IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

FARMERS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ) 

COOPERATIVE, INC., ) 

) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 2:06cv-00790-WC 

 ) 

VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK ) 

SERVICES INC. and QWEST ) 

COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM FILED BY VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK 

SERVICES INC.

 COMES NOW Counterclaim Defendant, Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. 

(“Farmers”), before this Honorable Court and submits the following Answer in response to the 

Counterclaim filed by Verizon Business Network Services Inc. (“Verizon”). Although Verizon 

has not amended its counterclaim in any way, shape, or form, the pleading within which that 

counterclaim is contained technically has been superseded by the filing of an amended answer 

and amended cross-claim. Out of an abundance of caution, Farmers files the following answer, 

unchanged in all material respects to Verizon’s counterclaim as found within Verizon’s recent 

amended pleading. Except for allegations specifically admitted herein, Farmers denies each and 

every allegation in Verizon’s Counterclaim against Farmers. 

1. To the extent that Paragraph 1 could be construed as containing any factual 

allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said 

allegations and, therefore, denies same and demand strict proof thereof. 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 1 of 15
2 

2. Paragraph 2 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, 

and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent 

that Paragraph 2 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3. Paragraph 3 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, 

and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent 

that Paragraph 3 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

4. Paragraph 4 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, 

and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent 

that Paragraph 4 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

5. Paragraph 5 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, 

and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent 

that Paragraph 5 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 2 of 15
3 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

6. Paragraph 6 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time. However, to the extent that Paragraph 6 could be 

construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal 

knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

7. Paragraph 7 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, 

and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent 

that Paragraph 7 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

8. Paragraph 8 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, 

and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent 

that Paragraph 8 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

9. Farmers admits that telecommunications traffic traversing or terminating on 

Farmers’ network is subject to access charges. Otherwise, Paragraph 9 of Verizon’s Counterclaim 

contains legal conclusions which do not require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes 

certain facts which are not in evidence and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 3 of 15
4 

assumptions. However, to the extent that Paragraph 9 could be construed as containing any other 

factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of 

said allegations and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

10. Farmers denies that it responsible for any errors in billing of Verizon for access 

charges attributable to CIC 0432 from early 2003 to early 2006. Paragraph 10 of Verizon’s 

Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not require a response from Farmers at this 

time. However, to the extent that Paragraph 10 of Verizon’s Counterclaim could be construed as 

containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or 

deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof 

thereof. 

11. Farmers denies that it was responsible for improperly billing Verizon for access 

charges applicable to CIC 0432 and demands strict proof thereof. Paragraph 11 of Verizon’s 

Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not require a response from Farmers at this 

time. However, to the extent that Paragraph 11 could be construed as containing any other 

factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of 

said allegations and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

12. Paragraph 12 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, 

and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent 

that Paragraph 12 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 4 of 15
5 

13. Farmers admits that Verizon paid more than $639,000.00 to Farmers for access 

charges from early 2003 to early 2006. Otherwise, Paragraph 13 of Verizon’s Counterclaim 

contains legal conclusions which do not require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes 

certain facts which are not in evidence and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated 

assumptions. However, to the extent that Paragraph 13 could be construed as containing any 

other factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the 

veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

COUNT ONE

14. To the extent that Paragraph 14 could be construed as containing any factual 

allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said 

allegations and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

15. Farmers admits that its tariff establishes rates, terms and conditions for interstate 

access services that concur in part with NECA’s Tariff F.C.C. No. 5. Otherwise Paragraph 15 of 

Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not require a response from 

Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, and draws conclusions 

based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent that Paragraph 15 could 

be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal 

knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

 16. Paragraph 16 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, 

and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent 

that Paragraph 16 could be construed as containing any factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 5 of 15
6 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

 With regard to the unnumbered Paragraph following Paragraph 16 of Verizon’s 

Counterclaim and beginning with “WHEREFORE”, the same contains legal conclusions and a 

prayer for relief, neither of which requires a response from Farmers at this time. However, to the 

extent that this Paragraph could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, the 

same are denied, and Farmers demands strict proof thereof. 

COUNT TWO

17. Farmers adopts and incorporates its answers in 1-16 above. To the extent that 

Paragraph 17 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

 18. Farmers admits that it billed, and Verizon paid, for access services attributed to 

CIC 0432. Otherwise, Paragraph 18 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which 

do not require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in 

evidence, and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to 

the extent that Paragraph 18 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, 

Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations 

and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

 19. Paragraph 19 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, 

and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent 

that Paragraph 19 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 6 of 15
7 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

 20. Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said 

allegations and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

 21. Paragraph 21 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time. However, to the extent that Paragraph 21 could be 

construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal 

knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

With regard to the unnumbered Paragraph following Paragraph 21 of Verizon’s 

Counterclaim and beginning with “WHEREFORE”, the same contains legal conclusions and a 

prayer for relief, neither of which requires a response from Farmers at this time. However, to the 

extent that this Paragraph could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, the 

same are denied, and Farmers demands strict proof thereof. 

