MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AUGUSTA, MAINE
1
1
2 3 4 5
IN RE:
) ) JAMES D. COWIE, et al., ) ________________________________ )
Docket No. 2006-274
January 19, 2007
6 7 8 9
Request for Commission Investigation Whether Verizon Is Cooperating In Maine With The National Security Agency's Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping Program
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
APPEARANCES: ANDREW HAGLER, Hearing Examiner STEPHEN WARD, Public Advocate Office WILLIAM BLACK, Public Advocate Office WAYNE JOYNTNER, Public Advocate Office ZACHARY L. HEIDEN, Maine Civil Liberties Union DONALD BOECKE, Verizon Maine JAMES D. COWIE, Complainant CHRISTOPHER B. BRANSON, ESQ., Complainant CHRIS MILLER, Mainestreet Communications
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
2 1
CONFERENCE COMMENCED (January 19, 2007, 9:04 a.m.)
2
MR. HAGLER: Good morning. We’re here on Commission docket
3
number 2006-274, which is a request brought by consumers -- we call it a ten-
4
person complaint -- with the lead complainant being Mr. Cowie -- requesting a
5
Commission investigation into whether Verizon is cooperating in Maine with the
6
National Security Agency’s warrantless domestic wire tapping program. My
7
name is Andrew Hagler. I’m the presiding officer in this matter for the
8
Commission. I’d ask that those present note their appearances, please. MR. BLACK: Bill Black for the public advocate.
9 10
MR. JOYNTNER: Wayne Joyntner for the public advocate.
11
MR. WARD: Steve Ward, public advocate.
12
MR. COWIE: James Cowie, lead complainant.
13
MR. BRANSON: (Inaudible) Branson, another complainant.
14
MR. HEIDEN: Zachary Heiden for intervener, Maine Civil Liberties
15
Union.
16
MR. BOECKE: And Don Boecke for Verizon Maine.
17
MR. MILLER: And Chris Miller, who didn't quite make it onto the docket.
18
MR. HAGLER: Okay, great. Well, thank you and thank you for coming
19
this morning. The reason that I scheduled this conference -- case conference
20
or conference of counsel is to address the issues raised initially by Mr. Cowie in
21
his letter of January 9th to the Commission. That was followed by -- very
22
quickly thereafter by a letter by the public advocate. And on January 17th, in
23
response to those letters, Verizon, through Mr. Boecke, filed a letter with the
24
Commission. I’ve received no other letters or communications -- paper
25
communications other than those three. Are there any others that I should be BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
3 1
aware of? Okay. The -- I will in a moment ask -- and give an opportunity for
2
everyone here -- to indicate if there’s additional information or elaboration on
3
what we've received that we should discuss. I will also give an opportunity for
4
anyone here who did not submit a letter to speak. I have an initial before I do
5
that and that is to the lead complainant. And I don’t know -- I’ll ask this question
6
going around, but, Doug, your letter indicates the complainants’ anxious
7
concern regarding the upcoming nine-month statutory deadline set forth in
8
Section 1302, which is the Commission’s procedure for consumer complaints.
9
The very narrow question that I have is do you believe that after nine months
10
has run on a complaint brought to the Commission, that the Commission lacks
11
jurisdiction to consider the complaint at some further time after the nine months
12
has expired?
13
MR. COWIE: I -- I guess the first response is that I don't know, but the
14
reading of Section 1302 doesn't provide any -- any text that gives the
15
Commission authority beyond the nine-month deadline to render a decision. So
16
I don’t know whether the Commission has the authority to give itself more time
17
or -- or what (inaudible-too far from microphone).
18
MR. HAGLER: Okay. Mr. Branson, do you have a view on that?
19
MR. BRANSON: No. I have no view on that.
20
MR. HAGLER: Mr. Boecke?
21
MR. BOECKE: I have not researched the issue, but I’ve always viewed
22
1302 as being purely procedural and not really substantive. Offhand today I
23
would say it would not affect the Commission’s jurisdiction. The nine month is
24
clearly a directive in which they’re supposed to complete their investigation, but
25
the statute doesn't say that at the end of nine months plaintiff wins or defendant BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
4 1
wins. I think if the legislature had really meant to rob the Commission of
2
jurisdiction after that nine months, they would have been more explicit.
3 4
MR. HAGLER: To be clear, does that mean that following -- is February 3rd, I think, is the date that people seem to be --
5
MR. BOECKE: I had February 7th. Is that --
6
MR. JOYNTNER: February 7th, I believe.
7
MR. HAGLER: Okay. February 7th. If that’s the deadline, but if one or
8
two days or even a month after that deadline -- that date came and went the
9
Commission were to make a final decision on the complaint -- a final agency
10
decision on the complaint, would Verizon’s decision be that that final decision is
11
void for lack of jurisdiction of the Commission to issue that decision relying
12
solely on 1302?
13 14 15 16 17
MR. BOECKE: I think I can say with full confidence Verizon would not make such a motion. MR. HAGLER: The Public Advocate's view on the -- on whether jurisdiction disappears after the nine months expressed in 1302? MR. JOYNTNER: Well, I think the Commission has authority on its own
18
initiative to conduct that investigation without any unreasonable (inaudible-too
19
far from microphone) so I think it could create a jurisdiction, certainly in a
20
separate proceeding. I think it is stuck with the deadline the statute provides,
21
although I wouldn’t say today that I think it has no jurisdiction to issue a decision
22
a few days later. I haven't researched that either, but I think it has jurisdiction
23
generally to deal with the merits of the case.
