Procedural Background

We held two prehearing conferences (PHC) on November 5, 2001, and January 29, 2002. The parties agreed to a Commission Telecommunications Division investigation of Complainant's service quality allegations between the two PHCs and agreed to attempt to informally resolve Complainant's allegations of listings problems. Informal dispute resolution was unsuccessful. Complainant filed a motion to file an amendment to the complaint on January 29, 2002, which was opposed by Pacific and AT&T. Although the amendment raised new issues, including disputes about three additional phone lines, most of the issues were related to the service quality and listing concerns raised in the complaint. By a February 26, 2002 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling, the motion to amend the complaint was granted and hearings were continued for approximately two months to permit Defendants to resolve outstanding discovery issues and prepare testimony. Complainant's reliance in the motion on AT&T and Pacific documents obtained during discovery prompted the ALJ's ruling to conclude that this proceeding would be more efficient if submitted on written testimony and briefs.

Pacific filed a motion to dismiss itself as a defendant on March 22, 2002. By a May 17, 2002 ALJ ruling, that motion was granted in part and denied in part. Issues concerning complainant's directory listings were dismissed as to Pacific, because Pacific's resale tariff, under which AT&T provides service to Complainant, places liability for directory listings mistakes on the retail provider. Triable issues of fact, including applicability of the statute of limitations, remained concerning service quality, application of Rule 11, and overbilling.

A hearing was held on June 5, 2002 to receive written testimony and to permit parties to make opening statements. Only Complainant made an opening statement. Parties filed opening briefs on July 3, 2002 and reply briefs on July 26, 2002. AT&T requested the opportunity to raise evidentiary objections to Complainant's reply brief. By ALJ ruling, parties were permitted to file supplemental briefs to raise concerns about information contained in reply briefs, including relevance, materiality, beyond the scope of the proceeding, etc., and this proceeding was deemed submitted on the filing of those briefs on August 23, 2002.