Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3
IN RE: )
4 ) Docket No. 2006-274
JAMES D. COWIE, et al., ) January 19, 2007
5 ________________________________ )
8
Request for Commission Investigation Whether Verizon Is Cooperating In Maine With
The National Security Agency's Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping Program
9
10
11
12
APPEARANCES:
13
ANDREW HAGLER, Hearing Examiner
14 STEPHEN WARD, Public Advocate Office
WILLIAM BLACK, Public Advocate Office
15 WAYNE JOYNTNER, Public Advocate Office
ZACHARY L. HEIDEN, Maine Civil Liberties Union
16 DONALD BOECKE, Verizon Maine
JAMES D. COWIE, Complainant
17 CHRISTOPHER B. BRANSON, ESQ., Complainant
CHRIS MILLER, Mainestreet Communications
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
2
1 CONFERENCE COMMENCED (January 19, 2007, 9:04 a.m.)
4 person complaint -- with the lead complainant being Mr. Cowie -- requesting a
7 name is Andrew Hagler. I’m the presiding officer in this matter for the
8 Commission. I’d ask that those present note their appearances, please.
15 Union.
17 MR. MILLER: And Chris Miller, who didn't quite make it onto the docket.
18 MR. HAGLER: Okay, great. Well, thank you and thank you for coming
19 this morning. The reason that I scheduled this conference -- case conference
21 his letter of January 9th to the Commission. That was followed by -- very
23 response to those letters, Verizon, through Mr. Boecke, filed a letter with the
25 communications other than those three. Are there any others that I should be
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
3
1 aware of? Okay. The -- I will in a moment ask -- and give an opportunity for
3 what we've received that we should discuss. I will also give an opportunity for
4 anyone here who did not submit a letter to speak. I have an initial before I do
5 that and that is to the lead complainant. And I don’t know -- I’ll ask this question
6 going around, but, Doug, your letter indicates the complainants’ anxious
9 The very narrow question that I have is do you believe that after nine months
10 has run on a complaint brought to the Commission, that the Commission lacks
11 jurisdiction to consider the complaint at some further time after the nine months
12 has expired?
13 MR. COWIE: I -- I guess the first response is that I don't know, but the
14 reading of Section 1302 doesn't provide any -- any text that gives the
16 I don’t know whether the Commission has the authority to give itself more time
21 MR. BOECKE: I have not researched the issue, but I’ve always viewed
22 1302 as being purely procedural and not really substantive. Offhand today I
23 would say it would not affect the Commission’s jurisdiction. The nine month is
25 the statute doesn't say that at the end of nine months plaintiff wins or defendant
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
4
1 wins. I think if the legislature had really meant to rob the Commission of
2 jurisdiction after that nine months, they would have been more explicit.
7 MR. HAGLER: Okay. February 7th. If that’s the deadline, but if one or
8 two days or even a month after that deadline -- that date came and went the
10 decision on the complaint, would Verizon’s decision be that that final decision is
11 void for lack of jurisdiction of the Commission to issue that decision relying
12 solely on 1302?
13 MR. BOECKE: I think I can say with full confidence Verizon would not
17 MR. JOYNTNER: Well, I think the Commission has authority on its own
20 separate proceeding. I think it is stuck with the deadline the statute provides,
21 although I wouldn’t say today that I think it has no jurisdiction to issue a decision
22 a few days later. I haven't researched that either, but I think it has jurisdiction
3 what the Commission must do or what the statute directs the Commission to do
4 within a period of time, but I think that any action taken after that time would not
5 be challengeable, and I’m heartened to hear that Verizon indicates that it would
6 not challenge such on the grounds that it was action taken beyond the nine
7 months described in 1302. Just so that you know where I am on that issue. I
10 MR. COWIE: Could you say again what you just said about what your
13 MR. HAGLER: I believe that the Commission retains all the authority
14 after the nine months -- after a nine-month period -- in this case after February
15 7th --
18 months. It’s a separate question from what I think might be the subject of most
19 of the discussion here this morning. But if today were February -- or March 1st,
20 I don't believe the Commission lacks the ability to do anything that it could have
22 MR. COWIE: Can you tell me what the basis of your opinion is and why
24 you that.
