Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01311/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01311-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Conversion

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Telesaurus VPC, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Randy Power, an individual; Patricia 

Power, an individual; Radiolink 

Corporation, an Arizona corporation; and 

commonly-controlled and affiliated entities, 

Defendants.

No. CV07-1311-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 193). For 

the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Genesis of this Dispute 

In 1998, Telesaurus (a Delaware limited liability company) and RadioLink (an 

Arizona corporation) both participated in an FCC auction for certain radio frequencies in 

the Phoenix area designated as VHF Public Coast, or “VPC,” frequencies. Telesaurus 

won the auction, but RadioLink soon gained access to the frequencies anyway by 

allegedly “submit[ting] to the FCC a false application . . . falsely characterizing [five of 

Telesaurus’s VPC frequencies] as frequencies in a certain pool of frequencies (very close 

in frequency range to the VPC Frequencies) that the FCC set aside for licensing at no 

charge, on a first-come, first-serve basis.” (Doc. 120 ¶ 15.) RadioLink denies that it 

submitted a false application, and instead claims that a frequency coordinator (a nonCase 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 1 of 16
- 2 - 

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 

governmental entity that works as a sort of middleman for frequency applications) 

mistakenly requested Telesaurus’s frequencies on RadioLink’s behalf. In any event, the 

FCC did not realize that the requested frequencies were already assigned to Telesaurus, 

and it granted RadioLink’s application. RadioLink began using Telesaurus’s frequencies 

allegedly “for a common carrier Wireless Telecommunication Service and Commercial 

Mobile Radio Service.” (Id. ¶ 16.) RadioLink disputes that it operated a commercial 

mobile radio service, instead arguing that it operated a private mobile radio service for 

customers such as fire departments and bus systems. The distinction between a 

commercial service and a private service matters because the FCC treats commercial 

services, but not private services, as “common carriers,” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1)–(2), and 

(as discussed below) RadioLink’s liability turns on whether or not it was a common 

carrier. 

Telesaurus apparently paid no attention to its VPC frequencies for several years, 

and had no idea that RadioLink was using them until 2003 or 2004. Administrative 

proceedings with the FCC ensued. In 2005, the FCC modified RadioLink’s license to 

exclude Telesaurus’s five frequencies and include five replacement frequencies. 

B. Initial Stages and Appeal 

Telesaurus initiated this lawsuit in 2007, alleging that RadioLink had used 

Telesaurus’s frequencies without permission from 1999 through 2005, thus supposedly 

violating the common carrier provisions of the Federal Communications Act (FCA), see

47 U.S.C. § 207, and entitling Telesaurus to unspecified damages.1

 Telesaurus also 

asserted state-law torts. RadioLink eventually moved to dismiss, arguing that it was not a 

common carrier as a matter of law, and therefore 47 U.S.C. § 207 could not apply. 

RadioLink also argued that Telesaurus’s state-law claims were preempted by federal law. 

 1

 According to counsel, Telesaurus suffered no losses from RadioLink’s actions, 

but rather seeks damages measured by RadioLink’s profits from using the VPC 

frequencies, similar to equitable disgorgement. (See Doc. 115 at 23–25.) 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 2 of 16
- 3 - 

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 

This Court granted RadioLink’s motion, holding that RadioLink was not a 

common carrier as a matter of law, and that the FCA preempts the state-law claims. On 

appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the preemption conclusion, but not the common carrier 

conclusion. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit agreed that Telesaurus’s then-operative 

complaint did not sufficiently allege common carrier status. The Ninth Circuit therefore 

remanded to give Telesaurus an opportunity to amend its complaint. 

C. Development of a Focused Discovery and Summary Judgment 

Procedure 

The Ninth Circuit’s order established the following elements for common carrier 

status: 

[A] mobile service provider such as RadioLink qualifies as a 

“common carrier” under the FCA only to the extent it is 

“engaged in the provision of a service” that is: (1) for profit; 

(2) interconnected (or pending interconnection) with the 

public switched network; and (3) available to the public or 

other specified users. 

Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power, 623 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010). Telesaurus’s second 

amended complaint, filed in January 2011, tracked this language fairly closely, but was 

devoid of supporting facts. RadioLink again moved to dismiss. 

At a hearing on that motion in April 2011, the court stated that “those facts going 

to ‘available to the public or other specified users,’ or ‘interconnected to the public 

switched network,’ appear to be readily amenable to quick economical and definitive 

discovery and resolution.” (Doc. 143 at 5.) The Court surmised that the parties “might 

need some depositions. But most of this would appear . . . to be paper discovery.” (Id. at 

17.) Referring to RadioLink’s transmitter site, counsel for Telesaurus added: “I could 

envision a site inspection by an expert. I believe there’s going to be some disagreement 

as to what the equipment can or can’t do . . . during this five- or six-year period [in which 

RadioLink allegedly violated Telesaurus’s rights].” (Id. at 18.) 

Based on the discussion at the hearing, the Court denied RadioLink’s motion to 

dismiss and instead ordered the parties to develop a discovery plan focused only on the 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 3 of 16
- 4 - 

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 

second and third elements of the Ninth Circuit’s common carrier test, to be followed by 

cross-motions for summary judgment on those elements. (Doc. 138.) After delays 

occasioned by the parties’ other motions, the parties agreed on a scheduling order 

requiring RadioLink to file a motion for summary judgment regarding interconnectedness 

and availability to the public. That motion was to include 

a written description in the form of a functional diagram of 

RadioLink’s operating system during the period from 1999 

through the time in 2005 when its frequencies were changed, 

with sufficient detail to allow a third party, including 

[Telesaurus]’s expert witness, if any, to determine whether 

the system was interconnected with the public switched 

network . . . . 

(Doc. 189 at 2.) The scheduling order went on to specify: 

During January, 2012, (A) Defendants will permit inspections 

by duly qualified experts, at mutually convenient dates as 

follows: (i) Site inspection of RadioLink’s [repeater] facility, 

and (ii) Inspection of RadioLink’s repeater equipment in 

operation during the relevant time period, whether or not still 

operating; and (B) Plaintiff shall conduct the deposition of 

Randy Power at a date and time convenient to all parties, 

limited to the issues raised in Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment. Plaintiff reserves the right to request 

additional discovery concerning the issues raised by 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 

56(d) Fed.R.Civ.P. following its review of the Motion, and 

Defendants reserve the right to object to any such requests. 

(Id.) 

Telesaurus was required to obtain new counsel in the midst of summary judgment 

briefing, causing delays. In the end, Telesaurus deposed Randy Power, but “decided to 

forgo [an] inspection [of RadioLink’s repeater site] since none of the equipment 

RadioLink used during the relevant time period remains at the site.” (Doc. 223 at 2.) 

Telesaurus cites nothing in support of the assertion that none of the relevant equipment 

remains in place. 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 4 of 16
- 5 - 

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 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Summary judgment is warranted if the evidence shows there is no genuine issue as 

to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions 

of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together 

with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue 

of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the 

nonmoving party would bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the moving party may 

carry its initial burden of production by submitting admissible “evidence negating an 

essential element of the nonmoving party’s case,” or by showing, “after suitable 

discovery,” that the “nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential 

element of its claim or defense to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan 

Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1105–06 (9th Cir. 2000). 

When the moving party has carried its burden, the nonmoving party must respond 

with specific facts, supported by admissible evidence, showing a genuine issue for trial. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). But allegedly disputed facts must be material — the existence 

of only “some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise 

properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 

U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986) (emphasis in original). 

Where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find 

for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial. Matsushita 

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). However, the 

nonmoving party’s properly presented evidence is presumed to be true and all inferences 

from the evidence are drawn in the light most favorable to that party. Eisenberg v. Ins. 

Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1289 (9th Cir. 1987). 

III. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE 

A party may object that the evidence cited by the other party in support or 

opposition to summary judgment “cannot be presented in a form that would be 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 5 of 16
- 6 - 

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 

admissible in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). “While the evidence presented at the 

summary judgment stage does not yet need to be in a form that would be admissible at 

trial, the proponent must set out facts that it will be able to prove through admissible 

evidence.” Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2010). 

A. Evidence Submitted by RadioLink 

Telesaurus claims that certain documents submitted by RadioLink related to its 

FCC applications (Doc. 194 at 11–26) are hearsay. This motion can be resolved without 

reference to those documents. The Court will therefore not rule on Telesaurus’s hearsay 

objections. 

B. Evidence Submitted by Telesaurus 

1. BLM Documents 

RadioLink challenges the authenticity of documents Telesaurus obtained from the 

Bureau of Land Management (Docs. 210-2 through 210-8). Telesaurus submitted 

nothing from the BLM’s custodian of records to authenticate the BLM documents. 

However, it is not impossible for these documents to be authenticated, especially if this 

case went forward to full discovery. In addition, at his deposition, Power authenticated 

certain of these BLM documents relating to himself and RadioLink. Therefore, the BLM 

documents relating directly to Power or RadioLink will not be excluded for lack of 

authenticity. The remaining BLM documents are irrelevant, and even if relevant, would 

be hearsay. They will be excluded. 

2. Havens Affidavit 

RadioLink challenges an affidavit submitted by Telesaurus’s principal, Warren 

Havens. “An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a [summary judgment] 

motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in 

evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matter 

stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Havens’ affidavit fails this standard. It only 

summarizes attached documentary evidence (such as the BLM documents), none of 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 6 of 16
- 7 - 

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 

which substantiates his personal knowledge. Rather, he gained his knowledge from the 

documentary evidence. Accordingly, the Havens affidavit is inadmissible. 

IV. FACTS 

Taking into account the foregoing, the following facts are undisputed unless 

attributed to one party or another. 

A. The VPC Frequencies and RadioLink’s Equipment 

As noted above, both RadioLink and Telesaurus competed in an auction in 1998 

for certain VPC frequencies, which Telesaurus won. The following year, RadioLink 

gained overlapping rights to five of those frequencies, on which it transmitted under call 

sign WPOX212. RadioLink claims that the overlap was a mistake on the part of 

Industrial Telecommunications Association, a frequency coordinator authorized by the 

FCC to recommend appropriate frequencies in the private land mobile radio spectrum. In 

2005, this conflict between Telesaurus’s and RadioLink’s rights came to light and the 

FCC deleted the five disputed frequencies from RadioLink’s WPOX212 license, 

replacing them with other available frequencies. 

According to a declaration from Randy Power, RadioLink’s WPOX212 repeater 

equipment has never included the technology or other means necessary to interconnect 

with the public switched network — or in other words, to allow radio operators to place 

or receive phone calls from their radios. In addition, Power claims that RadioLink’s 

service has never been offered to the general public. Rather, says Power, RadioLink 

selected its customers based on the repeater equipment’s capacity, the potential 

customer’s ability to obtain needed FCC permits, and the potential customer’s ability to 

pay. RadioLink therefore claims that it has always operated as a private mobile radio 

service, rather than a commercial service. 

B. BLM Rent Calculations 

RadioLink’s repeater equipment sits on land owned by the Bureau of Land 

Management on White Tank Mountain, west of Phoenix. Randy Power has leased that 

land from the BLM since sometime in the 1980s. Not only has he placed RadioLink’s 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 7 of 16
- 8 - 

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 

equipment on that land, but he has also sublet his facilities to certain other 

communications providers. 

