**BEFORE THE**

**POSTAL RATE COMMISSION**

**WASHINGTON, D.C. 20268-0001**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**EXPERIMENTAL RATE AND SERVICE**

**CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT NEGOTIATED**

**SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH**

**CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, INC. DOCKET No. MC2002-2**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, INC.'S OBJECTION**

**TO THE OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE FOLLOW-UP INTERROGATORIES TO
WITNESS DONALD JEAN**

**(OCA/COS-T1-30(c), (d) and (e), and 31 (a) and (b))**

Capital One Services, Inc. hereby objects to Interrogatories of the
Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA): OCA/COS-T1-30(c), (d) and (e), and 31
(a) and (b) filed on November 26, 2002.

The interrogatories are stated verbatim and are followed by an
explanation of the objection.

> Respectfully submitted
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Timothy J. May
>
> Patton Boggs LLP
>
> 2550 M Street, NW
>
> Washington, D.C. 20037-1350
>
> Tel: 202 457 6050
>
> Fax: 202 457 6315
>
> Counsel for Capital One Services, Inc.

Dated: December 2, 2002

**OCA/COS-T1-30**. Please refer to your responses to OCA/COS-T1-25(a)
and

NAA/COS-T1-15, which state

Information that a mailpiece has been returned for a particular address
is

added to the company's records. This information is then used as part of

the mailing decision process for future campaigns....

\(c\) Considering Capital One's current practices with respect to
"\[i\]nformation that a mailpiece has been returned for a particular
address," under what circumstances (if any) may the address on such a
returned mailpiece be used in subsequent First-Class solicitation mail
marketing campaigns? Please explain.

\(d\) Considering Capital One's practices under the NSA with respect to
an electronic notification that a mailpiece has been "returned" for a
particular address, under what circumstances (if any) may the address
for such a "returned" mailpiece be used in subsequent First-Class
solicitation mail marketing campaigns? Please explain.

\(e\) Does the "mailing decision process" refer to an existing computer
program? Please explain.

\(i\) If so, list the decision rules of the computer program.

\(ii\) If not, is it a human judgment whether to send additional
solicitation

> mailpieces to undeliverable-as-addressed (UAA) addresses? What are the
> dominant factors resulting in a decision to mail again to a UAA
> address? What are the dominant factors resulting in a decision not to
> mail again to a UAA address?

**OBJECTION: OCA/COS-T1-30(c) and (d)** ask Capital One to explain in
what circumstances the address on a return mailpiece might be used
currently or under the NSA in a subsequent First-Class solicitation mail
marketing campaign. To the extent that there are such circumstances,
that information is highly privileged. Moreover, we object on the
grounds that there is no demonstrated relevance to these questions.

Sub-part (e) of this question asks the Company to explain the decision
rules of a computer program that may be the "mailing decision process"
or factors controlling human judgment, if there is not such a computer
program, for determining when to send an additional solicitation
mailpiece to a UAA address. Where there is a computer program or a human
judgment, the "dominant factors" resulting in a decision to re-mail such
an address are highly confidential and privileged business secrets, the
publication of which could cause commercial damage to the Company. Once
again, there is no demonstrated relevance to such questions that probe
into how the Company makes decisions about when and to whom it will make
a re-mailing of a solicitation to an address the Postal Service says is
UAA. There is no provision in the NSA that is in any way dependent upon
the answer to this question. Nor, in any quantitative measure, would the
answer to this question have a bearing upon the benefits of this
agreement to the Postal Service and to postal stakeholders.

**OCA/COS-T1-31.** Please refer to your response to OCA/COS-T1-25(a),
which asks whether the term "updating" includes the activity "address
suppression."

\(a\) Considering Capital One's current practices with respect to
"\[i\]nformation that a mailpiece has been returned for a particular
address," under what circumstances (if any) is address suppression used
with respect to subsequent First-Class solicitation mail marketing
campaigns? Please explain.

\(b\) Considering Capital One's practices under the NSA with respect to
an electronic notification that a mailpiece has been "returned" for a
particular address, under what circumstances (if any) will "enhanced
address suppression on subsequent \[First-Class solicitation\] mailings"
be used, as stated in COS-T-1, at 6, line 16? Please explain.

**OBJECTION: OCA/COS-T1-31(a) and (b)** are simply variants of the same
questions asked in question 30 to which we have objected above. We renew
our objection on the same grounds as our objections to question 30 (c),
(d) and (e). The Company is quite willing to state whether it does or
does not re-mail to a UAA address currently or will under the NSA; and
whether it will or will not, currently and under the NSA, "suppress", or
delete, an address the Postal Service deems to be UAA. However, the
Company regards the reasons for which it will or will not do these
things, and in what circumstances, to be of a highly confidential
nature. Suffice it to say, Capital One is not recklessly spending
First-Class Mail postage on mailings that it has good reason to believe
will never reach their destination. Its ability to know when, if ever,
to re-mail a UAA address is one of the bases for its success and is
among its most highly sensitive proprietary information. The, at best,
slightly tangential relevance of the requested information to the issues
in this case does not justify its disclosure.