25
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
6
1 MR. HAGLER: Sure. Nothing in 1302 creates a cause of action. The
4 creates a cause of action that only survives nine months. In my view 1302 is
6 complaints.
7 MR. COWIE: Well, in reading 1302 it says the Commission shall render
8 a decision upon a complaint no later than nine months after its filing. You don't
9 see that as -- apparently you don't see that as something -- the Commission
11 MR. HAGLER: No, that's not what I'm saying. What I’m saying is is that
12 if the amount of time -- the nine months passes but action is taken after that,
13 that action is not void or illegal because it didn’t occur within the nine months.
14 MR. JOYNTNER: If I may, I would think Andy isn’t saying that the nine-
15 month directive has no meaning. He’s only saying that the Commission
16 technically still has jurisdiction after the nine months. (Inaudible-too far from
19 MR. JOYNTNER: He’s not saying that he can ignore the nine months
22 MR. HAGLER: But now I'd like to ask, Doug, what you think the
25
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
7
1 MR. HAGLER: Yeah. Is there anything else other than what’s in the
3 MR. COWIE: Well, I would recommend that the Commission enforce its
4 August 9th order and give Verizon five days to reply and to hold them in
16 an order, the United States government would take the appropriate action to
17 enjoin such action in federal court and that action would be taken before
18 Verizon would be able to file its response. So I think what you’d be doing is just
19 precipitating more motion practice before the federal court, but I doubt very
20 much it would in any way -- even if we complied within the five days -- enable
22 weeks away.
23 MR. HAGLER: What's the basis for believing that that would be the
4 question.
5 MR. HAGLER: Would Verizon likewise seek such relief in the federal
6 district court?
8 being that we are not permitted under federal law to divulge this information, if
9 the United States did not take such action, I suspect Verizon would in order to
10 protect its rights and not be found in violation of federal law. It would seek to
11 have the federal court declare that the Maine Commission should or should not
13 MR. HAGLER: I’ll ask this of anyone who’d like to answer and everyone
15 motions pending before the federal district court in Maine -- a motion to dismiss
16 brought by the Commission brought by the Attorney General and his staff on
17 behalf of the Commission, and also a motion for summary judgment brought by
18 the Department of Justice -- and that each of those dispositive motions has
22 mechanism that was invoked to transfer that federal district court suit to a
24 and that that transfer of that federal court suit has been opposed by the
7 from microphone) --
15 MR. HAGLER: And what's the harm in letting that play out -- all of -- both
16 of those motions -- the federal district court motion and the transfer motion?
19 complainants and interveners in this matter would like the Commission to do,
23 the Commission drew from that order, a lawsuit -- drawing an injunction motion
24 at this point, given the status of where that matter is in federal court?
25
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
10
1 MR. JOYNTNER: My response is that it wouldn't be reasonable for the
2 Commission to ignore state statute based upon the speculation about what’s
3 going to happen in another court, which has no way enjoined the Commission
4 from its normal jurisdiction. The Commission has said repeatedly in its filings
5 with the court that the subject matter of the Commission’s order of August 9th in
6 no way intrudes into the sphere of national security or state secrets doctrine.
