6. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
No comments were filed. During the time available to file comments on the Proposed Decision, Respondent Cavallaro filed a "Motion to Remove Personal Information From Public View and to Seal Records" in which he argues that businesses, business addresses, individual business owners, and individuals named in Commission proceedings should be presumptively confidential unless there is a direct linkage to criminal activity or significant harm affecting the public. Cavallaro contends that the OII omitted any claim that he or other named Respondents harmed the public and notes that it is his business, not him, that is named in the OII. Furthermore, he claims that D.10-10-020, adopted to delete his home address from the OII and Staff Report, should have been construed to delete his individual name and address from all possible sources of public view on the Commission's website, including the proceeding service list.99 He asks for "compassion" from the Commission to seal "the records of the proceeding" to avoid possible harm, embarrassment, and "future financial loss." He concedes the Final Decision can be public.
CPSD opposed the motion on two grounds, arguing: 1) Rule 13.14 precludes the filing of a motion in an OII after the record is submitted for decision, and 2) no legal duty or authority exists to seal a proceeding record to prevent harm to a respondent's "financial and emotional" well being. We disagree with CPSD that Rule 13.14 precludes Cavallaro from filing his motion to seal proceeding records. Rule 13.14 identifies when a proceeding has been submitted for decision and provides criteria for a motion to set aside submission to take additional evidence. Instead, Rule 11.1 applies. It provides that a motion may be made at any time during the pendency of a proceeding. Cavallaro's motion is not to reopen the record to take evidence, but instead to seal the record. Thus, once Cavallaro complied with the requirements for filing and service, the motion was timely.
However, we agree with CPSD that the motion lacks legal basis. Cavallaro's motion is comprised of speculation and argument, without any supporting citations. Rule 11.1 requires any motion filed to "concisely state the facts and law supporting the motion." Cavallaro's motion does neither. CPSD points out that although the OII named A&M Communications, not Cavallaro individually, the OII also included the owners of named businesses and Cavallaro is co-owner of A&M Communications along with Freeman. Naming an owner of a business charged with violations of the law is the Commission's practice and duty, and Cavallaro has not made the case for different treatment.100 In fact, Cavallaro admitted that he illegally operated his payphones with ADADs to generate DAC, thus the location of the payphones is arguably of public interest. However, in D.10-10-020, the Commission explicitly permitted deletion of the traditionally confidential home address from the OII and Staff Report based on his claims of interference with employment.
Cavallaro also filed a reply to CPSD in which he attempts to invoke either General Order (GO) 66-C or Pub. Utils. Code § 583 as a basis to seal the proceeding records, and re-iterates his argument that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over him and his company because they are not "public utilities." This latter argument has been addressed in the body of the decision and is of no merit.101 Additionally, neither § 583 and GO 66-C assist Cavallaro in his arguments. Section 583 limits public inspection of proprietary information reported by utilities to the Commission unless required by other statutes or if submitted within a Commission proceeding. Section 583 does not create a privilege of nondisclosure nor designate any specific types of information as confidential. GO 66-C defines public records and sets forth procedures for the public to make requests for disclosure of those public records by the Commission. For Cavallaro to justify non-disclosure of documents in the record, he must expressly identify other parts of the law to support confidentiality.102 This he did not do.
The Commission's proceedings are open to the public, as are documents filed therein, unless placed under seal by Commission order based on weightier public concerns. Respondent failed to meet his burden of proof and his motion to seal the record of the proceeding is denied.
99 Cavallaro installed COPTs at both a home and business address. CPSD was unaware that one address was his home and inadvertently included it in the Staff Report and OII when discussing Cavallaro's control over the payphones which generated illegal DAC by use of ADADs. D.10-10-020 removed the disclosure of his home address from the OII and Staff Report.
100 For examples of OIIs that named businesses and their owners, see, e.g., I.02-02-005 and I.04-07-005.
101 The Commission has jurisdiction over those who violate Pub. Utils. Code provisions regulating use of ADADs.
102 In re Southern California Edison Co., D.91-12-019, 42 CPUC2d 298, 301.
