BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


In the Matter of Determining Costs for Universal Service	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)	Docket No. UT-980311(a)
		
		U S WEST’s RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL DUPLICATE RESPONSES TO DATA REQUESTS

 U S WEST Communications, Inc. (“U S WEST”) submits its response to the Motion 
by Public Counsel to require U S WEST to provide Public Counsel duplicate 
copies of U S WEST’s responses to discovery.  The motion should be denied.
 Public Counsel admits at page 2 of the motion, that the Commission’s discovery 
rules do not “expressly” require multiple copies of discovery to be provided.  
This admission should dispose of the motion.  The Administrative Procedure Act, 
RCW 34.05.220(1)(b), provides that “No person may be required to comply with 
agency procedure not adopted as a rule as herein provided.”  
 Nevertheless, Public Counsel argues vaguely that pursuant to the general duty 
to cooperate in discovery that is contained in “the spirit” of WAC 480-09-480, 
U S WEST is in violation of the rule.  Public Counsel is incorrect.  U S WEST 
has complied with all of the requirements of the discovery rule, WAC 
480-09-480.  The Attorney General is required by RCW 80.01.100 to see that all 
laws affecting corporations that are regulated under Title 80 RCW are complied 
with.  RCW 34.05.220(1)(b) is such a law.  The Attorney General’s motion is 
inconsistent with this affirmative duty because the Attorney General seeks 
relief based on procedure that admittedly has not been adopted in a rule as 
provided in RCW 34.05.220.
 Aside from the lack of any legal foundation for the relief, and the fact that 
the motion is inconsistent with the Attorney General’s duty to see to it that 
all laws affecting regulated companies are complied with, the Attorney General 
has presented no case for relief.  
 Public Counsel’s motion misstates the facts.  The motion claims at page 1 that 
U S WEST indicated it “would not provide a copy of data request responses to 
[Public Counsel’s] expert.”  Later, the motion acknowledges that Public Counsel 
seeks to have U S WEST duplicate voluminous data requests for Public Counsel’s 
expert, in addition to the copy U S WEST provides to Public Counsel.  In fact, 
U S WEST’s position is and was that it will serve the one copy required by the 
discovery rule on Public Counsel or on Public Counsel’s expert, but not both.  
U S WEST has not refused to provide anything to Public Counsel’s expert.
 U S WEST should not be required to incur the expense and time to create 
duplicate responses for Public Counsel’s convenience.  Public Counsel claims, 
without evidence, that the additional burden on U S WEST to do this is de 
minimus, and that the cost is “generally recovered in rates.”  Finally, Public 
Counsel argues that the Prehearing Conference Order’s requirement that parties 
make a good faith effort to supply information that is requested, “implies that 
parties are expected to plan for the requirements of discovery and may not 
simply argue that requests are inconvenient or burdensome to their staffs.”  
Public Counsel’s arguments should be rejected.
 Public Counsel is not the only party to this case that has employed 
consultants.  If U S WEST must provide multiple copies because Public Counsel 
is concerned about the necessity to recopy the documents which will cause delay 
and the possibility of error from multiple handling, then this applies to 
everyone who seeks information, not just to Public Counsel.  This would be a 
burden which should not be imposed on any party.  Further, U S WEST itself has 
retained outside consultants and has not asked Public Counsel or any other 
party to distribute extra copies to those experts.  However, if Public Counsel 
prevails on this motion, all parties may well come forward with similar 
requests of each other, asking that two or three or more extra copies be 
provided.  If the Commission wishes to require such a result, the discovery 
rule should be amended to allow for it, but it should not be imposed on an ad 
hoc basis. 
 Public Counsel has not shown how it is harmed under the current schedule 
because, according to it, one or two additional days are consumed in the 
process of copying and transmitting data request responses to its consultant.  
Public Counsel has not provided any concrete examples of errors in copying 
which were caused by the need to recopy documents for its consultant.  
 The documents involved are voluminous.  They consist of all responses by U S 
WEST to all parties’ discovery in this case.  The parties negotiated the use of 
the Minnesota discovery precisely because everyone realized that just this one 
part of discovery was voluminous.  Public Counsel’s comment that the costs of 
production of multiple copies of discovery for its benefit are de minimus is 
without foundation.  Further, Public Counsel’s comment that the costs of 
production of these responses are “generally recovered in rates” is 
unsupported.  If there were a U S WEST rate case that used 1998 as a test year, 
and if Public Counsel or some other party did not argue that the costs were 
nonrecurring or suggest some other type of disallowance, then the costs might 
be recovered in rates.  From the standpoint of today, this is speculative, and 
is not a basis on which to bring a motion to compel.  If Public Counsel means 
to participate in this case, and can hire consultants to prepare testimony, 
then it clearly has adequate resources to copy and mail discovery to that 
consultant.
 Public Counsel’s argument that the wording of the Prehearing Conference Order 
creates the right in Public Counsel to have multiple copies of discovery is 
simply wrong.  Clearly, Public Counsel’s request for multiple copies is not 
authorized anywhere in the discovery rule.
Conclusion
 For the reasons stated above, the motion to compel U S WEST to provide 
multiple copies of discovery to Public Counsel should be denied.
 Respectfully submitted this 1st day of July, 1998.
      U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

      ________________________________
      Lisa A. Anderl, WSBA No. 13236
      Senior Attorney

      LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS N. OWENS



      ________________________________
      Douglas N. Owens, WSBA No. 641
      Of Attorneys for
      U S WEST Communications