PRESIDING OFFICER'S
RULING NO. MC9&3/10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20268-0001
Special
Services
Fees
and Classifications
Docket
No.
MC96-3
PRESIDING OFFICER'S
RULING DISPOSING OF MOTIONS CONCERNING
INTERROGATORIES OF NASHUA PHOTO AND MYSTIC COLORtAB
(September
Order
of
No.
Nashua
the
Photo
scope
of
establishing
Business
three
August
Order
of
the
Order
this
16,
Mail
of
Proceeding.
to
fee
Postal
which
States
1129
or,
of
in
the
On August
the
granted
(Nashua/Mystic)
consider
the
for
tozenlarge
desirability
bulk,
on the
Service.'
Postal
Service
filed
the
scope
Service
for
Alternative,
a motion
of
this
served
On
tmo recon,sider
docket.
Reconsideration
for
Proposal
and August
of
non-automatable
Nashua/Mystic
Nashua/Mystic
19,
1996,
Subsequently,
enlarged
Postal
8,
Lab
category
IBRM).
the
1129,
United
No.
Color
interrogatories
1996,
1996)
on August
proceeding
a separate
sets
No.
issued
and Mystic
Reply
Consideration
,--
1129,
11,
23,
Severance
in
1996,
Motion
of
PRC
of
a Separate
the
Postal
1 Nashua Photo Inc. and Mystic Color Lab First
Interrogatories
and Request for Production
of Documents to United States Postal
Service
(NM/USPS l-27).
were served on August 8, 1996; Nashua Photo,
Inc. and Mystic Color Lab Second Interrogatories
and Request for
Production
of Documents to United States Postal Service
l:NM/USPS 2836) were served on August 12, 1996; Nashua Photo Inc. and Mystic Color
Lab Third Interrogatories
and Request for Production
of Documents to
United States Postal Service
(NM/USPS 37-65) were served on August 13,
1996.
-.
005239
_/-.
Docket
No.
Service
to
- 2
MC9G-3
filed
motions
interrogatories
resolution
of
its
objections
to
selected
first
part
and
of
motion
set
to
Lab Opposition
to
to
United
States
was filed
Postal
denying
the
Service's
respond
various
to
motions
of
appropriate
to
light
of
Order
days
from
the
the
reconsider
dispose
of
No.
date
1132.
of
this
Order
the
to
29,
and Mystic
Motion
to
and Nashua/Mystic
Motion
to
Motion
issued
reconsider
from
its
denial
No.
as
for
The Response
to
its
1996,
Inc.
interrogatories
Commission's
to
groups.*
Service
Motions,
relief
Nashua/Mystic
and
motion
Postal
Commission
for
pending
1129,
Photo
("Response
motion
respond
responses
Nashua/Mystic
the
1996,
Service's
as a result
motion
to
1996
5,
10,
States
Compel").
Service
Postal
The Postal
Service's
to
on September
On September
compel
Nashua
Discovery
("Motion
these
Service's
1129.
United
No.
on August
Postal
No.
Pending
Compel
in
to
to
respectively,
Order
motion
the
obligation
and 37-65,
interrogatories
Order
Motion
moot,
of
and All
its
reconsider
its
of
Reconsider
from
interrogatories
opposition
reconsideration
Color
to
filed
third
its
relief
NM/USPS 8-27
Nashua/Mystic
.Y..
for
today
1129.
Nashua/Mystic
Compelled
responses
ruling,
as provided
It
motion
will
in
of
the
to
Compel
to
Compel").
Order
No.
1132,
Order
No.
1129.
obligation
to
are
as
denied
oE the
Plostal
i:s now
to
compel
b,e due
Rule
in
ten
25(d).
2 Motion
of the United
States
Postal
Service
for
Rel,ief
from
Obligation
to Respond
to Interrogatories
from Nashua/Mystic
(NM/USPSE-27)
Pending
Resolution
of Motion
for
Reconsideration
of PRC Order
Objections
to Nashua/Mystic
in the Alternative,
1129 and,
Interrogatories
cnMotion
of August
19");
Motion
of the United
States
Postal
Service
for
Relief
from
Obligation
to Respond
to
Interrogatories
from
Nashua/Mystic
(NM/USPS-37-65)
Pending
Resolution
of Motion
for
Reconsideration
of PRC Order
1129 and,
in the
Objections
to Nashua/Mystic
Interrogatories
(‘Motion
of
Alternative,
August
23")
Docket
No. MC963
- 3 -
Interrogatories
NM/USPS
In
its
relieved
of
pending
No.
