1998
______________________________________
Donald L. Howell, II
Deputy Attorney General
BLS/N:usws965.dh8