BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION In Re the Complaint of ) DOCKET NO. UT-991292 ) AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ) NORTHWEST, INC., ) PREHEARING ) CONFERENCE ORDER; Complainant ) ) v. ) ORDER GRANTING ) INTERVENTION; U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ) ) Respondent ) NOTICE OFPREHEARING ) CONFERENCE Regarding the Provisioning of Access ) (September 22, 1999) Services ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) This is a complaint filed on August 18, 1999 by AT&T Communications of the Northwest, Inc. (“AT&T”), the complainant, against US WEST Communications, Inc. (USWC), Respondent, alleging that USWC has failed to provide adequate and consistent quality of access services by (1) failing to provision necessary access facilities; (2) failing to timely provision access facilities it does provide in violation of agreed upon measures of quality, and (3) favoring itself, its affiliates, its own customers, and certain communities in deciding where to provision facilities. The Commission convened a prehearing conference in this matter pursuant to due and proper notice to all interested persons in Olympia, Washington on September 2, 1999 before Administrative Law Judge C. Robert Wallis. Participants included the complainant, AT&T, by Mary Tribby, attorney, Denver, Colorado; the respondent, U S WEST Communications, Inc., by Lisa A. Anderl, attorney, Seattle; Commission Staff, by Shannon Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Olympia; and Petitioner for Intervention, Telecommunications Ratepayers Association for Cost-based and Equitable Rates (TRACER), by Arthur A. Butler, attorney, Seattle. Commission Staff advised the Commission that Public Counsel intends to enter an appearance, also. The principal purpose of the conference was to establish dates for various procedural milestones. The Commission extended for USWC the filing deadline for its answer, and USWC waived any objection against proceeding with the prehearing conference in advance of its filing an answer. Telecommunications Ratepayers Association for Cost-based and Equitable Rates (TRACER) petitioned for intervention. It is an organization comprised of large telecommunications customers. It indicated that its interests were, as customers of both complainant and respondent, in maintaining quality service in a timely manner –i.e., that violations affecting AT&T could also prevent its members from receiving adequate service in a timely manner. USWC objected to the intervention, contending that TRACER’s participation would expand the issues. Under RCW 34.05.443 the Commission has considerable discretion to grant or deny requests for intervention. Here, the complainant is a wholesaler who needs respondent’s services to supply retail customers who include TRACER’s members. Those customers do have an interest in receiving service of acceptable quality from both complainant and respondent. They also are in a unique position to explore and to evaluate contentions of both complainant and respondent. The intervention will not expand the issues of the complaint. TRACER’s participation can thus provide a contribution to the proceeding and the Commission’s ability to evaluate the complaint, and the intervention should be allowed. The grant of intervention is conditioned upon close coordination of participation between the intervenor and Public Counsel and, as all interventions, subject to revocation or modification under RCW 34.05.443(3). AT&T shared the information that parallel complaints were also filed in four other USWC states. It is apparent that counsel in the five jurisdictions will be coordinating their efforts. The bench asked parties to focus their presentations in this proceeding on information that is relevant to prove the existence of violations within this state. USWC committed to file its answer no later than September 16. A prehearing conference was scheduled for September 22 at 12:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing any procedural issues that may arise. Parties may attend by teleconference if they so desire. The parties agreed that the discovery rule should be invoked. Depositions are not scheduled but should be discussed among the parties and, in the event of disagreement, then brought to the Commission. The parties agreed that a protective order should be entered to expedite discovery. The Commission will enter a protective order in this docket. USWC disclosed that it will file a motion to dismiss the complaint contemporaneously with its answer to the complaint. The procedural matters adopted herein do not imply any result in the Commission’s deliberations on such a motion, and will be abandoned if the Commission grants the motion. The complainant asked for an expedited hearing. USWC contended that the adopted schedule is expedited and that the usual schedule for a Commission proceeding is nine months. We disagree; such schedules do result in certain complex proceedings and when Commissioners’ schedules affect the timing of hearings but they should not be considered “normal.” We do not consider the schedule adopted herein to be an expedited hearing, but a schedule that is appropriate and reasonable for the allegations, the issues, and the expected evidence in this proceeding. It is predicated on AT&T’s meeting its schedule commitments and on its prompt response to USWC’s data requests. It is also predicated on USWC’s timely response to data requests propounded to it, consistent with USWC’s representations at the conference. All parties agreed with all dates in the schedule, except that USWC asked that the deadline for filing its direct evidence be set for November 22 instead of November 17. On November 17, USWC will have had the complaint for at least 90 days; discovery responses for 40 days; and complainant’s direct testimony for 22 days. The nature of the complaint and the evidence supporting it should be clear on receipt of responses to data requests. There are a relatively limited number of issues in this proceeding, even though there are a large asserted number of instances; much of the information underlying the complaint is already within USWC’s possession; delaying the deadline as requested would put it into the week of Thanksgiving and could hamper others’ efforts to respond. On balance, so long as AT&T is successful in providing responses to discovery requests in a timely manner we believe that the time allowed is very adequate for the task. We expect that all parties will be timely in answering data request responses and in voicing objections, when appropriate, for early resolution. If a request is made for an extension of the filing date, the bench will ask what information is lacking and why the lack of that information requires a continuance. If a partial continuance is granted, we will expect the timely submission of all matter not dependent on the asserted failure of discovery. The Commissioners have not determined whether they will personally preside at the hearing in this matter. If the Commissioners do determine to preside, and if the tentative hearing dates are affected thereby, the parties will be notified promptly and an alternative schedule developed in consultation with the parties. The bench directed the parties to pursue stipulations of facts that are not in contention, to avoid the need to submit testimony thereon. The bench also asked the parties to consider having witnesses identify in their testimony the specific elements of the pleadings that the testimony addresses. The bench asked the parties to make opening statements at the hearing. Oral statements appear sufficient at the present time, and a limitation on the length of opening statements will be determined later. It appears to be premature to identify post-hearing process; that remains for later consideration. Other dates agreed by the parties are formally adopted as set out in the following chart. It is recognized that events, or Commission decisions, may require changes to the following schedule. Event Date USWC files its answer to the complaint and a motion to dismiss the complaint. September 16, 1999 Prehearing conference (attendance via teleconference is contemplated) September 22, 1999, 12:15 p.m. Discovery cutoff: last day to submit a discovery request without Commission approval on a showing of good cause September 24, 1999 Answers to motion to dismiss September 29, 1999 Deadline for responses to discovery requests October 8, 1999 Complainant’s prefiled testimony due October 25, 1999 Answering prefiled testimony due November 17, 1999 Rebuttal and cross-rebuttal prefiled testimony due December 1, 1999 Hearing Week of December 13; not to exceed three days Post-hearing process To be determined NOTICE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE: All parties please take notice that the Commission hereby schedules an additional prehearing conference, to be held on September 22, 1999 beginning at 12:15 p.m. in Room 108 of the Commission offices at 1300 Evergreen Park Drive SW, Olympia, Washington 98504. Parties who wish to attend via teleconference may do so by calling the Commission’s bridge line at (360) 664-3846. NOTICE TO PARTIES: Any objection to the provisions of this Order must be filed within ten (10) days after the date of mailing of this statement, pursuant to WAC 480-09-460(2). Absent such objections, this prehearing conference order will control further proceedings in this matter, subject to Commission review. Dated at Olympia, Washington and effective this Third day of September, 1999. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION C. ROBERT WALLIS Administrative Law Judge