24 25
MR. HAGLER: Okay. My view is that the nine-month period is not a grant of jurisdiction limited to nine months but that action on a complaint BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
5 1
brought pursuant to Section 1302 taken, whether by agreement or not of the
2
parties, beyond nine months is a valid agency action. Separate question of
3
what the Commission must do or what the statute directs the Commission to do
4
within a period of time, but I think that any action taken after that time would not
5
be challengeable, and I’m heartened to hear that Verizon indicates that it would
6
not challenge such on the grounds that it was action taken beyond the nine
7
months described in 1302. Just so that you know where I am on that issue. I
8
view that as a preliminary issue, and I wanted to clear it up before we began
9
this morning. Mr. Cowie -MR. COWIE: Could you say again what you just said about what your
10 11
view is on the nine-month deadline and the Commission’s authority to render a
12
decision after the nine months? MR. HAGLER: I believe that the Commission retains all the authority
13 14
after the nine months -- after a nine-month period -- in this case after February
15
7th --
16
MR. COWIE: And what --
17
MR. HAGLER: -- to do anything it could have done prior to the nine
18
months. It’s a separate question from what I think might be the subject of most
19
of the discussion here this morning. But if today were February -- or March 1st,
20
I don't believe the Commission lacks the ability to do anything that it could have
21
done on December 1st.
22
MR. COWIE: Can you tell me what the basis of your opinion is and why
23
do you believe (inaudible-too far from microphone) appropriate for me to ask
24
you that.
25
BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
6 1
MR. HAGLER: Sure. Nothing in 1302 creates a cause of action. The
2
Commission has (inaudible-unfamiliar word) authority to hear the complaints of
3
consumers brought before the Commission, and nothing in 1302 in effect
4
creates a cause of action that only survives nine months. In my view 1302 is
5
directive towards the Commission in terms of how it should process those
6
complaints.
7
MR. COWIE: Well, in reading 1302 it says the Commission shall render
8
a decision upon a complaint no later than nine months after its filing. You don't
9
see that as -- apparently you don't see that as something -- the Commission
10 11
can essentially ignore that and take 18 months? MR. HAGLER: No, that's not what I'm saying. What I’m saying is is that
12
if the amount of time -- the nine months passes but action is taken after that,
13
that action is not void or illegal because it didn’t occur within the nine months.
14
MR. JOYNTNER: If I may, I would think Andy isn’t saying that the nine-
15
month directive has no meaning. He’s only saying that the Commission
16
technically still has jurisdiction after the nine months. (Inaudible-too far from
17
microphone) distinction there.
18
MR. COWIE: Yeah.
19
MR. JOYNTNER: He’s not saying that he can ignore the nine months
20
yet. I think we’re going to discuss that this morning.
21
MR. COWIE: Okay.
22
MR. HAGLER: But now I'd like to ask, Doug, what you think the
23 24
Commission should do? MR. COWIE: Well, beyond what I said in the letter?
25
BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
7 1 2 3
MR. HAGLER: Yeah. Is there anything else other than what’s in the letter or in response to what Verizon submitted that you’d like to ask? MR. COWIE: Well, I would recommend that the Commission enforce its
4
August 9th order and give Verizon five days to reply and to hold them in
5
contempt if they don't.
6
MR. HAGLER: Okay. Mr. Branson?
7
MR. BRANSON: I'm in agreement with that.
8
MR. HEIDEN: I'm also in agreement.
9
MR. HAGLER: Okay.
10
MR. BLACK: The public advocate --
11
MR. HAGLER: Why don’t we have the public advocate --
12
MR. BLACK: The public advocate is in agreement with that.
13
MR. HAGLER: Okay. And I assume Verizon is not?
14
MR. BOECKE: Verizon finds itself really caught between two
15
jurisdictions here. My suspicion is that as soon as the Commission issued such
16
an order, the United States government would take the appropriate action to
17
enjoin such action in federal court and that action would be taken before
18
Verizon would be able to file its response. So I think what you’d be doing is just
19
precipitating more motion practice before the federal court, but I doubt very
20
much it would in any way -- even if we complied within the five days -- enable
21
the Commission to reach a decision by February 7th. That’s just a couple of
22
weeks away.
23 24 25
MR. HAGLER: What's the basis for believing that that would be the response of the Department of Justice? MR. BOECKE: The lawsuit that was filed in federal court. BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
8 1
MR. HAGLER: Okay. Okay.
2
MR. BOECKE: The specific instructions to Verizon and to the
3
Commission that Verizon is precluded by federal law from answering the
4
question.
5 6 7
MR. HAGLER: Would Verizon likewise seek such relief in the federal district court? MR. BOECKE: I hadn't considered that. I suppose, though, our opinion
8
being that we are not permitted under federal law to divulge this information, if
9
the United States did not take such action, I suspect Verizon would in order to
10
protect its rights and not be found in violation of federal law. It would seek to
11
have the federal court declare that the Maine Commission should or should not
12
have this information.
13
MR. HAGLER: I’ll ask this of anyone who’d like to answer and everyone
14
who’d like to answer. Is my understanding correct that there are dispositive
15
motions pending before the federal district court in Maine -- a motion to dismiss
16
brought by the Commission brought by the Attorney General and his staff on
17
behalf of the Commission, and also a motion for summary judgment brought by
18
the Department of Justice -- and that each of those dispositive motions has
19
been fully briefed by all parties to that case?
20
MR. HEIDEN: That's correct.
21
MR. HAGLER: Okay. Am I also correct that there is a proceeding or a
22
mechanism that was invoked to transfer that federal district court suit to a
23
different district court jurisdiction -- I believe the northern district of California --
24
and that that transfer of that federal court suit has been opposed by the
25
Attorney General on the Commission's behalf and that argument on whether BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
9 1
that transfer will occur is to take place on January 25th -- next week -- in
2
Florida, halfway between here and California?
3
MR. HEIDEN: That's also correct.
4
MR. COWIE: It's also been opposed by --
5
MR. HAGLER: By the government.
