VIII. Request for Confidential Treatment

Concurrently with this application, Applicant filed a motion for leave to file two documents under seal. The first document is its letter of agreement with Orange City Mills Limited Partnership (Mills), the owner of Block, to provide service to Block. The second document is a letter dated May 3, 2001 from Mills to Block tenants regarding Applicant's discontinuation of service to Block. Applicant represents that these documents should be made confidential because they contain information about Mills's business planning and strategy, and related information, confidential to Mills and not available to the public. We find that this is true for the letter of agreement, and will grant that part of the motion. However, the May 3, 2001 letter is a different story.

The May 3, 2001 letter is Mills's notice to its Block tenants that Applicant would discontinue service effective on or about May 15, 2001, as specified in Applicant's first notice. The letter advises tenants to contact Pacific Bell to obtain service, and provides a phone number and instructions for doing so. The letter contains no information about Mills. The only information it contains about Applicant is the service discontinuance date that Applicant had already made public. In addition, the letter does not indicate that it should be treated as confidential by Mills's tenants or Applicant. Therefore, we find that the letter contains no confidential information, and has already been widely disseminated without advising the recipients that it is confidential. As a result, we will deny Applicant's motion to file the May 3, 2001 letter under seal.