7 And, in fact, it hasn’t, and I think everybody in this room probably understands
8 that it hasn't. And given those facts, it would be particularly unreasonable for
9 the Commission to pretend that it's enjoined when it, in fact, is not enjoined and
12 MR. COWIE: I agree with that -- what the public advocate just said and
14 for summary judgment, in at least a half a dozen places the Commission insists
15 that it has the authority to investigate the complaint (inaudible-too far from
16 microphone) potentially ask Verizon did it provide records to NSA. That’s actual
18 Commission is telling the court that it does have the authority to do -- well, at
20 essentially say that the Commission has the authority to investigate the
21 complaint. So -- and since it hasn’t been enjoined from doing that by the court
22 -- well, I disagree with the analysis (inaudible-too far from microphone). The
24 the Commission has the authority to do it -- says it has the authority to do it, we
2 MR. HAGLER: One minute. Let me just ask -- just follow up. Has
4 from August 21st to last week when this was brought to the Commission's
5 attention?
9 MR. HAGLER: I believe that you are correct that there is no injunction --
11 August 21st through and including today, the Commission has taken -- there
12 has been no action in the Commission in this matter. Has something changed
13 between that time and today that causes imminent anxiety in light of the fact
14 that I think we agree -- or at least I’m telling you that it’s my belief that the
17 this lawsuit as, I don’t know, capricious. I think it’s an absurd lawsuit. It’s
18 disappointing to us that the judge didn't dismiss it out of hand because of the
22 information, it’s too late. They’re now public. And had they, I’m sure the
23 Department of Justice would have swooped in on Verizon and taken some kind
24 of legal action against them. So we don’t see any -- any -- that the lawsuit -- all
25 the lawsuit did was -- looked like it did was to put our complaint case -- taking it
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
12
1 and putting it in the freezer -- putting it on ice, and the Commission could have,
3 could have if it wanted to -- and even though Verizon didn’t make the public
4 statement -- could have asked Verizon had it provided call records to NSA. So
5 we don’t see any change really other than a lot of legal work that the Justice
7 MR. HAGLER: Then -- then -- then my question, not meant to carry with
8 it any -- not to be charged at all, is why was the January 9th letter that you
10 MR. COWIE: I -- I should have written it earlier. I was worried from the
11 day -- first, our complainants, as you know, are disappointed with the
13 was worried from the date of August 21st what the impact of the -- that lawsuit
18 Justice or some kind of motion -- TRO, which would officially, if the judge
19 agreed with it, shut down the complaint case anyway. But I decided finally that I
20 was not going to wait any longer and just essentially tell the Commission it had
22 microphone) what the statute said -- to render a decision upon the complaint.
23 So that’s why I waited all that time. I was advised not to do it, and I finally did it
24 anyway.
2 Commission’s order had set a deadline for the 21st. It’s now almost five months
3 later and no one had seen any change in circumstances that warranted sending
4 the letter earlier. I also just wanted to disagree with the OPA's characterization
7 the situation it’s in, and the presumption that it has jurisdiction is the central
10 The United States government strongly believes it does not. And that question
11 is now in the appropriate forum before a federal judge, and that’s the question I
12 believe that has to be decided before the Commission and the parties can
13 proceed with whatever direction it goes. And I don’t think it’s fair to say the
15 can do. And the suggestion that, I think, even Mr. Cowie said that if the
17 August or in January, it’s going to involve the parties in more motion practice
21 value in the PUC upholding the substance of the 1302 law and giving it
22 meaning within the time frame the legislature anticipated it should have
23 meaning. On the other hand I certainly agree with the observation that the
24 Commission has its own independent authority to act in this matter, and it
3 parallel to the nine-month deadline that exists in rate cases for processing rate
4 filings when utilities request changes in the rates. For many years now the
5 Commission has dealt with that nine-month rate case deadline in a sort of
6 ingenious way where they put out what’s called a part A order that basically
7 says in order to act before the end of the nine-month period, we will say nothing
8 whatever about any basis for any decision, but we will authorize a change in
9 rates in X amount. It’s impossible for any of the litigants at that point to know
10 how their rights have been affected, how -- what the basis for the decision is,
12 does nothing whatever to terminate the case. The case then continues until
13 there’s a part B order. Sometimes it’s as much as six months later. It says and
14 here’s why. At that point appeal rights attach, and at that point the parties are
17 here?