COUNT THREE

22. Farmers adopts and incorporates its answers in 1-16 above. To the extent that 

Paragraph 22 could be construed as containing any factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient 

personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same 

and demands strict proof thereof. 

 23. With regard to Paragraph 23 of Verizon’s Counterclaim, Section 2.1.4 of NECA’s 

Tariff F.C.C. No. 5 speaks for itself. Farmers admits that Verizon has quoted sections from 

Section 2.14 of N.E.C.A. Section 2.14. To the extent that Paragraph 23 could be construed as 

containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 7 of 15
8 

deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof 

thereof. 

 24. Farmers denies that it has breached any duty to Verizon. Otherwise, Paragraph 24 

of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not require a response from 

Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, and draws conclusions 

based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent that Paragraph 24 could 

be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal 

knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

 25. With regard to Paragraph 25 of Verizon’s Counterclaim, Section 2.1.4(B) of 

NECA’s Tariff F.C.C. No. 5 speaks for itself. Farmers admits that Verizon has quoted a portion 

of Section 2.1.4(B) of NECA’s Tariff F.C.C. No. 5. Otherwise, Paragraph 25 of Verizon’s 

Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not require a response from Farmers at this 

time. However, to the extent that Paragraph 25 could be construed as containing any other 

factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of 

said allegations and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

 26. Farmers denies that it has breached any duty to Verizon. Otherwise, Paragraph 26 

of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not require a response from 

Farmers at this time, assumes certain facts which are not in evidence, and draws conclusions 

based upon those unsubstantiated assumptions. However, to the extent that Paragraph 26 could 

be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal 

knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 8 of 15
9 

With regard to the unnumbered Paragraph following Paragraph 26 of Verizon’s 

Counterclaim and beginning with “WHEREFORE”, the same contains legal conclusions and a 

prayer for relief, neither of which requires a response from Farmers at this time. Farmers denies 

that it has breached any duty to Verizon under the terms of Farmers’ tariff. To the extent that 

this Paragraph could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, the same are 

denied, and Farmers demands strict proof thereof. 

COUNT FOUR

27. Farmers adopts and incorporates its answers in 1-26 above. To the extent that 

Paragraph 27 could be construed as containing any factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient 

personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same 

and demands strict proof thereof. 

 28. Farmers denies that it has billed Verizon in contravention of the rates, terms and 

conditions contained in Farmers’ tariff. Otherwise, Paragraph 28 of Verizon’s Counterclaim 

contains legal conclusions which do not require a response from Farmers at this time, assumes 

certain facts which are not in evidence, and draws conclusions based upon those unsubstantiated 

assumptions. However, to the extent that Paragraph 28 could be construed as containing any 

other factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the 

veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

. With regard to the unnumbered Paragraph following Paragraph 28 of Verizon’s 

Counterclaim and beginning with “WHEREFORE”, the same contains legal conclusions and a 

prayer for relief, neither of which requires a response from Farmers at this time Farmers denies 

that it has violated the filed Rate Doctrine and demands strict proof thereof. To the extent that 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 9 of 15
10 

this Paragraph could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, the same are 

denied, and Farmers demands strict proof thereof. 

COUNT FIVE

29. Farmers adopts and incorporates its answers in 1-29 above. To the extent that 

Paragraph 29 could be construed as containing any factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient 

personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same 

and demands strict proof thereof. 

 30. With regard to Paragraph 30 of Verizon’s Counterclaim, 47 U.S.C. § 202(a) 

speaks for itself. Farmers admits that Verizon has quoted from a portion of 47 U.S.C. § 202(a). 

To the extent that Paragraph 30 could be construed as containing any factual allegations, Farmers 

lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, 

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

 31. Admitted. 

 32. Farmers denies the allegations of Paragraph 32 of Verizon’s Counterclaim and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

With regard to the unnumbered Paragraph following Paragraph 32 of Verizon’s 

Counterclaim and beginning with “WHEREFORE”, the same contains legal conclusions and a 

prayer for relief, neither of which requires a response from Farmers at this time. To the extent 

that this Paragraph could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, the same are 

denied, and Farmers demands strict proof thereof. 

