,....
BEFORE THE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20268-0001
RECEIVED
3 17
SEP 6
f’ii ‘96
POSTAL R:‘i: CCHhlSSiC,;
OFFICE Oi Tt!E SWItETARY
Special
Services
Fees
and Classifications
)
Docket
No.
MC96-3
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
53 (b) AND (c),
54(b)
AND (e), AND
OCA/USPS-48,
(September
6, 1996)
The Office
Presiding
of
Officer
interrogatories
and e),
and
56.
of
corroboration
of
,.,--
g,rounds
Postal
53
Service
1 Objection
53(b)
and cc),
(el , September
3,
OCA/USPS-48
manuals
54
to
(parts
information
systems
to
b
on the
Ior
statements
objected
requests
FYs 1994
objects
to
and
providing
Commission's
respond
'concerning
thes,e
1996.l
for
the
seek
Service
Service
to
b and c),
estimating
Postal
on September
COCA) request&tbat,the
Service
(parts
cost
The Postal
that
Advocate
interrogatories
earlier
'Interrogatory
the
the
statistical
interrogatories
The Postal
direct
These
systems.
development
Consumer
OCA/USPS-48,
reliability
those
the
production
1995
the
discovery
in
of
cost
electronic
requested
rules
of the USPS to OCA Interrogatories
and Partial
Objection
to
56(c),
3, 1996.
format.
material
do not
on
permit
OCA/USPS-40,
OCA/USPS-54(b)
and
Docket
such
No.
MC96-3
requests.
of
the
of
practice.2
2
The Postal
rules
of
calculated
evidence,
as requiyed
the
relevance
versions
of
computer,
to
its
request
two
reliably
assist
cost
overlooked
on sections
to
using
any
changes
The Postal
Service
special
48 is
admissible
of
the
rules
of
The OCA would
have
1995
Postal
when preparing
practice.
thought
using
identified,
that
Service
testimony
a
much faster
Such
human eye.
the
rules
The electronic
can be compared
to
26
not
of
the
that
the
25 and
discovery
25(a)
1994
of
interrogatory
the
manuals
verifying
2.E
was obvious.
from
than
in
lead
objection.
of
the
that
by section
and changes
and more
would
asserts
a relevance
is
relies
and on section
first
reasonably
This
Service
practice
The Service
005206
a comparison
has
not
or
interrogatory
interrogatory
48 is
responses.
permitted
section
by section
provides
designated
relevant
versions
,I-
' Id.
of
of
hard
the
at
argues
of
cost
2-3.
the
that
rules
participants
or
things
The Postal
material.
production
26(a)
that
documents
also
copy
is
manuals.
of
which
and copy
constitute
Service
equivalent
However,
seems
to
That
practice.
may "inspect
or
to
any
contain"
be arguing
production
as explained
not
of
that
electronic
above,
the
Docket
/-.
No.
MC96-3
electronic
costing
3
version
is
methodology
far
than
0 0 5 2 f?:
more
is
useful
hard
for
copy.
identifying
The two
changes
are
in
in
no way
equivalent.
Finally,
permitted
rule
the
by
reads
Service
section
2.E
argues
of
the
that
interrogatory
special
rules
48 is
of
not
practice.
That
as follows.3
E.
Discovery
to Obtain
Information
Available
Only
from the Postal
Service.
Rules 25 through
27 ;allow
discovery
reasonably
calculated
to lead to adnvissible
evidence
during
a noticed
proceeding
with no time
limitations.
Generally,
through
actions
by the
presiding
officer,
discovery
against
a participant
is
scheduled
to end prior
to the receipt
into
evidence
of
that
participant's
direct
case.
An exception
to this
procedure
shall
operate
when a participant
needs to
obtain
information
(such as operating
procedures
or
data)
available
only from the Postal
Service.
Discovery
requests
of this
nature
are permissi:ble
up to
20 days prior
to the filing
date for final
rebuttal
testimony.
The Postal
Service
interrogatories
information
,..T
directed
necessary
special
rule
develop
testimony.
setting
the
July
mischaracterizes
does
to
to
not
the
limit
for
3 Presiding
25, 1996.
Officer's
' September
3 Objection
Postal
develop
2.E
Ruling
at
to
"to
obtain
testimony.'
information
to
requests
No.
as pertaining
Service
to
reference
rule
rule
intervener
requests
The only
deadline
this
MC96-3/3,
2 (emphasis
needed
testimony
with
The
relates
respect
Attachment
added).
to
to
to
the
B,
Docket
No.
MC96-3
4
005208
,s.-.
deadline
for
Presiding
rule
submitting
Officer's
2.E
of
reason
the
for
that
the
nothing
OCA would
estimates
and actual
Service
(apparently)
again
IOCS.