6
MR. COWIE: -- by the proposed defendant interveners (inaudible-too far
7
from microphone) --
8
MR. HAGLER: Right.
9
MR. HEIDEN: The complainants.
10
MR. COWIE: -- (inaudible-too far from microphone).
11
MR. HAGLER: The complainants in this case oppose the transfer to --
12
MR. COWIE: -- northern district --
13
MR. HAGLER: -- of a federal district court matter to California.
14
MR. COWIE: We filed a motion to vacate that order.
15
MR. HAGLER: And what's the harm in letting that play out -- all of -- both
16
of those motions -- the federal district court motion and the transfer motion?
17
What, as a practical matter, would be achieved by what Mr. Boecke
18
characterized as motion practice -- in effect the Commission doing what the
19
complainants and interveners in this matter would like the Commission to do,
20
which is have a finding of contempt based on Verizon's failure -- presumably
21
based on Verizon’s failure to comply with an August 9th order of the
22
Commission on August -- which had a deadline of August 21st and drawing, as
23
the Commission drew from that order, a lawsuit -- drawing an injunction motion
24
at this point, given the status of where that matter is in federal court?
25
BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
10 1
MR. JOYNTNER: My response is that it wouldn't be reasonable for the
2
Commission to ignore state statute based upon the speculation about what’s
3
going to happen in another court, which has no way enjoined the Commission
4
from its normal jurisdiction. The Commission has said repeatedly in its filings
5
with the court that the subject matter of the Commission’s order of August 9th in
6
no way intrudes into the sphere of national security or state secrets doctrine.
7
And, in fact, it hasn’t, and I think everybody in this room probably understands
8
that it hasn't. And given those facts, it would be particularly unreasonable for
9
the Commission to pretend that it's enjoined when it, in fact, is not enjoined and
10
ignore a clear directive from the legislature to process this case.
11
MR. HAGLER: J. COWIE? Okay. (Inaudible-mumbling). Doug?
12
MR. COWIE: I agree with that -- what the public advocate just said and
13
also in looking at the Commission’s memorandum in opposition to the motion
14
for summary judgment, in at least a half a dozen places the Commission insists
15
that it has the authority to investigate the complaint (inaudible-too far from
16
microphone) potentially ask Verizon did it provide records to NSA. That’s actual
17
text that’s in the -- in that (inaudible-too far from microphone). So the
18
Commission is telling the court that it does have the authority to do -- well, at
19
least to do what the Commission says in the memorandum which would
20
essentially say that the Commission has the authority to investigate the
21
complaint. So -- and since it hasn’t been enjoined from doing that by the court
22
-- well, I disagree with the analysis (inaudible-too far from microphone). The
23
complainants don’t see any advantage (inaudible-too far from microphone). If
24
the Commission has the authority to do it -- says it has the authority to do it, we
25
feel it should do it. BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
11 1
MR. JOYNTNER: Let me also --
2
MR. HAGLER: One minute. Let me just ask -- just follow up. Has
3
anything from the complainant's perspective bearing on that question changed
4
from August 21st to last week when this was brought to the Commission's
5
attention?
6
MR. COWIE: Has anything -- are you asking me --
7
MR. HAGLER: Yeah. I’m --
8
MR. COWIE: (Inaudible-too far from microphone).
9
MR. HAGLER: I believe that you are correct that there is no injunction --
10
there is no injunction -- impediment against the Commission. However, since
11
August 21st through and including today, the Commission has taken -- there
12
has been no action in the Commission in this matter. Has something changed
13
between that time and today that causes imminent anxiety in light of the fact
14
that I think we agree -- or at least I’m telling you that it’s my belief that the
15
Commission won’t lose jurisdiction on February 7th?
16
MR. COWIE: Well, as far as the complainants are concerned, we view
17
this lawsuit as, I don’t know, capricious. I think it’s an absurd lawsuit. It’s
18
disappointing to us that the judge didn't dismiss it out of hand because of the
19
Commission’s order (inaudible-too far from microphone) sworn affidavits by a
20
knowledgeable person as to the truth of public statements (inaudible-too far
21
from microphone). Had those statements included any national security
22
information, it’s too late. They’re now public. And had they, I’m sure the
23
Department of Justice would have swooped in on Verizon and taken some kind
24
of legal action against them. So we don’t see any -- any -- that the lawsuit -- all
25
the lawsuit did was -- looked like it did was to put our complaint case -- taking it BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
12 1
and putting it in the freezer -- putting it on ice, and the Commission could have,
2
as it says in its memorandum in opposition to the summary judgment motion --
3
could have if it wanted to -- and even though Verizon didn’t make the public
4
statement -- could have asked Verizon had it provided call records to NSA. So
5
we don’t see any change really other than a lot of legal work that the Justice
6
Department’s lawsuit has created.
7
MR. HAGLER: Then -- then -- then my question, not meant to carry with
8
it any -- not to be charged at all, is why was the January 9th letter that you
9
wrote to the Commission not written earlier than January 9?
10
MR. COWIE: I -- I should have written it earlier. I was worried from the
11
day -- first, our complainants, as you know, are disappointed with the
12
Commission’s lack of investigation into the complaint -- very disappointed, but I
13
was worried from the date of August 21st what the impact of the -- that lawsuit
14
was going to be on what the Commission did on the complaint.
15
MR. HAGLER: Okay.
16
MR. COWIE: I was advised by counsel that if I tried to press the
17
Commission, it would bring about an injunction motion from the Department of
18
Justice or some kind of motion -- TRO, which would officially, if the judge
19
agreed with it, shut down the complaint case anyway. But I decided finally that I
20
was not going to wait any longer and just essentially tell the Commission it had
21
less than a month left to -- what I considered (inaudible-too far from
22
microphone) what the statute said -- to render a decision upon the complaint.