COUNT SIX

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 10 of 15
11 

33. Farmers adopts and incorporates its answers in 1-32 above. To the extent that 

Paragraph 33 could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks 

sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

 34. Farmers denies the allegations of Paragraph 34 of Verizon’s Counterclaim and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

 35 Paragraph 35 of Verizon’s Counterclaim contains legal conclusions which do not 

require a response from Farmers at this time. However, to the extent that Paragraph 35 could be 

construed as containing any other factual allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal 

knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said allegations and, therefore, denies same and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

 36. Farmer’s denies the allegations of Paragraph 36 of Verizon’s Counterclaim. 

With regard to the unnumbered Paragraph following Paragraph 36 of Verizon’s 

Counterclaim and beginning with “WHEREFORE”, the same contains legal conclusions and a 

prayer for relief, neither of which requires a response from Farmers at this time. However, to the 

extent that this Paragraph could be construed as containing any other factual allegations, the 

same are denied, and Farmers demands strict proof thereof. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

To the extent that these Paragraphs could be construed as containing any factual 

allegations, Farmers lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the veracity of said 

allegations and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 11 of 15
12 

 The Counterclaim, and each and every count thereof, fails to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, by breach of contract and/or tariff by 

Verizon and/or Qwest. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Farmers is not liable because it has acted in good faith and in conformity with the rates, 

terms and conditions of any applicable tariff or tariffs. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, because Verizon failed to comply with 

the terms of any applicable tariff or tariffs. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of mistake of fact. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 The Counterclaim is barred, in whole or in part, because Verizon and/or Qwest has 

unclean hands. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Any relief sought from Farmers by Verizon is completely offset by any damages received 

by Verizon as a result of its cross-claim against Qwest. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 The Counterclaim is barred by the doctrines of contributory negligence and/or 

assumption of risk and/or in pari delicto. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 12 of 15
13 

 The Counterclaim is barred by the doctrine of laches. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 The Counterclaim is barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Verizon’s claims are barred, in whole or part, by its failure to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate its alleged damages. 

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Farmers denies that it has discriminated against Verizon or that it has given an undue 

and/or unreasonable advantage or preference to Qwest. Farmers further denies that it has been 

unjustly enriched or that it has breached any legal or contractual duty owed to Verizon. 

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Farmers denies that its conduct is the probable cause of any injury or damage to Verizon 

and denies that Verizon is entitled to any relief from Farmers whatsoever. 

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Any and all factual allegations which have not been specifically admitted are hereby 

denied. 

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Farmers reserves the right to amend this answer and plead any additional defenses, 

counterclaims or cross-claims which may arise in the course of the litigation. 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 13 of 15
14 

 Respectfully submitted on this 15th day of May, 2007. 

 _________ s/ Jonathan M. Hooks___________ 

 MARK D. WILKERSON (WIL072) 

 DANA H. BILLINGSLEY (BIL012) 

 JONATHAN M. HOOKS (HOO032) 

 PATRICK H. TATE (TAT006) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Farmers Telecommunications 

Cooperative, Inc. 

OF COUNSEL: 

WILKERSON & BRYAN, P.C. PATRICK H. TATE, P.A. 

P.O. Box 830 P. O. Box 680593 

405 South Hull Street Fort Payne, AL 35967-0593 

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0830 (256) 845-1047 

(205) 265-1500 (256) 845-1045 – fax

(334) 265-0319 – fax phtate@farmerstel.com

mark@wilkersonbryan.com

dana@wilkersonbryan.com

jonathan@wilkersonbryan.com 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 14 of 15
15 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on May 15, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system and I have also served a copy of the foregoing by U.S. mail to 

the following: 

Bryan O. Balogh 

Robin H. Jones 

STARNES & ATCHISON LLP 

100 Brookwood Place 

Seventh Floor 

Post Office Box 598512 

Birmingham, Alabama 35259-8512 

205.868.6000 

205.868.6099 (fax) 

bob@starneslaw.com

rhj@starneslaw.com 

Scott H. Angstreich 

Robert A. Klinck 

KELLOGG HUBER HANSON TODD 

EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC 

Sumner Square, Suite 400 

1615 M Street NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

202.326.7959 

202.326.7999 (fax) 

sangstreich@khhte.com

Counsel for Defendant Verizon Business 

Network Services Inc. 

Robin G. Laurie 

Joseph S. Moore 

BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 

105 Tallapoosa Street 

Suite 200 

Montgomery, Alabama 36101 

rlaurie@balch.com

Leigh Anne Hodge 

BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 

1710 Sixth Avenue North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2015 

lhodge@balch.com

Jana Eisinger 

QWEST SERVICES CORPORATION 

1801 California Street 

Suite 900 

Denver, CO 80202 

(303) 383-6508 

Jana.Eisinger@Qwest.com 

Counsel for Qwest Communications 

Corporation 

 s/ Jonathan M. Hooks 

Jonathan M. Hooks 

Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant 

Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative, 

Inc. 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 47 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 15 of 15