Motion
its
of
but
of
did
the
Accordingly,
10,
August
to
its
20,
19,
obligations
disposition
1129,
9,
8,
the
otherwise
Motion
to
25
and
Service
to
for
these
27.
asked
to
will
to
be
interrogatories
reconsideration
object
Compel
24,
Postal
respond
motion
not
23,
these
of
Order
interrogatories.
be granted
as to
these
interrogatories.
Interrogatories
In
.NM/USPS-11
the
Postal
interrogatories
the
the
Service's
that
Service
they
interrogatories
that
Docket
Service
about
BRM-related
No.
to
the
August
Nashua/Mystic
points
out
that
testimony
reason
defects
addressing
that
in
inappropriateness
at
It
by these
it
its
of
the
rebuttal
also
argues
interrogatories
its
that
of
the
is
the
most
It
record
was based
upon
establish
Motion
hearing.
substance
valid
the
the
to
of
discovery,
by
from
opinions,
to
exclude
3.
is
from
22 on
wa;s struck
chose
BRM program.
evidence
and
assumptions,
this
to
these
19 at
but
content,
stage
that
Commission
was struck
filing
R94-1
"re-hash"
BRM that
ob,jected
testimony
characterizes
of
do with
5.
the
Motion
the
case
in
it
19 and NM/USPS-21
docket.
Service
that
to
as seeking
and observations
from
refer
The Postal
19 motion,
through
witnesses
record.
19.
August
NM/USPS-l1
grounds
Postal
through
the
recent
also
Postal
observes
had nothing
the
to
procedural
an affirmative
to
Compel
information
and does
at
sought
not
depend
Docket
No. MC96-3
on the
references
serve
only
to
- 4 made to
provide
that
legitimate
them
as though
testimony
of
for
without
R94-1
its
the
substantive
information
Nashu,3's
sought
is
institutional
the
is
directed
to
responses
to
which
questions.
support;;
Service
reference
testimony,
Docket
answer
Erom thl3
No.
1194-l
cited.
Although
the
through
relevant
to
Postal
Service
(e)
on the
the
Nashua/Mystic
Nashua
about
that
argues
for
its
its
motion
that
not
[Motion
Postal
are
granted
asks
the
obtain
that
Compel
as to
be
19 at
to
producx
and
to
August
designed
to
is
appt?ar
of
Service
Motion
compel
NM/USPS 14(a),
did
they
proposal.
to
to
they
proposal
an analogous
as a model
Accordingly,
objected
grounds
plausibly
information
serve
for
The Postal
ask
No.
interrogatories
substance
they
Service,
4-51,
these
discovery.
Postal
(c)
of
the
Docket
a context
An examination
arguments
the
at
might
7.
these
interrogatories.
Interrogatory
explain
"why
minimum
volume
the
call
seeks
to
understand
other
reason
Compel
substantive
volume
legal
to
to
issue
BRM mail
in
to
Compel
not
at
--
for
it
is
it
the
BRMAS fee,
believes
this
authority
August
volume
not
interrogatory
for
19 at
that
5;
it
or
BRMAS mail.
only
requiring
not
to
marketing
need
and need
the
interrogatory
an operational,
for
,a
for
explains
Service
may have
qualify
its
of
to
?xquire
this
Nashua
a minimum
The Postal
7-8.
to
that
Motion
3-4.
Service
DMM do not
about
DMM.
at
Postal
order
objects
there
requiring
reasons
that
the
whether
qualify
in
a legal,conclusion
Motion
for
and the
Service
DMCS language
to
any
incoming
for
Response
Motion
Service
The Postal
to
interpret
Postal
of
BRMAS rate."
appears
NM/USPS-19(c)
identify
a minimum
address
might
touch
any
upon.
065242
.-
Docket
No. MC96-3
- 5 -
Interrogatories
NM/USPS-12
The Postal
which
of
ask
the
about
also
changes
in
Motion
August
2-3.
interrogatories
to
of
attributable
it
have
proposal.
BRM fees
of
to
for
cover
sufficient
its
without
the
that
the
the
what
reflect.