23
So that’s why I waited all that time. I was advised not to do it, and I finally did it
24
anyway.
25
MR. HAGLER: Okay. Don? BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
13 1
MR. BOECKE: I was just going to touch on that same subject that the
2
Commission’s order had set a deadline for the 21st. It’s now almost five months
3
later and no one had seen any change in circumstances that warranted sending
4
the letter earlier. I also just wanted to disagree with the OPA's characterization
5
of what the Commission is doing as ignoring its jurisdiction or ignoring the
6
legislature’s mandate to investigate. The Commission is very much aware of
7
the situation it’s in, and the presumption that it has jurisdiction is the central
8
question. If the Commission doesn’t have jurisdiction, then it clearly has no
9
1302 investigation to conduct. The Commission believes it has jurisdiction.
10
The United States government strongly believes it does not. And that question
11
is now in the appropriate forum before a federal judge, and that’s the question I
12
believe that has to be decided before the Commission and the parties can
13
proceed with whatever direction it goes. And I don’t think it’s fair to say the
14
Commission’s ignoring Section 1302. I think it’s doing everything it practically
15
can do. And the suggestion that, I think, even Mr. Cowie said that if the
16
Commission were to take some further action in its investigation, either in
17
August or in January, it’s going to involve the parties in more motion practice
18
and unlikely to move this case, you know, one inch.
19
MR. HAGLER: Mr. Ward?
20
MR. WARD: Yeah, I do have one comment. I do think there is great
21
value in the PUC upholding the substance of the 1302 law and giving it
22
meaning within the time frame the legislature anticipated it should have
23
meaning. On the other hand I certainly agree with the observation that the
24
Commission has its own independent authority to act in this matter, and it
25
certainly will not lose jurisdiction if it fails to act (inaudible-mumbling). One BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
14 1
suggestion is purely procedural -- it's not substantive -- that you might want to
2
consider. The nine-month deadline as established by the Law Court initially is a
3
parallel to the nine-month deadline that exists in rate cases for processing rate
4
filings when utilities request changes in the rates. For many years now the
5
Commission has dealt with that nine-month rate case deadline in a sort of
6
ingenious way where they put out what’s called a part A order that basically
7
says in order to act before the end of the nine-month period, we will say nothing
8
whatever about any basis for any decision, but we will authorize a change in
9
rates in X amount. It’s impossible for any of the litigants at that point to know
10
how their rights have been affected, how -- what the basis for the decision is,
11
whether an appeal is necessary, whether an appeal is legitimate. In short it
12
does nothing whatever to terminate the case. The case then continues until
13
there’s a part B order. Sometimes it’s as much as six months later. It says and
14
here’s why. At that point appeal rights attach, and at that point the parties are
15
free to pursue whatever remedies they think are appropriate. MR. HAGLER: What does that suggest as a suggested course of action
16 17 18
here? MR. WARD: Well, I'm thinking out loud here, of course, but I’m thinking
19
that there may be some value prior to the end of the nine-month period in the
20
Commission putting out what is equivalent to a part A order saying it continues
21
to believe it has jurisdiction in this matter and it continues to believe that its
22
initial requirements of Verizon were lawful and should be (inaudible-mumbling).
23
And then, having acted at least to that extent, make explicit its desire to
24
continue to exercise authority beyond the nine-month period under a variety of
25
BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
15 1
statutes, including the statute that says all Commission laws and rules should
2
be liberally (inaudible-mumbling). Anyway, it’s just a thought. MR. HAGLER: Would that have the effect of denying the complainants a
3 4
right to go to a superior court to seek mandamus under the 1302 deadline?
5
MR. WARD: As a practical matter, no. As a practical matter, I think
6
complainants have that right until such time as the Commission acts in the
7
quote/unquote part B portion of the order. If the Commission never issued a
8
part B order -MR. HAGLER: Right.
9
MR. WALKER: -- then justice would be frustrated and fair processing of
10 11
the complaint would be, obviously, denied, but that’s not what I’m proposing
12
here.
13
MR. HAGLER: Okay.
14
MR. BOECKE: Steve, just so I’m clear. The purpose of getting some
15
order out from the Commission before February 7th would be more or less just
16
to affirm Andy's assessment before that the Commission wouldn’t lose any
17
jurisdiction after the nine months?
18
MR. WARD: That's correct, and also to add some, let’s say, legal force
19
to the arguments the Attorney General will be making on behalf of the
20
Commission in the federal proceedings.
21 22 23 24
MR. COWIE: (Inaudible-too far from microphone) legal force in (inaudible-too far from microphone)? MR. WARD: Legal force in the federal proceedings to the extent that the state, by not acting within the nine-month time frame, is not by implication
25
BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
16 1
indicating a lack of desire to act or a lack of interest in the issues or a lack of
2
concern with the complainants’ allegations.
3
MR. BRANSON: May I?
4
MR. HAGLER: Yes, please.