Occasionally (usually once a year), Power is required to fill out a BLM form 

listing the “occupants” of the land he leases, the “type of use” for each occupant, and 

whether each occupant is a “customer” or “tenant.” This form assists the BLM in 

calculating Power’s rent. On every one of these forms filled out by Power from 1996 

through 2011, Power identified the site’s general “type of use” as a “commercial mobile 

radio service/facility manager” or just “commercial mobile radio service.” Each tenant’s 

specific type of use was listed as “CMRS” (commercial mobile radio service) or “BT” 

(broadcast translator), but every customer’s type of use was listed as “PMRS” (private 

mobile radio service). (See Doc. 210-2 at 12, 21, 27, 33, 50, 59, 69, 89, 97, 103, 113; 

Doc. 210-3 at 7, 11, 16, 29, 44.) 

C. FCC Form 499-A 

At some point, probably in the late 1990s and no later than 2001 (see Doc. 223-1 

at 24), Power and his then-wife, Patricia, each filled out an FCC Form 499-A (Doc. 210-9 

at 21–24). The FCC requires certain telecommunications providers to report revenue 

annually on Form 499-A so that the FCC can collect contributions used to fund various 

programs relating to telephone service. (See Doc. 223-1 at 89.) The Powers were in the 

midst of divorce proceedings at that time and to the best of Randy Power’s recollection, 

they filled out these forms independently of each other because they both had certain 

FCC licenses in their own names. 

Both Randy and Patricia stated on their Forms 499-A that they were “doing 

business as” “RadioLink Corp.” Randy identified RadioLink’s business as “other 

mobile,” which is not listed as an available category on the form’s instructions. Patricia 

identified RadioLink’s business as “SMR [specialized mobile radio] (dispatch),” defined 

in the instructions as “primarily provid[ing] dispatch services and mobile services other 

than wireless telephony. While dispatch services may include interconnection with the 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 8 of 16
- 9 - 

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 

public switched network, this category does not include carriers that primarily offer 

wireless telephony.” (Id. at 99–100.) 

When asked at his deposition to explain the discrepancy between his and his 

Patricia’s forms, Power stated: “[T]hat was a confusing time in my life [while going 

through the divorce] and maybe she thought of one way and I thought of another. I don’t 

know. I can’t answer that for sure.” (Id. at 25.) Also at Power’s deposition, Telesaurus 

pointed out that the Powers could have identified RadioLink as being a “Private Service 

Provider,” defined on the form’s instructions as “offer[ing] telecommunications to others 

for a fee on a non-common carrier basis. This would include a company that offers 

excess capacity on a private system that it uses primarily for internal purposes.” (Id. at 

99.) Power responded that RadioLink has never provided “telecommunications,” but 

only “dispatch.” (Id. at 27.) Power speculated that he and his wife nonetheless filled out 

these forms either as part of a transaction in which a cellphone company acquired certain 

frequencies from the Powers, or because they operated another service in Phoenix in the 

late 1990s with telephone interconnect. (Id.) 

V. ANALYSIS 

A. Alleged Legal Presumption of CMRS 

The Ninth Circuit has made clear that liability in this case turns on RadioLink 

being a “common carrier,” and that common carrier status turns on the service that the 

alleged common carrier actually provides: 

[A] mobile service provider such as RadioLink qualifies as a 

“common carrier” under the FCA only to the extent it is 

“engaged in the provision of a service” that is: (1) for profit; 

(2) interconnected (or pending interconnection) with the 

public switched network; and (3) available to the public or 

other specified users. 

Telesaurus, 623 F.3d at 1004. Despite this, Telesaurus’s primary argument here is that 

RadioLink must be presumed to be a common carrier because it used the VPC 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 9 of 16
- 10 - 

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 

frequencies. Telesaurus raised essentially this same argument on appeal, and the Ninth 

Circuit disagreed: 

Telesaurus argues that Radiolink must be deemed to be a 

common carrier because it was using the VPC Frequencies, 

which the FCC designated for use only by commercial mobile 

services. We reject this tautology. As explained above, the 

definition of “commercial mobile services” does not turn on 

the nature of the frequencies being used, but rather on 

whether the service being provided meets certain criteria. 

Id. at 1005. 

