Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07271/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07271-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AT&T COMMUNICATIONS, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PAC-WEST TELECOMM INC, et al.

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07271 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

FEBRUARY 22, 2008, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and

opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies

available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED

to submit the citations to the authorities only, with pin cites and without argument or additional

briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Each party shall have twenty (20) minutes to address the following questions:

1. To the extent the Court must review the CPUC Decision to determine whether it is

unconstitutional and preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, what standard

Case 3:06-cv-07271-JSW Document 80 Filed 02/21/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

of review would the parties have the Court apply to its review of the decision? On what

authority do the parties rely in support of their respective positions on this question?

2. With respect to Plaintiffs’ preemption argument, is the Court correct that they contend

that the FCC has preempted the field of reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound traffic? 

(See AR at 0068.)

3. The ISP Remand Order arises out of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the

efforts to increase local competition. In light of that background, what is Plaintiffs’ best

argument that the FCC intended to address CLEC to CLEC compensation for ISP-bound

traffic? 

a. Paragraph 8 of the ISP Remand Order refers generically to “LECs” that may

receive compensation for ISP bound traffic. Although that paragraph also refers

to interconnection agreements, and although Section 251 of the TCA imposes a

duty on ILECs to enter into interconnection agreements with CLECs, is there any

provision of the TCA that would have precluded two CLECs from voluntarily

entering into interconnection agreements?

b. In the ISP Remand Order, the FCC demonstrated that it knew how to distinguish

between ILECs and CLECs when such a distinction was required. (See, e.g., ISP

Remand Order at ¶¶ 13, 70, 89, 98.) What are the Defendants’ best arguments

that when the FCC used the term “LEC” without modifying it with “incumbent”

or “competitive,” it did not intend the term to apply to all types of carriers? 

4. Would Pac-West and the CPUC Defendants agree that the FCC’s concerns about market

distortions and regulatory arbitrage are applicable to a CLEC-CLEC relationship as well

as to an ILEC-CLEC relationship? See ISP Remand Order, ¶ 2 (“such market

distortions relate not only to ISP-bound traffic, but may result from any intercarrier

compensation regime that allows a service provider to recover some of its costs from

other carriers than from its end-users”) (emphasis added).)

Case 3:06-cv-07271-JSW Document 80 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

5. What is the CPUC’s best argument that its decision is not a “back door” attempt at

generic rule making in violation of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Bell v. PacWest Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003)?

6. The record suggests that the parties did dispute whether the traffic at issue was ISPbound traffic in the proceedings before the CPUC. If the Court were to determine that

the CPUC did not have jurisdiction to issue a ruling regarding compensation for ISPbound traffic but also determined that there are factual disputes about whether all of the

traffic in dispute is ISP-bound traffic, what is Plaintiffs’ best argument that the Court

should not remand to the CPUC to determine what payments, if any, should be returned

to them? 

7. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: February 21, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07271-JSW Document 80 Filed 02/21/08 Page 3 of 3