5
MR. BRANSON: I guess I would like to reinforce a couple of points that
6
-- (inaudible-too far from microphone). I think that 1302 very finally states the
7
Commission’s obligation to act within nine months, and I think I agree with the
8
analysis that it’s probably not a jurisdictional nine months. It’s a directive that’s
9
something other than jurisdictional and that the Commission will have
10
jurisdiction after that. But I don’t think that answers the question whether the
11
(inaudible-too far from microphone). I don’t think the fact that it’s not
12
jurisdictional implies that the Commission can, therefore, ignore it. And the
13
question is -- and the only reason I’ve heard suggested this morning why the
14
Commission shouldn’t act within the nine months is fear of the unknown -- a
15
fear that something might happen in the federal court, which I don’t think I’ve
16
heard a single suggestion that says why that has any legal bearing whatsoever
17
on what the Commission should do. That is a separate proceeding. It has no
18
direct bearing on this -- on the Commission’s actions and that the court has
19
taken no action whatsoever to -- to interfere with this proceeding. The
20
Commission retains jurisdiction and has a legal obligation to hear any and all
21
issues before it. I think the Commission has to go forward until it is ordered
22
otherwise. So I don't -- I really don't understand the suggestion that we should
23
-- the implied suggestion that the Commission can and should consider holding
24
back for fear that the federal court might take some action. That doesn't make
25
sense to me. As to what’s -- with regard to the question of has there been any BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
17 1
change that now makes it more urgent for the Commission to act, I would like to
2
point out that every day has a change in this case. We’re talking about serious
3
constitutional violations, serious incursions on consumers' privacy rights. And
4
there’s very serious allegations out there of the violations, and it’s important that
5
we get to the bottom of that. Every day that passes is a delay. Justice delayed
6
is justice denied in this case. I think it’s a very serious concern (inaudible-too
7
far from microphone).
8
MR. HAGLER: Mr. Heiden?
9
MR. HEIDEN: No, nothing in addition.
10 11 12 13 14
MR. BOECKE: Again, I just want to -- at the risk of repeating myself, I think it’s really unfair to say the Commission’s ignoring the complaint. MR. COWIE: Who has said that the Commission is ignoring this complaint? MR. BOECKE: Well, I just heard Mr. Branson say it. I heard Wayne
15
Joyntner say it. We can get the record out -- I believe there’s three or four
16
references to the Commission can’t ignore Section 1302. With all due respect it
17
is not ignoring 1302. It knows its responsibility. It has, by its counsel,
18
participated actively in the federal court to protect its jurisdiction. The problem
19
here is there’s a difference of opinion on a question of legal jurisdiction, and Mr.
20
Branson called it fear -- I think it’s well-placed fear. I believe at least one federal
21
court has already ruled that the United States government is correct that certain
22
of this information cannot be divulged. So --
23
MR. JOYNTNER: They haven't ruled on these facts.
24
MR. HAGLER: Let’s --
25
MR. BOECKE: I understand -BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
18 1
MR. HAGLER: Please let --
2
MR. BOECKE: All I’m saying is there’s a legitimate difference of opinion
3
on a legal threshold question which is the Commission’s jurisdiction that’s going
4
to be resolved by the federal court. If the Commission takes one more step to
5
proceed with this investigation now, it’s not going to get any closer to that
6
answer. It’s going to get a motion for a temporary restraining order or for
7
preliminary relief. So I think it’s a vain act for people to counsel the
8
Commission, you know, go ahead and try and move forward with this case
9
before the federal court rules.
10
MR. COWIE: Can I ask you how you know that that’s going to happen?
11
MR. BOECKE: How do I know that's going to happen? I think it's logical
12
to assume that since the United States government has commenced the lawsuit
13
and directed the Department of Justice to oppose the Commission’s
14
investigation, if the Commission took one more step in furtherance of its
15
jurisdiction, the United States government would be prompted to act. I have no
16
inside information. That’s just my surmise.
17
MR. HEIDEN: It is a worthwhile question to consider, though, because
18
the federal government has a number of lawyers. They’re well trained. They
19
know how to make a motion for an injunction. Your question to the
20
complainants about why not could easily be directed at the United States
21
government. Why haven’t they asked for an injunction if it was so -- such a
22
matter of concern for them that the Commission stop an investigation.
23
MR. BOECKE: I think they presumed correctly that the Commission
24
would be interested in having the question resolved. That’s exactly what the
25
Commission has done. That’s exactly what every party in this room has done BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
19 1
for the last five months was to await the court's ruling. Now the Commission’s
2
being counseled to not wait any longer. I think that would prompt the
3
Department of Justice to change their view.
4
MR. HAGLER: My question -- and -- and, ultimately, my resolution of it
5
would be a recommendation to the Commission in one fashion or another -- is
6
to what extent -- how much is required of the Commission in -- in -- by 1302 --
7
by a nine-month deadline? How much should the Commission consider what
8
the parties have provided, the work that’s taken place here in consideration of
9
the complaint, the work that has taken place in the federal district court on the
10
Commission’s behalf by not less than three of the ablest Assistants Attorney
11
Generals in that office weighed against -- I mean, should -- should and can the
12
Commission consider likely and possible outcomes and the worth of taking the
13
action that Mr. Cowie suggests, which is enforcement through contempt
14
proceedings? Should we look at what the likely outcome is? Should we look at
15
how much effort that might take? Should we look at what the results are likely
16
to be as compared against what’s happening now that we can see in the federal
17
district court? I read what comes out of the federal district court and what’s filed
18
in the federal district court. Most recently there was an order involving
19
something about page limits or, you know, the -- it’s something procedural in the
20
district court, and Judge Woodcock indicated in the course of it -- and I don't
21
want to -- that this case is in a unique posture. There is currently an order
22
transferring the case to the northern district of California. We discussed that.
23
Although for the moment this court retains jurisdiction, it has expressed its
24
reluctance to issue an order that could affect the orderly disposition of the case.
25
I don’t know -- I don't offer a belief as to what Judge Woodcock might do upon BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
20 1
the receipt of a motion for an injunction brought against the enforcement action
2
that the complainants seek. But I wonder whether it would result in the sort of
3
closure or ability for the Commission -- practical ability for the Commission to
4
advance the matter before it any quicker than would be to wait to see what
5
happens both in Florida -- and as I understand it what happens in that -- before
6
that forum happens very quickly. And then you’re sent to California of you’re
7
sent back to the district of Maine with dispositive motions in the can, ready to be
8
decided. Can I recommend to the Commission that it consider those
9
practicalities in discharging its duty under 1302?
