Gary L. Field 3493 Woods Edge Drive, Suite 100 Gary A. Gensch * Okemos, Michigan 48864-5985 Hai Jiang Telephone (517) 913-5100 Facsimile (517) 913-3471 Of Counsel : Norman C. Witte Writer’s contact information: John R. Liskey firstname.lastname@example.org Joy L. Witte (517) 913-5102 Kimberly L. Savage Matthew J. Stephens www.fieldlawgroup.com * Also Licensed in Indiana April 4, 2012 Mary Jo Kunkle, Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 4300 W. Saginaw Lansing, MI Re: In the matter of the petition of ACD Telecom, Inc. et al. for Arbitration of Interconnection rates, terms, conditions, and related arrangements with Michigan Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Michigan. Case No. U-16906 Dear Ms. Kunkle: Enclosed for filing is CLECs’ Response to AT&T’s Motion to Strike CLEC Documents or, in the Alternative, to Abate Proceeding; and Proof of Service. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly tours, FIELD LAW GROUP, PLLC Digitally signed by Gary L. Field Gary L. Field DN: cn=Gary L. Field, o=Field Law Group, PLLC, ou, email@example.com, c=US Date: 2012.04.04 11:02:18 -04'00' Gary L. Field GLF/cm Enclosures cc w/enc: Parties of Record STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the matter of the petition of ACD Telecom, Inc., ) Arialink Telecom, LLC, CynergyComm.Net, Inc., ) DayStarr LLC, Lucre, Inc., Michigan Access, Inc., ) Case No. U-16906 Osirus Communications, Inc., Superior Spectrum ) Telephone and Data, LLC, TC3 Telecom, Inc., and ) TelNet Worldwide, Inc. for Arbitration of ) Interconnection rates, terms, conditions, and related ) arrangements with Michigan Bell Telephone ) Company d/b/a AT&T Michigan. ) CLECs’ Response to AT&T’s Motion to Strike CLEC Documents or, in the Alternative, to Abate Proceeding On March 28, 2012, AT&T Michigan filed a Motion to Strike CLEC Documents or, in the Alternative, to Abate Proceeding (“Motion to Strike”). For the reasons enumerated below, AT&T’s Motion to Strike is without merit: 1) There is nothing on the record to strike because the CLEC Documents were filed under seal. 2) Because the CLEC Documents were filed under seal, they are viewable only by the Commission and its Staff. AT&T represented in its Brief filed in this matter on March 16, 2012, that it has “no objection” to sharing the ICBs – presumably in their entirety – with the Commission and its Staff. See AT&T Brief, p 23. If AT&T has no objection to the Commission and its Staff seeing the ICBs themselves, it is strange that AT&T objects to the Commission and its Staff seeing a very general description of the nature of the ICBs, which was filed under seal. 3) If AT&T is fearful that Mr. Champagne may not have accurately described the ICB contracts and would rather the Commission and its Staff see the ICBs themselves, so that the Commission and its Staff can draw their own independent conclusions as to their nature, the CLECs support providing the ICBs themselves to the Commission and its Staff. 4) The CLEC Documents contain no confidential information. The CLEC Documents contained no specifics, just a general description of the nature of AT&T’s ICB. 5) AT&T offers no explanation why the general information contained in the CLEC Documents is confidential information. 6) In its March 16, 2012 filing in this matter, AT&T offered its own general description of the nature of the ICB contracts. On page 7 of her affidavit, Patricia H. Pellerin creates an overall impression that the ICB contracts are of “unavoidable complexity.” She averred: “Conclusion. While CLECs would like the entire ICB contract resale process to be as simple as using a cookie cutter, where every cookie looks the same, the disclosure and resale of ICB contracts is not that straightforward. ICB contracts are, by their very nature, variable, and the process must reflect that variability. AT&T Michigan’s proposed language strikes a reasonable balance between the CLECs’ desire for “one size fits all” and the unavoidable complexity that is inherent in ICB contracts.” 7) AT&T’s own general description of the ICB contracts is no more confidential than CMC’s general description of the nature of the ICB contracts. 8) As the CLEC Documents show, AT&T’s general description of the overall nature of the ICB contracts is false. 9) The CLECs are entitled to proffer evidence to refute such false statements. 2 10) The misimpression of the nature of ICB contracts that AT&T has been creating since at least 2006 in MPSC Case No. U-14975 regarding AT&T’s duty to resell telecommunications services in ICB contracts is a significant reason why litigation has been protracted. AT&T continued such false descriptions of complexity before the Sixth Circuit. See footnote 1 in the Sixth Circuit’s opinion at CMC Telecom v Michigan Bell, 637 F3d 626, 630 (6th Cir 2011). 11) The boilerplate, check-the-box nature of AT&T’s ICB contracts permits an automated, simplified offering process. Thus the CLEC Documents are highly relevant and essential to the procedural issues before the Commission and should not be disregarded, as AT&T requests. 12) Contrary to the premise of its Motion to Strike, AT&T has previously represented to CLECs in writing that its interest in confidentiality relates to protecting such information from being disclosed to the public. See Exhibit A. The general information in the CLEC documents was provided in this docket in a manner that protected AT&T’s basic interest in confidentiality. 13) Paragraph 9 of the Protective Order provides a procedure seeking the Disclosure of information on the Public Record. The CLECs followed the procedures specified in paragraph 9 of the Protective Order. 14) Paragraph 10(f) of the Protective Order specifically states that, even if information is in fact Confidential Information, the obligations of the Protective Order do not apply if the information “is submitted to a regulatory commission, agency or court of competent jurisdiction under a protective agreement or order.” The CLECs submitted the information to the MPSC under seal and subject to statutory protections. 3 15) Paragraph 10(f) of the Protective Order also specifically states that, even if information is in fact Confidential Information, the obligations of the Protective Order do not apply if the information “is required by law or regulation to be disclosed, but only to the extent and for the purposes of such required disclosure.” In its October 4, 2011 Order in Case No. U-14975, the Commission ruled that AT&T is required to provide sufficient details regarding its ICBs offerings to CLEC. 16) The Federal District Court must defer to the Commission’s jurisdiction, not vice versa. The Sixth Circuit specifically found that the procedure for AT&T’s offering of services in ICB contracts was a matter for the Commission and that the details of such procedure were not within the scope of the District Court’s jurisdiction. See CMC Telecom v Michigan Bell, 637 F3d 626, 632-633 (6th Cir 2011). WHEREFORE, the CLECs request that the Commission deny AT&T’s Motion. Respectfully submitted, ACD Telecom, Inc., Arialink Telecom, LLC, CynergyComm.net, Inc., DayStarr LLC, Lucre, Inc., Michigan Access, Inc., Osirus Communications, Inc., Superior Spectrum Telephone and Data, Inc., TC3 Telecom, Inc., and TelNet Worldwide, Inc. Digitally signed by Gary L. Field Gary L. Field DN: cn=Gary L. Field, o=Field Law Group, PLLC, ou, firstname.lastname@example.org, c=US Dated: April 4, 2012 Date: 2012.04.04 11:02:41 -04'00' Gary L. Field (P37270) Gary A. Gensch, Jr. (P66912) FIELD LAW GROUP, PLLC 3493 Woods Edge Drive, Suite 100 Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 913-5100 email@example.com Attorneys for CLECs 4 Exhibit A Gary L. Field Digitally signed by Gary L. Field DN: cn=Gary L. Field, o=Field Law Group, PLLC, ou, firstname.lastname@example.org, c=US Date: 2012.04.04 11:03:10 -04'00'
Pages to are hidden for
"0031"Please download to view full document