The OCA has
Postal
comparison
as a means
evaluating
Service
of
' Presiding
at
to
requested
material
Service's
delay
in
40 is
in
finance
with
Ruling
request
office
of
the
the
request
individual
actual
No.
should
IOCS estimates
reliability
numbers
IOCS
sensitivity
of
facility-specific
of
both
by quarter.
commercial
compare
evaluating
performance
IOCS estimates
Officer's
of
The relevance
can mask
only
interrogatory
by sample
on grounds
of
the
OCA/USPS-53
by craft
no interest
the
Postal
than
prophecy.
The OCA wishes
costs
the
costs
the
to
that
other
event,
use
the
interrogatory
relevance.'
actual
of
to
is
establishes
any
objection
objects
be obvious.
means
testimony
And a
purposes
In
a self-fulfilling
b and c of
The Postal
for
be.unable
The Service's
th;an
clearly
testimony.'
it.6
F'arts
,-.
rebuttal
testimony.
MC95-1
may be submitted
of
more
rebuttal
in
preparation
producing
and
Ruling
requests
preparation
final
in
costs
MC95-I/79,
with
the
data
as a
offices.
If
a way that
(e.g.,
allows
by using
October
5,
1995,
2.
' The OCA is perfectly
willing
to accept
an electronic
if there
is no single
irvtegrated
That is,
version
"as is."
that
constitutes
an electronic
version
of the cost Imanual,
OCA is willing
to accept
multiple
files.
;' September
3 Objection
at 3-4.
file
the
Docket
,,-.
No.
MC96-3
dummy finance
Postal
But
of
protect
to
acceptable
seem to
th#e request
or
commercial
to
ratios
by quarter,
would
its
is
provide
by office
there
relevance
that
wishes
by craft
OCA.
to
numbers),
Service
cost
5
of
that
be little
of
the
interests
the
OCA.
estimated
to
is
acceptable
doubt
either
ability
of
while
If
actual
to
of
the
the
the
the
Postal
Service
in
a useful
responding
way.
E'arts
c and
sampling
frame
relevant
for
purpose
by the
assertion
n
the
This
number
the
IOCS is
should
,,-.
facilities
that
either
being
is
in
the
deals
sampled
flawed,
the
requested
frame
defects
the
and
5.
with
If,
the
Contrary
facilities
the
sampling
IOCS estimates
highly
that
the
Ideally,
is
to
not
facilities
instead,
IOCS
was
postal
IOCS.
information
be provided.
' PRC Op. MC96-2 at 28-29.
' September
3 Objection
at
solely
OCA has
are
of
opinion."
of
into
inquiries
reliability
then
"thousands,"
Such
MC96-2
by the
be zero.
hopelessly
event,
its
inquire
the
"thousands
about
should
IOCS.
Service,g
interrogatory
of
the
sampling
in
Postal
OCA/USPS-54
evaluating
of
inquired
had no chance
In
of
Commission
of
(intentionally)
such
of
The relevance
recognized
of
interrogatory
inadequacies
the
estimates.
the
e of
number
magnitude
frame
are
of
for
worthless.
relevant
and
Docket
No.
Part
,,.-.
MC96,-3
c of
interrogatory
Service
were
interrogatory
steps
clearly
requested
to
frame
them
in
in
determine
53(b)
and
cost
the
action
,the FY 1995
to
54(b)
the
to
(e),
the
Service
itself
presiding
interrogatories
submitted,
EMMETT RAND COSTICH
Assistant
Director
"
;--.
-----
See id.
at
4.
-.--
~-
would
that
not
OCA is
recognized
and attempted
frame
Postal
inadequacies
Rather,
and 56(c).
Respectfully
the
The OCA has
Service
IOCS sampling
with
whether
frame
IOCS.
treatment
by the
respond
and
correct
Postal
OCA requests
Service
cc),
to
(together
determine
estimates.lO
needed
Such
to
FY 1995
whether
WHEREFORE the
Postal
the
inadequacies
that
seeks
FY 1996
FY 1996
FY 1996.
admissiion
for
present
any
that
the
OCA/USPS-56
OCA/USPS-70)
took
seeking
6
to
fix
amount
to
was defective.
officer
to
direct
OCA/USPS-48,
an
Docket
No.
MC96-3
CERTIFICATE
I: hereby
document
accordance
upon
with
certify
all
that
I have
participants
section
3.B(3)
OF SERVICE
this
date
of
record
of
the
in
special
served
this
D.C.
6, 1996
20268-0001
,-.
.-...__
-
-
~.-
foregoing
proceeding
rules
EMMETT RAND COSTICH
Attorney
Washington,
September
the
of
in
practice.