10
MR. COWIE: Can I (inaudible-too far from microphone)? We are in a de
11
facto injunction (inaudible-too far from microphone) since August 21st
12
(inaudible-too far from microphone). Quite frankly, I don't -- I'm sure that if the
13
Commission did what I recommended at the beginning -- namely to enforce its
14
order -- if that brings about a motion by the Department of Justice to (inaudible-
15
too far from microphone) temporary restraining order -- whatever the legal thing
16
would be -- what -- what difference -- what difference would it make in
17
(inaudible-too far from microphone) -- in this complaint case? Nothing is
18
happening with the complaint case. Nothing has happened. Only one thing did
19
happen -- namely the Commission’s order (inaudible-too far from microphone)
20
three months after the filing of the complaint. So what difference would it make
21
with the complaint? Would it -- in your opinion or anybody's opinion, would it --
22
what would it do other than what we’re already (inaudible-too far from
23
microphone) -- namely a de facto injunction? What would be -- what do you
24
think would be the impact of it?
25
MR. BRANSON: Andy, (inaudible-too far from microphone)? BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
21 1
MR. HAGLER: (Inaudible).
2
MR. BRANSON: Thank you. To address your question of can you -- can
3
the Commission consider practical considerations such as time, expense, or
4
what not -- I don’t know -- in weighing whether to move forward or not, I -- I
5
cannot -- I'm not aware of any support for that in the statutes or regulations.
6
Certainly neither 1302 nor the underlying statute on privacy suggest that the
7
Commission’s authority is any how -- in any way limited or constrained by the
8
expense of enforcing those rights or investigation. (Inaudible-too far from
9
microphone) obligation to investigate is not within reason or within certain
10
limited -- within expenses. It's an absolute obligation to investigate. And
11
similarly the (inaudible-too far from microphone) obligation is absolute. It’s not
12
conditioned on as long as it doesn’t cost the Commission more than X or take
13
more than this much time. So I think as far as applying for authority for that
14
suggestion -- but I want to also put another thing on the table, which is I don't
15
agree with the suggestion that (inaudible-mumbling). I think the Commission
16
could be helping everything by actually moving forward. We have paralysis --
17
breeding paralysis in these two cases right now. And there’s a very real
18
possibility that if the federal court says do nothing -- because it’s going to say
19
the Commission has not done -- taken any action yet. So we’re -- you know --
20
which is exactly what I think Verizon and the government would like to see
21
which is nothing happened which leads everybody to say, oh, we can’t do
22
anything. That’s my worst fear about the federal court right now. They’re likely
23
to look at this and say, look, the Commission hasn’t done anything. They
24
haven’t -- they have an order out there that’s not been acted on, the nine
25
months have come and gone, they still haven’t acted on it. What are we going BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
22 1
to do. We can't enjoin anything. It might -- and the federal court record is
2
noticeably thin in terms of what's actually happened. So the federal court’s
3
going to have to guess at what the Commission -- this Commission might or
4
might not do in terms of trying to give some order. So it may actually help in a
5
very real way to have some action because then we’ll actually have a case in
6
controversy to discuss. We have -- we really don’t have one.
7
MR. HAGLER: Don?
8
MR. BOECKE: I'm not sure I understand that last point. I believe there
9
are dispositive motions pending in federal court. I believe the federal court has
10
jurisdiction. I believe there is a case in controversy. I don’t see what -- you
11
know, the Commission order directing Verizon to answer that August 9th order
12
under five days under threat of --
13
MR. BLACK: Contempt.
14
MR. BOECKE: -- yeah -- excuse me -- I’m not sure that adds any
15
additional facts that the court needs. I think it has the facts. Again, I think the
16
Commission is doing all that it practically can. I think prompting this further
17
processing of the case and the inevitable motion practice that’s going to be
18
involved with no real further clarification or crystallization for the court’s benefit
19
or for the parties’ benefit of what already is the threshold issue -- does the
20
Commission have jurisdiction in this case or does it not. Everyone in here has
21
been presuming that the Commission does. The -- you know, the United States
22
government has a different view and has instructed Verizon of its view and told
23
Verizon that if it supplies the information to the Public Utilities Commission, it
24
will be in violation of federal law. That’s the question that’s pending in federal
25
court. BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
23 1
MR. JOYNTNER: One of the benefits of being in a democracy is that we
2
don’t have a federal executive branch that can tell everybody what to do absent
3
the court system. I agree with Doug that we're in a de facto injunction now.
4
There isn’t a whole lot to lose as far as the complainants are concerned. What
5
the Commission has asked Verizon to do is so incredibly mild that it can't be
6
construed, as the Commission has repeatedly said to the federal court -- can’t
7
be construed as intruding into state secrets issue.
8
MR. BOECKE: But that's the contested allegation.
9
MR. JOYNTNER: And the people in this room, I think, are prepared to
10
ask the Commission to do nothing more than enforce its August 9th order,
11
which it already (inaudible).
12
MR. HEIDEN: I would further just add -- you’ve referred to the work
13
that’s gone on to the defendants in the United States v. Adams, et al. case -- it’s
14
worth, I think, referring in specific to the position taken by defendants in that --
15
namely, one, that the government had failed to state a claim, and that was part
16
of their motion to dismiss -- that they were asking for an advisory opinion -- and
17
also that the federal court should abstain from deciding the matter because of
18
(inaudible-unfamiliar words) doctrine based on the Commission’s ongoing state
19
proceeding. So the two are connected in an important way that goes back to
20
the points that Mr. Branson (inaudible-mumbling).
21
MR. COWIE: Could I ask a question? We're assuming that if the
22
Department of Justice files a motion for TRO or whatever that (inaudible-too far
23
from microphone). Isn’t that -- wouldn’t that be a high hurdle?