Service
to
a special
Postal
costs
these
its
Service
are
based
Postal
13RM pieces.
Service
of
BRM fee
appear
operational
is
or
to
will
until
These
'6.
"other"
this
survey
it
questions
19 at
for
that
prla-barcolded
th.at
these
that
directed
of
object
August
believe:;
BRM pieceis
costs
to
to
on the
and billing
answer
the
would
Service
to
interrogatories.
Postal
pay
appears
Motion
It
the
attributable
BRM study.
considers
(non-prebarcoded)
"other"
Response
26.
rating,
if
Nashua/Mystic
Accordingly,
mailers
asks
21..
and oversight
Service
these
asks
information
ask
to
Accordingly,
and
the
why it
as to
counting,
The Postal
intended
answered
be denied
supervision
Postal
its
BRM fee
completes
4;
to
will
interrogatories
is
19 at
NM/USPS 12 and
to
relevant
NM/USPS-26
BRM pieces.
not
relevant
explain
the
be used
of
not
costs
lo-cent
should
not
NM/USPS22(b)
Interrogatory
the
level
NM/USPS-22(b)
that
that
does
Interrogatory
confirm
objects
Nashua
compel
Interrogatories
21.
the
are
at
motion
Service
BRMAS program,
proposal.
Compel
and
BRM :pieces
could
cost
respond
be
study.
to
these
interrogatories.
--
__--~
--.
005243
Docket
No. MC96-3
- 6
Interrogatories
NM/USPS-45,
Interrogatory
and
NM/USPS-45
Reorganization
Act,
the
Courtesy
Mail
experiment
Reply
discovery
because
This
question
institution
to
While
not
it
to
the
impermissible
identify
to
to
Reply
particular
requirements
of
imposed
operational,
Postal
Service
III
its
reconsideration,
that
that
directed
opposition
the
Nashua/Mystic
the
not
who is
a particular
per
se
that
answer
to
it
believes
For
Prepaid
might
shaped
Courtesy
bla whether
by perc'eived
regulation,
answer
NM/USPS-45.
Postal
Service's
m0tio.n
a
lsegal
rather
Accordingly,
that
example,
istatutory
governs
question
of
sulch a question
evidence.
or
to
Any number
a particular
explains
statute
as an institution,
considerations.
to
to
is
offers.
is
any
a witness
provisions
it
as an
experiment.
about
it
provision
market
a legal
that
ask
opinion
believes
service
by that
or
is
to
identify
follow-up
is
SeryJice
Reply
admissible
it
of
a position
Service,
to
Prepaid
impermissible
Postal
testimony,
of
were
regulation
element
the
Courtesy
where
discovery
a permissible
Mail,
for
that
Postal
2.
takes
Postal
the
the
Service
statement
and regulatory
Service
or
his
service
the
this
a legal
be hypothesized
Postal
provision
cost,
statutory
can
lead
the
the
a particular
scenarios
if
ask
considers
discovery
of
of
DMM govern
Postal
Prepaid
formulate
scope
to
any
would
it
sections
the
ask
may be impermissible
within
apply
its
the
23 at
to
(cl
which
the
August
whether
governs
an attorney
topic
for
appears
state
regulation
Service
of
and
that
"calls
Motion
conclusion."
or
it
asks
DMCS, or
The Postal
conducting.
49fal
than
the
for
Interrogatory
-.
NM/USPS-49(a)
does
not
seek
any predecisional
management
opinions
r-
Docket
or
No. MC96-3
recommendations
Nashua
with
Opposition
permissible
ask
at
Nashua
at
what
experiment
Postal
Service
Response
to
Courtesy
level
Id.
Service
this
at
to
4.
interrogatory,
is
directed
to
is
intended
Courtesy
Given
Mail.
interrogatory
is
Prepaid
objection
Compel
Reply
NM/USPS-49(c)
10.
its
to
this
the
at
Service
"statement
of
Courtesy
the
Commission,
rate
category)
Response
Reply
explanaticn,
this
the
interrogatory.
The Postal
Service
is
as well.
of
Courtesy
to
at
Nashua
a special
if
the
services
subject
issue
intends
this
question
seeks
apparently
view
as to
of
(csr subclass
or
Act."
