Procedural Background

A rehearing decision, D.01-02-041, affirmed the transfer of the Pacific Bell audit oversight from ORA to our Telecommunications Division. The subject audit is to be included in our review of the New Regulatory Framework.

On March 1, 2001, ORA filed a Petition for Modification of D.01-02-041 (Petition). ORA concurrently filed a motion for a shortened response time. ORA requests that certain language be modified to clarify its discovery rights here and in other proceedings.¹ ORA contends that D.01-02-041 could be read to permit discovery only after the audit is filed by the Telecommunications Division. ORA requests further clarification to the effect that it is entitled to inspect "any documents or records. . . at any time." (Petition, p. 4) (Emphasis Added.)

ORA cites Public Utilities Code § 309.5(e), 314 and 583 in support. Section 309.5(d) provides that "the division [ORA] may compel the disclosure of any information it deems necessary to perform its duties. . . ." Section 314 provides that "each officer and person employed by the Commission may, at any time, inspect the accounts, books, papers and documents of any public utility." Section 583 protects against disclosure of confidential information by Commission staff.

On March 5, 2001, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Weismehl issued a ruling shortening the time for responses. Responses were filed by Pacific Bell and The Utility Reform Network (TURN). As more fully discussed below, Pacific Bell objects to the Petition on both procedural and substantive grounds. TURN supports the Petition and urges the Commission to eliminate any confusion as to the discovery rights of ORA.