24 25
MR. BOECKE: No. I think it’s almost a certainty that -- to preserve the status quo in the case since what the Commission would be ordering Verizon to BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
24 1
do would go to the heart of the issue. It’d be asking Verizon to disclose
2
information which, if disclosed, is a violation of federal law. I think there’s
3
probably a very, very high probability that the United States Department of
4
Justice could get that motion. It might even be able to get it ex parte. MR. HAGLER: I can tell you I wouldn't venture that sort of guess. First
5 6
of all, it’s not my role. I do know that there would be, however, an issue of
7
whether the judge needed to confront the merits of the legal positions taken in
8
the dispositive motions, in addition to status quo questions. And I wonder
9
whether the likelihood of success on the merits of the claims is something that
10
would be forthcoming from the court within the time frame that 1302 asks this
11
Commission to act, especially in light of the federal district court’s obvious
12
concern about whether the case is its ultimately to decide or whether it's off to
13
California for some amount of process. But I’m focused on the question of what
14
does 1302 require and to what degree does it require of the Commission before
15
nine months, and your comments and your views and your writings have been
16
very helpful to me for that. Is there anything else that you think I ought to
17
know?
18
MR. JOYNTNER: One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that there
19
should be a fear of litigation on the other side as well because as soon as the
20
Commission fails to render a decision within nine months, the complainants can
21
seek an appeal or an action for mandamus.
22
MR. HAGLER: Right. And the result of that, I believe -- I believe that the
23
1302 nine-month requirement is directory rather than mandatory as that sort of
24
concept comes out of Bradbury Memorial Nursing v. Tall Pines Manor
25
Associates, Maine 1984, and that the result of the -- of such an action brought BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
25 1
by the complainants in superior court is likely to be directory that the
2
Commission make a decision. If the decision -- what decision, I don’t know,
3
might come from the -- from such an action, but I don’t think that that sort of
4
litigation in the superior court would result in a remedy for these complainants
5
on the merits of the complaint they brought before the Commission. It's not
6
going to be like the rates are, therefore, in effect or the rates are, therefore, not
7
in effect. It’s likely to be a direction for the Commission to take some action,
8
which is why I’m here so quickly after the letters were filed today because I
9
want to advise the Commission as to what it needs and ought to do and
10
consider in the face of what I believe is a directory instruction in the statute.
11
MR. COWIE: What does that mean -- a directory instruction?
12 13 14
(Inaudible-too far from microphone)? MR. HAGLER: Yeah. Sometimes shall in a statute means must, and sometimes shall in a statute means should. I don't know if that -- if that’s a --
15
MR. BLACK: Good.
16
MR. BOECKE: They teach you that in law school.
17
MR. COWIE: So (inaudible-too far from microphone) means should?
18
Does that -- does that --
19
MR. HAGLER: There is no rights-defining consequence, which --
20
listening to myself -- by the Commission be not fulfilling -- not doing something
21
by the nine-month deadline in this statute in my view. What the consequence
22
could be is that a superior court could direct the Commission to do something.
23
But a superior court is not going to order the Commission to grant whatever
24
relief your complaint here asks for, which is tell Verizon not to cooperate with
25
the NSA, and I’m only paraphrasing. That wouldn’t be the -BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
26 1
MR. COWIE: No, excuse me, but people keep characterizing that
2
complaint. They’re saying -- it did say -- it says a lot more things before it says
3
tell Verizon to stop doing it, and asks for an investigation into whether Verizon
4
(inaudible-too far from microphone). That's what hasn't happened.
5
MR. HAGLER: Right. And the superior court likely, in a mandamus
6
action -- what we’re -- the possibility is that the -- in that situation is that the
7
Commission would be directed to do what 1302 tells it to do and the superior
8
court could find that the Commission hadn’t.
9
MR. JOYNTNER: That's really quite symmetrical with the other side.
10
The federal court could tell the Commission not to do something. The superior
11
court in Maine could tell the Commission to do something.
12
MR. HAGLER: Correct.
13
MR. JOYNTNER: Those are the two possibilities that the Commission
14 15
acts or doesn’t act. MR. HAGLER: And what I hear this morning is that there is not an
16
agreement among the parties to avoid -- that would avoid either result that we
17
could walk away from today and that it’s up to me to make a recommendation to
18
the Commission to come up with something.
19
MR. BOECKE: Other than I think you have the agreement of the parties
20
that certainly the nine months does not in any way rob the Commission of
21
jurisdiction if it doesn’t -- if the (inaudible-mumbling).
22
MR. BRANSON: That's correct.
23
MR. BOECKE: We’re all in agreement on that.
24 25
BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
27 1
MR. COWIE: Has the Commission ever, in a 10-person complaint,
2
written an order that gave itself more than nine months to render a decision.
3
Aren’t you saying they don't have to?
4
MR. HAGLER: I'm saying that any action the Commission takes after
5
nine months would not be void for the fact that it occurred after nine months.
6
That's all that I'm saying, and that’s all that I agree the -- I believe the parties
7
agreed to. Not I don’t concede it. You may not.
8
MR. COWIE: Well --
9
MR. BRANSON: The jurisdictional issue, I think, is beyond me
10
(inaudible-too far from microphone) at this point so I don’t have anything to add
11
to that. But I do want to make another point, which is if the Commission is
12
inclined to weigh cost balances and what not, I’ll tell you my sincere belief that if
13
you want -- the quickest way to end this pain and the ongoing litigation is to act.
14
What is almost certain if the Commission fails to act is long, drawn out multi-
15
district litigation which will cost this state and our taxpayers dearly because
16
we’re going to be wrapped up in many other cases that are from all over the
17
country and (inaudible-too far from microphone) in California. If the
18
Commission acts we will probably get, as promised, a motion which will
19
probably get some direction from the federal court which is clearly lacking now.
