III. Response of Sprint PCS

While Sprint PCS acknowledges that it made an error in its response to the Staff's discovery request, it denies that the error was intentional. Sprint PCS argues that the Commission rules require that a person knowingly provide false or misleading information to constitute a violation of Rule 1, and that Sprint PCS' mistakes were unintentional. Sprint PCS therefore denies it violated Rule 1.

Sprint PCS' defense for not disclosing the Inglewood NXX code to staff is that the NXX code was not yet available for assignment to customers at the date of the staff data request. Sprint PCS claims it did not interpret the staff data request to include NXX codes that were not yet available for assignment at the date of the request.

As its defense for omission of the Culver City NXX code, Sprint PCS argues that its omission was unintentional. In support of this claim, Sprint PCS notes that it subsequently provided the omitted information to the Director of TD in a letter dated July 18, 2000 (attached as Appendix D, hereto) in response to a different request made in another context. As such, Sprint PCS claims an unintentional omission of pertinent information does not rise to the level of a Rule 1 violation, but is merely "excusable error."