18 MR. WARD: Well, I'm thinking out loud here, of course, but I’m thinking
19 that there may be some value prior to the end of the nine-month period in the
21 to believe it has jurisdiction in this matter and it continues to believe that its
23 And then, having acted at least to that extent, make explicit its desire to
25
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
15
1 statutes, including the statute that says all Commission laws and rules should
3 MR. HAGLER: Would that have the effect of denying the complainants a
6 complainants have that right until such time as the Commission acts in the
8 part B order --
11 the complaint would be, obviously, denied, but that’s not what I’m proposing
12 here.
14 MR. BOECKE: Steve, just so I’m clear. The purpose of getting some
15 order out from the Commission before February 7th would be more or less just
16 to affirm Andy's assessment before that the Commission wouldn’t lose any
18 MR. WARD: That's correct, and also to add some, let’s say, legal force
23 MR. WARD: Legal force in the federal proceedings to the extent that the
24 state, by not acting within the nine-month time frame, is not by implication
25
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
16
1 indicating a lack of desire to act or a lack of interest in the issues or a lack of
6 -- (inaudible-too far from microphone). I think that 1302 very finally states the
7 Commission’s obligation to act within nine months, and I think I agree with the
8 analysis that it’s probably not a jurisdictional nine months. It’s a directive that’s
9 something other than jurisdictional and that the Commission will have
10 jurisdiction after that. But I don’t think that answers the question whether the
11 (inaudible-too far from microphone). I don’t think the fact that it’s not
12 jurisdictional implies that the Commission can, therefore, ignore it. And the
13 question is -- and the only reason I’ve heard suggested this morning why the
14 Commission shouldn’t act within the nine months is fear of the unknown -- a
15 fear that something might happen in the federal court, which I don’t think I’ve
16 heard a single suggestion that says why that has any legal bearing whatsoever
18 direct bearing on this -- on the Commission’s actions and that the court has
20 Commission retains jurisdiction and has a legal obligation to hear any and all
21 issues before it. I think the Commission has to go forward until it is ordered
23 -- the implied suggestion that the Commission can and should consider holding
24 back for fear that the federal court might take some action. That doesn't make
25 sense to me. As to what’s -- with regard to the question of has there been any
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
17
1 change that now makes it more urgent for the Commission to act, I would like to
2 point out that every day has a change in this case. We’re talking about serious
4 there’s very serious allegations out there of the violations, and it’s important that
5 we get to the bottom of that. Every day that passes is a delay. Justice delayed
6 is justice denied in this case. I think it’s a very serious concern (inaudible-too
11 think it’s really unfair to say the Commission’s ignoring the complaint.
12 MR. COWIE: Who has said that the Commission is ignoring this
13 complaint?
14 MR. BOECKE: Well, I just heard Mr. Branson say it. I heard Wayne
15 Joyntner say it. We can get the record out -- I believe there’s three or four
16 references to the Commission can’t ignore Section 1302. With all due respect it
18 participated actively in the federal court to protect its jurisdiction. The problem
20 Branson called it fear -- I think it’s well-placed fear. I believe at least one federal
21 court has already ruled that the United States government is correct that certain