The only distinction Telesaurus makes now is to pile the elements of common 

carrier status into the argument. Telesaurus, for example, states that use of the VPC 

frequencies constitutes a commercial service and that commercial service operators must 

interconnect with the public switched network, therefore RadioLink must have 

interconnected. Telesaurus also points out the various FCC regulations that RadioLink 

supposedly violated by using the VPC frequencies for something other than a commercial 

service, insisting that RadioLink must therefore have been a commercial service. These 

arguments are no less tautological than the argument the Ninth Circuit rejected. They do 

not suffice to defeat summary judgment. 

B. Interconnection with the Public Switched Network 

RadioLink has proffered evidence that WPOX212 (which included the VPC 

frequencies from 1999 to 2005) has never been interconnected with the public switched 

network. (See Doc. 194-1 at 4–7.) The burden therefore shifted to Telesaurus to bring 

forth evidence showing that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude otherwise. As 

explained below, Telesaurus has not met that burden. 

1. The Forms 499-A 

Telesaurus leans heavily on the 499-A forms that Randy and Patricia Power had 

once filled out. Telesaurus located these forms in an online FCC database. They are the 

only two forms that Telesaurus has offered from that database. They do not create a 

dispute over a material issue. 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 10 of 16
- 11 - 

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 

First, their exact date is unclear. Telesaurus continually suggests that the forms 

were filled out in 2001, but it provides no citation for that. The forms themselves bear no 

date on which they were submitted to the FCC. Based on the business address listed on 

those forms and the nature of the forms themselves, Power speculated at his deposition 

that he and Patricia filled them out sometime in the late 1990s — meaning that they may 

have filled them out before RadioLink began using the VPC frequencies. If so, these 

forms would clearly have no relevance. 

But even assuming that the Powers filled out these forms sometime after 

RadioLink began using the VPC frequencies, the relevance is still unclear. Telesaurus 

argues that because neither Randy nor Patricia Power selected “Private Service Provider” 

from a list of available types of telecommunications services in the 499-A instructions, an 

inference arises that RadioLink was not a private mobile radio service. But Telesaurus 

has not established, nor do its documents establish, that Form 499-A has anything to do 

the distinctions between commercial mobile radio services and private mobile radio 

services. The form’s instructions list fifteen different types of services that the Powers 

could have selected. “Commercial mobile radio service” and “private mobile radio 

service” are not on that list. (Doc. 223-1 at 98–99.) The only option linguistically close 

to either of them is “Private Service Provider,” defined as “offer[ing] telecommunications 

to others for a fee on a non-common carrier basis. This would include a company that 

offers excess capacity on a private system that it uses primarily for internal purposes.” 

(Doc. 223-1 at 99.) If the FCC meant this definition to be coterminous with its definition 

of private mobile radio service, one could reasonably have expected it to say so. But it 

did not. 

In addition, the types of service that Randy and Patricia Power listed for 

RadioLink do not suggest that RadioLink operated as a commercial service. Randy 

Power chose “other mobile,” an option which does not exist in the 499-A instructions. 

“Other mobile” says nothing about the relevant characteristics of RadioLink’s service. 

Patricia Power chose “SMR (dispatch),” which applies to those who “primarily provide[] 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 11 of 16
- 12 - 

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 

dispatch services and mobile services other than wireless telephony. While dispatch 

services may include interconnection with the public switched network, this category 

does not include carriers that primarily offer wireless telephony.” (Doc. 223-1 at 99–

100.) This definition shows only that if RadioLink had provided telephone 

interconnection, “SMR (dispatch)” might still have been the appropriate designation on 

the 499-A. It says nothing about whether RadioLink ever provided interconnection. 

Accordingly, the 499-A forms do not raise a dispute over whether RadioLink was ever 

interconnected with the public switched network. 

