V. Procedural Posture

At the prehearing conference held on October 17, 2001, Edison stated that there may be a problem with the discovery directive in Ordering Paragraph 4, if CSD relied upon it to preclude Edison from obtaining what it believes is necessary discovery. Because no controversy currently existed (i.e., Edison had not yet served its discovery requests), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) proposed that Edison serve specific discovery requests to ascertain whether CSD had any specific objections. Edison then served the October 31 data request which is the subject of this motion. It consists of 27 data requests with a total of 59 subparts. Edison also sought to depose six current Commission employees, but had not done so at the time of filing its motion because CSD advised Edison it would raise the same objections to deposition questions as it had to the data requests, and instruct the witnesses not to answer.