4 to be resolved by the federal court. If the Commission takes one more step to
5 proceed with this investigation now, it’s not going to get any closer to that
6 answer. It’s going to get a motion for a temporary restraining order or for
7 preliminary relief. So I think it’s a vain act for people to counsel the
8 Commission, you know, go ahead and try and move forward with this case
10 MR. COWIE: Can I ask you how you know that that’s going to happen?
11 MR. BOECKE: How do I know that's going to happen? I think it's logical
12 to assume that since the United States government has commenced the lawsuit
18 the federal government has a number of lawyers. They’re well trained. They
20 complainants about why not could easily be directed at the United States
24 would be interested in having the question resolved. That’s exactly what the
25 Commission has done. That’s exactly what every party in this room has done
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
19
1 for the last five months was to await the court's ruling. Now the Commission’s
2 being counseled to not wait any longer. I think that would prompt the
8 the parties have provided, the work that’s taken place here in consideration of
9 the complaint, the work that has taken place in the federal district court on the
10 Commission’s behalf by not less than three of the ablest Assistants Attorney
11 Generals in that office weighed against -- I mean, should -- should and can the
12 Commission consider likely and possible outcomes and the worth of taking the
14 proceedings? Should we look at what the likely outcome is? Should we look at
15 how much effort that might take? Should we look at what the results are likely
16 to be as compared against what’s happening now that we can see in the federal
17 district court? I read what comes out of the federal district court and what’s filed
18 in the federal district court. Most recently there was an order involving
19 something about page limits or, you know, the -- it’s something procedural in the
20 district court, and Judge Woodcock indicated in the course of it -- and I don't
23 Although for the moment this court retains jurisdiction, it has expressed its
24 reluctance to issue an order that could affect the orderly disposition of the case.
25 I don’t know -- I don't offer a belief as to what Judge Woodcock might do upon
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
20
1 the receipt of a motion for an injunction brought against the enforcement action
2 that the complainants seek. But I wonder whether it would result in the sort of
3 closure or ability for the Commission -- practical ability for the Commission to
4 advance the matter before it any quicker than would be to wait to see what
6 that forum happens very quickly. And then you’re sent to California of you’re
7 sent back to the district of Maine with dispositive motions in the can, ready to be
12 (inaudible-too far from microphone). Quite frankly, I don't -- I'm sure that if the
15 too far from microphone) temporary restraining order -- whatever the legal thing
18 happening with the complaint case. Nothing has happened. Only one thing did
20 three months after the filing of the complaint. So what difference would it make
22 what would it do other than what we’re already (inaudible-too far from
2 MR. BRANSON: Thank you. To address your question of can you -- can
5 cannot -- I'm not aware of any support for that in the statutes or regulations.
6 Certainly neither 1302 nor the underlying statute on privacy suggest that the
11 similarly the (inaudible-too far from microphone) obligation is absolute. It’s not
13 more than this much time. So I think as far as applying for authority for that
14 suggestion -- but I want to also put another thing on the table, which is I don't
17 breeding paralysis in these two cases right now. And there’s a very real
18 possibility that if the federal court says do nothing -- because it’s going to say
19 the Commission has not done -- taken any action yet. So we’re -- you know --
20 which is exactly what I think Verizon and the government would like to see
22 anything. That’s my worst fear about the federal court right now. They’re likely
23 to look at this and say, look, the Commission hasn’t done anything. They
24 haven’t -- they have an order out there that’s not been acted on, the nine
25 months have come and gone, they still haven’t acted on it. What are we going
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
22
1 to do. We can't enjoin anything. It might -- and the federal court record is
4 might not do in terms of trying to give some order. So it may actually help in a
5 very real way to have some action because then we’ll actually have a case in
8 MR. BOECKE: I'm not sure I understand that last point. I believe there
9 are dispositive motions pending in federal court. I believe the federal court has
11 know, the Commission order directing Verizon to answer that August 9th order
14 MR. BOECKE: -- yeah -- excuse me -- I’m not sure that adds any
15 additional facts that the court needs. I think it has the facts. Again, I think the
16 Commission is doing all that it practically can. I think prompting this further
17 processing of the case and the inevitable motion practice that’s going to be
18 involved with no real further clarification or crystallization for the court’s benefit
19 or for the parties’ benefit of what already is the threshold issue -- does the
20 Commission have jurisdiction in this case or does it not. Everyone in here has
21 been presuming that the Commission does. The -- you know, the United States
22 government has a different view and has instructed Verizon of its view and told
24 will be in violation of federal law. That’s the question that’s pending in federal
25 court.