Postal
that
this
'Prepaid
within
the
Sfervice
this
considers!
service,
question
Prepaid
similar
to
BRM and
Nashua
docket."
characteristics
involved
in
this
interrogatory
whether
Prepaid
similar
to
docket,
rather
a
jurisdiction
the
service
in
BRM?
to
postal
Service
to
of
a class
Postal
Prepaid
status
is
contends
at
this
legal
Nashua
be a special
similar
that
it
consider
10-11.
Service's
has product
whether
4-5.
‘to
Mail
special
Opposition
know
is
Reorganization
at
Service"
the
it
so,
or
Postal
Reply
other
mail
Compel
seeks
about
if
Service
contending
whether
and,
Postal
be a "Special
objects,
Mail'
the
to
to
the
a conclusion
Reply
of
"[dloes
Mail
The Postal
services
that
this
asks
Reply
meaning
Courtesy
NM/USPS-S3
NM/USPS-53
Postal
explains
withdrawn
answer
Interrogatory
the
Postal
organization
has
Prepaid
and the
Mystic
Service
to
So interpreted,
was approved.
directed
r-.
10.
Postal
merely
respect
discovery,
respond.
to
- 7
to
Courtesy
BRM and the
than
the
ask
Reply
other
Postal
the
Mail
special
Docket
No. MC96-3
Service's
view
Mail.
to
- 8 -
as to
the
So interpreted,
this
On August
8,
interrogatories
August
1996.
but
filed
September
6,
need
1996,
to
22,
Postal
to
for
directed
respond
to
respond
to
In
Reply
to
respond
only
6,
a motion
13,
grounds
Service
its
them.
Time
1996,
the
Second
addition,
1996,
included
filed
a motion
Postal
to
Time
offered
United
States
August
22,
Service's
the
of
the
to
motion
request
to
time,
to
were
for
for
an
time
to
Compel
at
9.
NM/USPS-7,
but
until
This
time,
Presiding
United
Respond
the
Officer's
States
Postal
to
(NM/USPS-l-6).
NM/USPS-28-36
on August
for
of
NM/USPS
to
answered
respond
Nashua/Mystic
responses
but
to
of
the
NM/USPS l-6.
Motion
3.
Extension
from
to
need
to
was an excessive
extension
due on
MC96-3
of
to
of
until
time
Respond
Service
respond
object
Motion
Postal
a second
No.
the
days
interrogatories.
the
to
objected
seven
were
No.
set
were
(NM/USPS-l-71,
to
29
first
The grounds
Motion
of
that
to
not
of
non-Docket
opposition
1996,
Interrogatories
26,
to
Nashua/Mystic
Request
for
In
respond
Extension
for
offered
Information
did
to
its
Responses
an extension
Nashua/Mystic
On September
September
directed
Service
for
complaining
respond
Service
Courtesy
is
Service.
other
from
reconsideration,
August
Prepaid
Service
and obligations."
2.
extension,
to
Postal
"juggling
Service
at
the
1996,
Interrogatories
filed
of
Nashua/Mystic
a motion
for
time
The Postal
responsibilities
1996,
Postal
extension
of
NM/USPS-l-7.
for
interrogatories
the
the
status
interrogatory.
Motions
l-7,
legal
late
30,
1996.
acceptance
were
due on
The Postal
on the
ground
that
/-.
Docket
- 9 -
No. MC96-3
certain
postal
managers
Forum.
Motion
of
Acceptance
of
and Mystic
Color
I will
the
Postal
ground
that
persistent
the
the
Responses
Lab,
Service
that
staff
to
is
of
adopted
if
for
States
Service
Postal
30,
for
with
of
National
for
Nashua
Postal
Late
Photo,
Inc.
1996.
extensions
motions
will
the
on the
motions
busy
it
concentrating
Interrogatories
August
these
pattern,
tentatively
United
grant
maintenance
were
for
other
extension
of
schedule
its
but
time
warn
on the
become
an apparent
processing
time,
responsibilities
indicate
procedural
of
indifference
that
has
request
in
a
to
been
this
docket.
RULING
1.
The various
NM/USPS l-27
Color
Labs
ruling
are
motions
and 37-65
to
the
disposed
Postal
of
pertaining
directed
to
interrogatories
by Nashua
Photo,
Service
addressed
in
as described
in
this
the
Inc.,
body
ruling.
dEmh
Presiding
Officer
and Mystic
of
the