Throughout the proceeding, the carriers objected to the breadth and scope of the TURN Opening/Reply Information Requests, as well as the Comments on ALJ Ruling ordered release of certain confidential Adopting Protective Order, responses to third parties. March 11, 2016/March 16, Parties first unsuccessfully attempted to 2016. negotiate an NDA to cover treatment of Carrier Coalition Group Reply confidential information. The ALJ then to Comments on ALJ issued a draft Protective Order and TURN’s Ruling, March 16, 2016. parties submitted extensive comments with TURN taking the lead for the consumer groups. Most controversial ALJ Ruling on Remaining was the designation of a “Commission Protective Order Issues, and category of the most Only” carriers’ Other Issues, April 1, 2016, sensitive confidential data thereby pp. 11-12. access to a subset of preventing parties’ data. As the debate over the Protective Order Motion to Compel, TURN’s and third party access to the subscription April 19, 2016. data continued, TURN used its right to Assigned Commissioner/ALJ discovery under the rules Commission’s Ruling On Motion TURN’s to propound a single round of questions to Compel, etc., May 3, 2016, to carriers. The carriers objected to at pp. 5-6. several of questions using the TURN’s same arguments. TURN then filed a Motion to Compel. Final Decision at pp. 119-121. TURN opposed the carriers’ obstructionist tactics at every step, arguing that it needed access to the relevant data so that its experts could craft detailed and comprehensive market analyses and recommendations pursuant to the terms of the OII. Moreover, TURN was concerned that an adverse ruling by the Commission or federal court denying TURN access to this data could be precedent-setting and limit the effectiveness of intervenors in future Commission proceedings. Through several Rulings and the approval of a Protective Order, the ALJ and Assigned Commissioner rejected almost every carrier objection to third
Throughout the proceeding, the carriers objected to the breadth and scope of the Information Requests, as well as the ordered release of certain confidential responses to third parties. Parties first unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate an NDA to cover treatment of confidential information. The ALJ then issued a draft Protective Order and parties submitted extensive comments with TURN taking the lead for the consumer groups. Most controversial was the designation of a “Commission Only” category of the carriers’ most sensitive confidential data thereby preventing parties’ access to a subset of data. As the debate over the Protective Order and third party access to the subscription data continued, TURN used its right to discovery under the Commission’s rules to propound a single round of questions to carriers. The carriers objected to several of TURN’s questions using the same arguments. TURN then filed a Motion to Compel. TURN opposed the carriers’ obstructionist tactics at every step, arguing that it needed access to the relevant data so that its experts could craft detailed and comprehensive market analyses and recommendations pursuant to the terms of the OII. Moreover, TURN was concerned that an adverse ruling by the Commission or federal court denying TURN access to this data could be precedent-setting and limit the effectiveness of intervenors in future Commission proceedings. Through several Rulings and the approval of a Protective Order, the ALJ and Assigned Commissioner rejected almost every carrier objection to third TURN Opening/Reply Comments on ALJ Ruling Adopting Protective Order, March 11, 2016/March 16, 2016. Carrier Coalition Group Reply to TURN’s Comments on ALJ Ruling, March 16, 2016. ALJ Ruling on Remaining Protective Order Issues, and Other Issues, April 1, 2016, pp. 11-12. TURN’s Motion to Compel, April 19, 2016. Assigned Commissioner/ALJ Ruling On TURN’s Motion to Compel, etc., May 3, 2016, at pp. 5-6. Final Decision at pp. 119-121.