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
23
1 MR. JOYNTNER: One of the benefits of being in a democracy is that we
2 don’t have a federal executive branch that can tell everybody what to do absent
3 the court system. I agree with Doug that we're in a de facto injunction now.
4 There isn’t a whole lot to lose as far as the complainants are concerned. What
6 construed, as the Commission has repeatedly said to the federal court -- can’t
9 MR. JOYNTNER: And the people in this room, I think, are prepared to
10 ask the Commission to do nothing more than enforce its August 9th order,
12 MR. HEIDEN: I would further just add -- you’ve referred to the work
13 that’s gone on to the defendants in the United States v. Adams, et al. case -- it’s
15 namely, one, that the government had failed to state a claim, and that was part
16 of their motion to dismiss -- that they were asking for an advisory opinion -- and
17 also that the federal court should abstain from deciding the matter because of
19 proceeding. So the two are connected in an important way that goes back to
22 Department of Justice files a motion for TRO or whatever that (inaudible-too far
24 MR. BOECKE: No. I think it’s almost a certainty that -- to preserve the
25 status quo in the case since what the Commission would be ordering Verizon to
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
24
1 do would go to the heart of the issue. It’d be asking Verizon to disclose
3 probably a very, very high probability that the United States Department of
4 Justice could get that motion. It might even be able to get it ex parte.
5 MR. HAGLER: I can tell you I wouldn't venture that sort of guess. First
6 of all, it’s not my role. I do know that there would be, however, an issue of
7 whether the judge needed to confront the merits of the legal positions taken in
9 whether the likelihood of success on the merits of the claims is something that
10 would be forthcoming from the court within the time frame that 1302 asks this
12 concern about whether the case is its ultimately to decide or whether it's off to
13 California for some amount of process. But I’m focused on the question of what
14 does 1302 require and to what degree does it require of the Commission before
15 nine months, and your comments and your views and your writings have been
16 very helpful to me for that. Is there anything else that you think I ought to
17 know?
18 MR. JOYNTNER: One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that there
19 should be a fear of litigation on the other side as well because as soon as the
20 Commission fails to render a decision within nine months, the complainants can
22 MR. HAGLER: Right. And the result of that, I believe -- I believe that the
25 Associates, Maine 1984, and that the result of the -- of such an action brought
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
25
1 by the complainants in superior court is likely to be directory that the
3 might come from the -- from such an action, but I don’t think that that sort of
4 litigation in the superior court would result in a remedy for these complainants
5 on the merits of the complaint they brought before the Commission. It's not
6 going to be like the rates are, therefore, in effect or the rates are, therefore, not
7 in effect. It’s likely to be a direction for the Commission to take some action,
8 which is why I’m here so quickly after the letters were filed today because I
23 But a superior court is not going to order the Commission to grant whatever
24 relief your complaint here asks for, which is tell Verizon not to cooperate with
2 complaint. They’re saying -- it did say -- it says a lot more things before it says
3 tell Verizon to stop doing it, and asks for an investigation into whether Verizon
6 action -- what we’re -- the possibility is that the -- in that situation is that the
9 MR. JOYNTNER: That's really quite symmetrical with the other side.
10 The federal court could tell the Commission not to do something. The superior
13 MR. JOYNTNER: Those are the two possibilities that the Commission
15 MR. HAGLER: And what I hear this morning is that there is not an
16 agreement among the parties to avoid -- that would avoid either result that we
17 could walk away from today and that it’s up to me to make a recommendation to
19 MR. BOECKE: Other than I think you have the agreement of the parties
20 that certainly the nine months does not in any way rob the Commission of
24
25
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
27
1 MR. COWIE: Has the Commission ever, in a 10-person complaint,
2 written an order that gave itself more than nine months to render a decision.
4 MR. HAGLER: I'm saying that any action the Commission takes after
5 nine months would not be void for the fact that it occurred after nine months.
