BEFORE THE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20268-0001
Postal Rate and Fee Changes, 2001
Docket No. R2001-1
1
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE
REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
TO OCA MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REQUESTED IN OCAIUSPS-64(c).
65-73, 77-78
(November 28,200l)
The Office of the Consumer
Advocate
of the Postal Service
to OCA’s November
documents
in OCAIUSPS-64(c),
requested
(“OCA”) hereby replies to the Opposition
13, 2001 motion to compel
65-73, 77-78 (hereinafter
motion for leave to file this reply is being tiled concurrently.*
to provide
Service’s
the Commission
Opposition
OCA’s analysis
to OCA/USPS-64(c)
production
of
“Opposition”).’
A
OCA’s reply is necessary
of the guidelines
attached
and 65 that have
to the Postal
not previously
been
available to the OCA.
OCA interrogatories
Customer
subscription
Satisfaction
contract
64(c) and 65 request copies of the results of the American
Index.
The Postal Service response
with the American
claims,
Society of Quality prevents
these survey results, even under protective
conditions.
In support,
inter alia, that its
it from disclosing
the Postal Service
1
“Opposition of United States Postal Service to OCA Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Requested in OCAfUSPS64(c), 65-73, 77-78.” filed November 20, 2001.
2
“Office of the Consumer Advocate Motion for Leave to File A Reply to Opposition of United States
Postal Service to OCA Motion to Compel Production
73, 77-78.”
of Documents
Requested
in OCA/USPS64(c),
65
2
Docket No. R2001-1
attached
to its reply the “Advertising
Satisfaction
Use Guidelines
for the American
Customer
Index” (ACSI). The Postal Service claims:
The results are owned and controlled by American Society of Quality,
which conducts the ACSI and sells the results. The Postal Service merely
subscribes to the Index. Attached are the guidelines for use of the ACSI
that the subscribers must follow. Opposition at 2.
The guidelines,
reading
demonstrates
contractual
provide
obligation
in fact, do not support the Postal Service
the weakness
the subscription
contain
of the Postal Service’s contention
not to release [the results] publicly.“3
its contractual
agreement
guidelines.
for the subscription
This suggests
contract
of the information
does not
in question
contractual
or else
language
Instead, the Postal Service points for support to the document
in part, “Use Guidelines.”
details
that it “is under
service but instead only offered
the Postal Service would have included a copy of the appropriate
guidelines
rather a fair
The Postal Service did not
that the subscription
any specific restriction on the disclosure
in its Opposition.
position;
The first sentence
and not the subscription
for authority
contract
under the Subscriber
information
and data.
controlling.
The guidelines state:
styled,
of the guidelines
indicates that, in fact, the
are authoritative
and provide the specific
application
for public
use of the ACSI
It is also clear that, as to public use, no other document
is
The [Subscriber] application refers to Use Guidelines to be used by a
Subscriber in those specific situations when the Subscriber may publicly
use and distribute ACSI Information and Data.
Thus, these guidelines
materials
3
represent the only applicable
restriction
on the public use of the
in question.
“Objections
29, 2001 at 2.
of United States Postal Service to Interrogatories
0CAIUSPS-W73,
77-78.” October
Docket No. R2001-1
3
Guidelines
otherwise.
guidance
are not normally mandatory
They specifically
to a Subscriber.”
guidelines consistently
and nothing in these guidelines
state that they are intended
to “provide
They say ~nothing about mandatory
use the word “should” rather than “must.”
suggests
assistance
requirements.
That is:
A Subscriber should not publicly use, distribute or reproduce any data
from ACSI that has not been previously published or released for
publication by the American Society for Quality (ASQ), The University of
Michigan and/or CFI Group. (Emphasis supplied.)
Also, the guidelines
if the Subscriber
guidelines
are clearly limited to instances of “public use.” In fact,
is to disseminate
“request”
the information
information
(not require) that the Subscriber
for review and consideration
already suggested
permissible
of the intended
that, if necessary,
requested.
publicly,
submit information
use of the materials.
protective
conditions
Under such a protective
then the
to ASQ
The OCA has
might be applied
arrangement,
to
the documents
would not be available for public use.
Also, neither
the guidelines
nor, apparently,
contain any provision for the dissemination
or other
legal process
distributed in a non-public
use of information.
will be released
subscribers
in the event
manner.
information
The guidelines
manner,
application
of the material pursuant to court order
By virtue of that silence,
in a non-public
the Subscriber
is required
to be used
or
are silent as to the non-public
it may be assumed that if material
ASQ
does
not even request
that
submit to it information about the intended use of the material.
For these
OCA’s November
reasons,
in addition
to the reasons
previously
13, 2001 motion to compel, the Commission
production of the data requested
in OCALJSPS-64(c)
and 65.
submitted
in
should order the
and
The
Docket No. RZOOl-1
4
Respectfully
submitted,
SHELLEY S:DREIFUSS
Acting Director
Office of the Consumer Advocate
KENNETH
Attorney
E. RICHARDSON
1333 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC. 20268-0001
(202) 789-6830; Fax (202) 789-681
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this date served the foregoing
participants
of record in this proceeding
practice.
Washington, D.C. 20268-0001
November 28.2001
in accordance
document
upon all
with Rule 12 of the rules of