20
If the Commission wants direction from the federal court, we can get it, but the
21
Commission needs to act. But that will bring it to a swift end and in the end it’s
22
going to cost everybody a lot less and it’ll take a lot less time.
23
MR. JOYNTNER: And one positive aspect of that (inaudible-mumbling)
24
these facts (inaudible-mumbling) actually Maine are -- would be the most
25
difficult of any of the situations around the country for a federal court to see as BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
28 1
something that should be -- that needs to be enjoined because what the
2
Commission has done is so mild. It hasn't started any substantive investigation.
3
It simply asked Verizon to reaffirm its own statement. So these are great facts
4
to test before the federal court. I disagree with Don. I think we would win. I
5
don’t think he’d get an injunction on his facts.
6
MR. BOECKE: But the only thing that's going to bring this to an end is a
7
dispositive ruling by the federal court on the Commission’s jurisdiction. Barring
8
a dispositive ruling, Verizon isn't going to turn over anything. And barring a
9
dispositive motion, the United States government isn’t going to consent to let
10
the investigation go forward. I just don’t see how it’s going to precipitate a
11
dispositive decision on the motion. It will precipitate wasting more legal
12
expenses to put us right back where we are right now. You’ll get a formal court
13
order that says the Commission should do what it's been doing for 5 months. It
14
should await the due process of law, and if that’s what it entails, I don’t think a
15
federal judge would have a problem signing that order telling the Commission to
16
wait for the process to unfold.
17
MR. WARD: Well, even that outcome I don’t necessarily see as a
18
negative. I’m inclined to agree with the statement just made by Mr. Branson
19
that otherwise we confront the possibility of an endless -- let’s call it a Mexican
20
stand off. Maybe that’s the wrong term for you.
21 22 23 24 25
MR. BOECKE: It can't be endless, Steve, because the motions are pending in federal court. You’re saying -MR. WARD: The motions -- the motions will involve delicate questions about state sovereignty and federal jurisdiction. MR. BOECKE: They do. BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
29 1 2
MR. WARD: And there could be a desire to let them move as slowly as possible.
3
MR. BOECKE: By the federal court?
4
MR. WARD: Yes.
5
MR. HAGLER: If there’s anything 1302 law that you know of --
6
MR. WARD: I have one -- one item (inaudible-mumbling). There was a
7
1981 New England telephone case in which a rate order that was granted in the
8
tenth month was voided. So prior to that -- prior to that date there was no
9
expectation that there were legal rights that attached to the nine-month
10
expectation --
11
MR. HAGLER: In a rate case?
12
MR. WARD: In a rate case. So prior to that point, it was directive. But
13
then as a result of that case law, it became mandatory and that’s when the Part
14
A/Part B formula got put into place that enabled the Commission simultaneously
15
to satisfy a nine-month statutory deadline and still complete the orderly
16
processing of extremely complex cases.
17
MR. JOYNTNER: And in terms of --
18
MR. HAGLER: And that reasoning, you believe, would carry over to the
19 20
mandatory directory distinction in -MR. WARD: -- this morning is there may be a basis for using that
21
procedure to uphold the validity of the investigations law and the nine-month
22
deadline and at the same time account for these other events which are clearly
23
beyond our control.
24 25
MR. JOYNTNER: And 1302 would -- rather 1302 itself, which was the subject of Agro -- I think the Agro case is probably the only thing that’s out there, BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
30 1
but it’s -- it has some pretty -- pretty narrow directives to the Commission like
2
how it should process specifically a 1302 complaint.
3
MR. HAGLER: Cited in your letter?
4
MR. JOYNTNER: Yes. I don’t think Agro leaves a whole lot of room for
5
the Commission to --
6
MR. HAGLER: And 1981 is New England Telephone versus --
7
MR. WARD: Maybe it's '79.
8
MR. BOECKE: There are actually two cases, like NET 1 and NET 2.
9
MR. WARD: Right.
10 11 12
MR. HAGLER: If the parties want to send me an e-mail with citations, I’ll look them up. MR. BOECKE: I would just point out, Andy, that the Agro case didn’t
13
directly involve the nine-month statute -- that was not the question before the
14
Law Court whether the Commission has to act within nine months. I believe the
15
Commission in that case did act prior to the nine months by dismissing the
16
complaint, and whether they should have dismissed was the issue the Law
17
Court addressed.
18
MR. HAGLER: I will read them all. You can send me --
19
MR. BOECKE: (Inaudible-multiple speakers).
20
MR. HAGLER: -- feel free to send whatever you’d like. You need not -- I
21
don't want to complicate what has been -- with more motion practice before me
22
because that doesn’t seem to make sense. But giving me the citations -- and
23
I’m sure that I can find them on my own -- but I need to make a
24
recommendation in some manner to the Commission regarding its Section 1302
25
obligations and what it can consider in the course of fulfilling those BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505
31 1
responsibilities. And I appreciate all of -- all of the input that I've received today
2
here. And I’m not going to make a decision about a recommendation today.
3
MR. COWIE: Well, would it be likely that there’ll be another procedure
4
order (inaudible-too far from microphone) the Commission decides (inaudible-
5
too far from microphone) so we hear -- will we hear anything -- see anything?
6
MR. HAGLER: I really don't know -- don’t know. I'm cognizant of what
7
appears to have been agreed as a date of the expiration of the 1302 timeline
8
being February 7th.
9 10 11 12
MR. BLACK: And you're cognizant of the request made by at least three parties for the enforcement of its order? MR. HAGLER: And I would not be here today if it were otherwise. Thank you.
13
MR. HEIDEN: Thank you.
14
CONFERENCE ADJOURNED (January 19, 2007, 10:05 p.m.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BROWN & MEYERS 1-800-785-7505