2. BLM Documents 

Telesaurus also attempts to make much of the BLM paperwork documenting 

Power’s yearly rent payments for the White Tank Mountain repeater site. Because, on 

the BLM documents, Power has consistently identified his use of the repeater site as 

“commercial mobile radio service/facility manager” or “commercial mobile radio 

service,” Telesaurus argues that a material issue of fact exists about what sort of service 

RadioLink really offered. Telesaurus further asserts that listing oneself as a commercial 

service on these BLM forms raises a presumption that one is in fact a commercial service 

for FCC purposes, and therefore RadioLink must have been interconnected to the public 

switched network, with services offered to the public indiscriminately. Telesaurus is 

mistaken. 

The BLM’s regulations make clear that its definitions of “commercial mobile 

radio service” and “private mobile radio service” differ from the FCC’s definitions: 

Commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)/facility manager 

means commercial mobile radio uses that provide mobile 

communication service to individual customers. Examples of 

CMRS include: Community repeaters, trunked radio 

(specialized mobile radio), two-way radio voice dispatch, 

public switched network (telephone/data) interconnect 

service, microwave communications link equipment, and 

other two-way voice and paging services. “Facility 

Managers” are grant or lease holders that lease building, 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 12 of 16
- 13 - 

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 

tower, and related facility space to a variety of tenants and 

customers as part of the holder’s business enterprise, but do 

not own or operate communication equipment in the facility 

for their own uses; 

* * * 

Private mobile radio service (PMRS) means uses supporting 

private mobile radio systems primarily for a single entity for 

mobile internal communications. PMRS service is not sold 

and is exclusively limited to the user in support of business, 

community activities, or other organizational communication 

needs. Examples of PMRS include: Private local radio 

dispatch, private paging services, and ancillary microwave 

communications equipment for controlling mobile facilities; 

43 C.F.R. § 2801.5(b). 

The most notable difference between these definitions and the FCC’s definitions is 

that, for BLM purposes, a private mobile radio service “is not sold and is exclusively 

limited to the user.” The FCC, by contrast, permits some private mobile radio services to 

operate on a for-profit basis with subscribers. See 47 C.F.R. § 20.3 (defining “Private 

Mobile Radio Service” to include, among other things, “[m]obile radio service offered to 

restricted classes of eligible users”). In addition, the BLM views “switched network 

(telephone/data) interconnect service” as an example of commercial mobile radio 

services, not as an element of such service. Thus, the BLM’s definitions demonstrate that 

any FCC-designated “private mobile radio service” operating on a for-profit basis would 

fall under the “commercial mobile radio service” heading for BLM rent purposes. It is 

undisputed that RadioLink operated on a for-profit basis from 1999 to 2005. 

Accordingly, Power correctly identified the White Tank Mountain site as being used for a 

“commercial” service with respect to the BLM’s rent calculations. 

In addition, the BLM “calculates rents for * * * [m]ultiple-use facilities, whose 

authorizations provide for subleasing, by setting the rent of the highest value use in the 

facility or facilities as the base rent . . . .” 43 C.F.R. § 2806.31(a)(2). As far as the BLM 

documents disclose, the “highest value use” on the White Tank Mountain site was the 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 13 of 16
- 14 - 

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 

commercial mobile radio service offered by certain of Power’s tenants. Accordingly, for 

this additional reason, Power correctly identified the White Tank Mountain site as being 

used for a “commercial” service with respect to the BLM’s rent calculations. 

However, Telesaurus has failed to demonstrate how the BLM’s regulations have 

any relevance to whether RadioLink was a commercial service under the FCC’s 

definition. Indeed, Telesaurus failed to address any of the foregoing authority. Nor does 

Telesaurus acknowledge that Power consistently listed all of RadioLink’s customers (as 

opposed to other tenants on the site) as receiving private mobile radio services, just as 

RadioLink has claimed. (See Doc. 210-2 at 12, 21, 27, 33, 50, 59, 69, 89, 97, 103, 113; 

Doc. 210-3 at 7, 11, 16, 29, 44.) Thus, rather than casting doubt on RadioLink’s 

assertions, the BLM documents offered by Telesaurus support RadioLink’s position. 

