Procedural Background
This matter comes before the Commission pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Decision (D.) 95-12-056. Under the procedures, in the event of a dispute over terms of an interconnection agreement (ICA), the parties must first try to resolve the matter informally at the executive level. If that is unsuccessful, a party may file a motion seeking mediation before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). If mediation fails, the ALJ then directs the parties to file pleadings and resolves the dispute. If either party disagrees with that ruling, the party may contest the ruling by filing an expedited complaint with the Commission.1 See D. 95-12-056, Ordering Paragraph 11; 63 CPUC2d 700, 749-50.
Under the process, on June 14, 2002, Cox filed a motion2 seeking the Commission's assistance in resolving an ICA dispute between Cox and SBC California. On January 7, 2003, the assigned ALJ issued a preliminary ruling in favor of SBC California, stating that neither the pleadings nor supporting documentation submitted substantiated Cox's claim. On February 6, 2003, Cox filed this complaint. SBC California responded on March 12, 2003, and amended its answer on June 12, 2003. Evidentiary hearings were held on June 25-26, 2003. Fifteen exhibits were identified and received into evidence.3
1 The expedited complaint process established for dispute resolution over the terms of an ICA adhere to the same rules set forth in Rule 13.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, except that a court reporter may be present. The Commission decision may include separately stated findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and if so, the decision may be considered as precedent. (63 CPUC 2d, 700.) 2 The motion was filed in the docket of D.95-12-056, Rulemaking (R.) 95-04-043 and Investigation 95-04-044. 3 SBC California revised its Exhibit #15 on June 27, 2003.
