May 17, 2000
NOTICE CONFIRMING REVISED SCHEDULE FOR FILING BRIEFS
(May 26, 2000: Initial Briefs; June 2, 2000: Reply Briefs)
and
NOTICE CONFIRMING ADDITIONAL PROCESS
(Written Argument: May 16, 2000, and May 19, 2000; oral argument: May 23, 2000) 
RE: In re Application of U S WEST, Inc. and Qwest Communications   
International, Inc., Docket No. UT-991358
TO PARTIES OF RECORD: 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Commission has considered the May 11, 2000, request 
by U S WEST and Qwest that the Commission reconsider its determination to 
revise the procedural schedule and provide for additional process as set forth 
in Commission Notices issued on May 10 and 11, 2000. U S WEST and Qwest ask the 
Commission to reinstate the briefing deadlines established by the May 10, 2000, 
Notice. The Commission also has considered Staff's and Public Counsel's 
responses in opposition to the request, filed on May 16, 2000. The Commission 
denies U S WEST and Qwest's request and confirms the process and procedural 
schedule established by its Notice of May 11, 2000.
The Commission's paramount procedural concern in this proceeding, as in all 
contested cases, is to ensure that all parties are afforded due process of law. 
This requires that the general processes typical to any case, and the special 
processes that may be required under the particular circumstances of individual 
cases, be conducted in an orderly fashion. In terms of scheduling, the 
Commission makes decisions with a careful eye to balancing the time needed for 
meaningful participation at all stages of an adjudication against the 
ever-present goal of concluding proceedings at the earliest possible moment 
consistent with due process requirements. In striking that balance, the 
Commission takes fully and carefully into account any assertion by a party that 
it will suffer prejudice in one form or another if particular scheduling 
decisions are made. Assertions of prejudice, however, require explanation; it 
is the form and bases of asserted prejudice that determine the appropriate 
weight to be given such claims.
In their joint request U S WEST and Qwest assert that "aditional delay is 
highly prejudicial to them and does not appear to be necessary in light of the 
alternative process suggested and set forth in this letter.@ Other than saying 
that U S WEST and Qwest "have a current goal of June 30, 2000 for the closing 
date of the merger, however, there is no explanation of why or how postponing 
the dates for initial and reply briefs by one week from the previously 
established deadlines for those filings will cause any prejudice to U S WEST or 
Qwest. 
Another important interest the Commission must consider in the current context 
is the need to afford adequate protection and due process to Parties that 
assert "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" status for certain documents 
that came to light just before initial briefs originally were due and which 
Staff urges should be made part of the record, with or without that asserted 
status preserved. At the same time U S WEST and Qwest jointly propose an 
alternative process to that established by the Commission May 11, 2000, Notice 
- process that would allow for discussion in briefs related to the disputed 
documents - AT&T has placed before the Commission its objection to Commission 
Staff's response to "AT&T's Objection To Entry of Confidential Agreement into 
the Record and to Commission Retention."  AT&T asks that Commission Staff's 
response be "stricken from the record" and urges the Commission to "admonish 
Staff to avoid any further oral or written disclosures of the contents of the 
Agreement as long as it continues to be designated as a highly confidential 
document . . ."  The additional process and related adjustment to the 
procedural schedule announced by the Commission's May 11, 2000 Notice affords 
the Parties who assert confidentiality a higher order of protection from 
inadvertent disclosure than the alternative process and schedule proposed by U 
S WEST and Qwest.
Finally, the Commission takes into account Staff's response to U S WEST and 
Qwest's request. Among other things, Staff asserts that the demanding 
circumstances of this case, including multiple filings by several Parties 
during the past two weeks to which Staff has been required to respond, result 
in Staff needing the additional time for briefs allowed under the Commission's 
May 11, 2000 Notice.  Public Counsel also supports maintaining the existing 
schedule.
The Commission determines for these reasons that it should deny U S WEST and 
Qwest's request to reinstate the previous procedural schedule and adopt these 
Parties' proposed alternative to the process announced via the Commission's  
May 11, 2000, Notice. Parties should conduct themselves in accordance with that 
Notice, which provides, among other things, for Initial Briefs to be filed by  
May 26, 2000, and for Reply Briefs to be filed by June 2, 2000. 
Sincerely,
DENNIS J. MOSS
Administrative Law Judge