They do not raise a genuine issue of material fact. 

Because interconnection is a necessary element of Telesaurus’s claim, and because 

it has failed to show that a genuine dispute exists as to that element, RadioLink is entitled 

to summary judgment. 

C. Availability to the Public 

RadioLink has proffered evidence that WPOX212 has never been offered to “‘the 

public or . . . to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial 

portion of the public.’” Telesaurus, 623 F.3d at 1004 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1)) 

(alteration added). Power’s declaration in support of summary judgment states: 

All of RadioLink’s customers were selected on an individual 

basis and selectively allowed to use the Repeater System 

based on a) a determination that they met the criteria of being 

qualified as permitted from [certain] FCC rules . . . and b) an 

agreed upon price per unit per month based upon various 

criteria, including the total number of radios being used, the 

type of customer, the number of ID codes to be used in the 

customer’s private fleet and other factors determined and 

applied in RadioLink’s discretion. The selection of customers 

was discriminatory and limited by the capacity of the 

Repeater System. Among other things, RadioLink limited the 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 14 of 16
- 15 - 

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 

number of customers so that the Repeater System would not 

be overloaded, thus allowing normal access to the radio 

system without many if any “busy beeps.” 

(Doc. 194-1 at 7.) At his deposition, Power testified that he develops business through 

“word-of-mouth” and “by responding to bids for two-way radio service that I might be 

able to provide for a school district or some entity that’s looking for service.” (Doc. 223-

1 at 23–24.) 

Telesaurus has offered no evidence refuting Power’s claims. Because offering the 

service to the public or a substantial class of the public is a necessary element of 

Telesaurus’s claim, and because it has failed to show that a genuine dispute exists as to 

that element, RadioLink is entitled to summary judgment on this basis as well. 

D. Discovery Issues 

Telesaurus has claimed that it cannot fully make its case because RadioLink has 

been hiding documents. This claim stems from requests for production that Telesaurus 

served on RadioLink (Doc. 211-1 at 3–20), to which RadioLink objected on various 

grounds, but also noted, with respect to certain requests, that no responsive documents 

exist. Concerning certain other requests, counsel for RadioLink directed Telesaurus to 

specific documents previously produced. As for Telesaurus’s remaining requests (having 

to do with certain FCC proceedings), counsel stated that Telesaurus “can just as readily 

obtain any such documents, to the extent they exist, from the public records as can 

[RadioLink].” (Id. at 29–30.) 

Telesaurus argues that RadioLink’s response was disingenuous because 

Telesaurus found documents that RadioLink should have disclosed — referring to public 

documents such as the BLM rent paperwork and the 499-A forms. Telesaurus has 

provided no reason to think that these documents were in RadioLink’s possession, and in 

any event Telesaurus has not been harmed because it obtained the documents anyway. 

To the extent Telesaurus believes that RadioLink is still hiding something, Telesaurus has 

never brought a motion to compel production. 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 15 of 16
- 16 - 

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 

Telesaurus had ample opportunity to conduct discovery in this case. The parties 

and the Court began developing this narrowed discovery and summary judgment 

procedure over a year ago. Although the scheduling order as between Telesaurus and 

RadioLink did not go into effect until last November, nothing prevented Telesaurus from 

conducting third-party discovery. For example, through its own efforts to obtain the 

BLM documents, Telesaurus learned of many of RadioLink’s customers. It could have 

followed up by serving subpoenas on those customers to discover information relevant to 

the elements at issue here — such as whether those customers expected or received the 

ability to place phone calls through their radios. Telesaurus’s failure to do so does not 

excuse its supposed inability to rebut RadioLink’s evidence. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 193) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of Defendants 

against Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff take nothing. The Clerk shall terminate this case. 

Dated this 17th day of May, 2012. 

Case 2:07-cv-01311-NVW Document 224 Filed 05/17/12 Page 16 of 16