6 That's all that I'm saying, and that’s all that I agree the -- I believe the parties
10 (inaudible-too far from microphone) at this point so I don’t have anything to add
12 inclined to weigh cost balances and what not, I’ll tell you my sincere belief that if
13 you want -- the quickest way to end this pain and the ongoing litigation is to act.
14 What is almost certain if the Commission fails to act is long, drawn out multi-
15 district litigation which will cost this state and our taxpayers dearly because
16 we’re going to be wrapped up in many other cases that are from all over the
19 probably get some direction from the federal court which is clearly lacking now.
20 If the Commission wants direction from the federal court, we can get it, but the
21 Commission needs to act. But that will bring it to a swift end and in the end it’s
22 going to cost everybody a lot less and it’ll take a lot less time.
25 difficult of any of the situations around the country for a federal court to see as
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
28
1 something that should be -- that needs to be enjoined because what the
3 It simply asked Verizon to reaffirm its own statement. So these are great facts
4 to test before the federal court. I disagree with Don. I think we would win. I
6 MR. BOECKE: But the only thing that's going to bring this to an end is a
8 a dispositive ruling, Verizon isn't going to turn over anything. And barring a
9 dispositive motion, the United States government isn’t going to consent to let
10 the investigation go forward. I just don’t see how it’s going to precipitate a
12 expenses to put us right back where we are right now. You’ll get a formal court
13 order that says the Commission should do what it's been doing for 5 months. It
14 should await the due process of law, and if that’s what it entails, I don’t think a
15 federal judge would have a problem signing that order telling the Commission to
18 negative. I’m inclined to agree with the statement just made by Mr. Branson
23 MR. WARD: The motions -- the motions will involve delicate questions
2 possible.
7 1981 New England telephone case in which a rate order that was granted in the
8 tenth month was voided. So prior to that -- prior to that date there was no
9 expectation that there were legal rights that attached to the nine-month
10 expectation --
12 MR. WARD: In a rate case. So prior to that point, it was directive. But
13 then as a result of that case law, it became mandatory and that’s when the Part
14 A/Part B formula got put into place that enabled the Commission simultaneously
18 MR. HAGLER: And that reasoning, you believe, would carry over to the
20 MR. WARD: -- this morning is there may be a basis for using that
21 procedure to uphold the validity of the investigations law and the nine-month
22 deadline and at the same time account for these other events which are clearly
24 MR. JOYNTNER: And 1302 would -- rather 1302 itself, which was the
25 subject of Agro -- I think the Agro case is probably the only thing that’s out there,
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505
30
1 but it’s -- it has some pretty -- pretty narrow directives to the Commission like
4 MR. JOYNTNER: Yes. I don’t think Agro leaves a whole lot of room for
5 the Commission to --
8 MR. BOECKE: There are actually two cases, like NET 1 and NET 2.
10 MR. HAGLER: If the parties want to send me an e-mail with citations, I’ll
12 MR. BOECKE: I would just point out, Andy, that the Agro case didn’t
13 directly involve the nine-month statute -- that was not the question before the
14 Law Court whether the Commission has to act within nine months. I believe the
15 Commission in that case did act prior to the nine months by dismissing the
16 complaint, and whether they should have dismissed was the issue the Law
17 Court addressed.
20 MR. HAGLER: -- feel free to send whatever you’d like. You need not -- I
21 don't want to complicate what has been -- with more motion practice before me
22 because that doesn’t seem to make sense. But giving me the citations -- and
23 I’m sure that I can find them on my own -- but I need to make a
2 here. And I’m not going to make a decision about a recommendation today.
5 too far from microphone) so we hear -- will we hear anything -- see anything?
6 MR. HAGLER: I really don't know -- don’t know. I'm cognizant of what
7 appears to have been agreed as a date of the expiration of the 1302 timeline
9 MR. BLACK: And you're cognizant of the request made by at least three
12 Thank you.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BROWN & MEYERS
1-800-785-7505