Pac-West Telecomm, Inn v. Verizon Business Global, LLC

Filing 31

AMENDED SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 10/8/2010. Mid-Discovery Status Reports Due: 2/14/2011; Discovery Cut-off: 4/11/2011; Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 7/20/2011; Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 8 /1/2011; Settlement Conference set for 7/5/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GSA) before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin; Pretrial Conference set for 10/31/2011 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger; Court Trial (3 days) set for 12/13/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. (Verduzco, M)

Pac-West Telecomm, Inn v. Verizon Business Global, LLC

Doc. 31

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 I. 28 1 Date of Scheduling Conference. Pre-Trial Conference Date: 10/31/11 11:00 Ctrm. 3 Trial Date: 12/13/11 9:00 Ctrm. 3 (CT-3 days) Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: 9/26/11 10:00 Ctrm. 3 Settlement Conference Date: 7/5/11 10:00 Ctrm. 10 v. MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. d/b/a VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES, Defendant. PAC-WEST TELECOMM, INC., Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10-cv-1051 OWW GSA AMENDED SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER Mid-Discovery Status Reports Due: 2/14/11 Mid-Discovery Hearing: 2/25/11 8:15 Ctrm. 3 Discovery Cut-Off: 4/11/11 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 7/20/11 Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: 8/26/11 9:00 Ctrm. 10 Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 8/1/11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

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.

October 7, 2010. Appearances Of Counsel. Arent Fox LLP by Joseph P. Bowser, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans and Figel, P.L.L.C., by Scott H. Angstreich, Esq., and Andrew M. Hetherington, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services. Tobin Law Group by August O. Stofferahn, Esq., also appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. III. Summary of Pleadings. 1. Pac-West filed its complaint in response to Verizon's

unlawful refusal to pay Pac-West for the work Pac-West has performed and continues to perform as an input to Verizon's provision of long-distance calling services to Verizon's customers. 2. Both parties are telecommunications carriers. By way

of background, there are two types of telecommunications carriers at issue in this case: local exchange carriers ("LECs") and interexchange carriers ("IXCs"), also known as long-distance carriers. Under both federal and state regulations, IXCs are

required to pay LECs' "access charges" for the input access services the LECs provide in carrying the calls that enable an IXC to offer its for-profit long-distance service. These access

charges are set forth in regulated price lists, known as tariffs, filed with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") and state public service commissions. The FCC has jurisdiction over

telecommunications traffic between calling and called parties in 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

different states, while state public service commissions have jurisdiction over telecommunications traffic between callers in the same state. 3. Plaintiff is a certificated local exchange carrier and

has tariffs on file with the FCC and the public service commissions in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. These

tariffs describe the rates, terms, and conditions under which Pac-West provides its access services to IXCs, Verizon included. Pac-West has provided Verison the tariffed services for which it has billed Verizon. But Verizon now refuses to pay Pac-West's

lawfully assessed access charges for the work Plaintiff performs for Verizon's benefit. Prior to June 2009, Verizon paid Pac-

West's invoices at Pac-West's tariffed rates, but after June 2009 Verizon ceased paying for the services it takes from Pac-West. Verizon has no basis for withholding any of Pac-West's charges. Pac-West therefore seeks an order compelling Verizon to pay the amounts it has withheld from Pac-West since June 2009 and to pay Pac-West's invoices going forward. 4. Verizon Business seeks relief from Pac-West's

persistent billing and past collection of unlawful charges allegedly authorized by its federal and state tariffs. Since at

least August 2008, Pac-West has sent Verizon Business monthly invoices that included charges that Verizon Business did not owe and that Pac-West was not entitled to collect. 5. In the course of its operations, Verizon Business has

carried interstate and intrastate long-distance calls that routed through Pac-West's network, either because those calls are 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

destined to (or were originated by) customers who purchased local telephone service from Pac-West or because Pac-West entered into an arrangement with another company (often a wireless carrier or a Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") provider) pursuant to which long-distance calls to (or by) that company's customers (who are not themselves customers of Pac-West) are routed through Pac-West's network. 6. Pac-West has submitted invoices to Verizon Business for

tariffed services that Pac-West claims to have provided to Verizon Business in the course of handling those long-distance calls. Those invoices contain errors that make it impossible for

Verizon Business to validate the charges therein, and include millions of dollars of charges that Verizon Business does not owe, including (a) charges for services that Pac-West did not in fact provide, (b) charges that were not authorized by any valid federal or state tariff, and (c) charges that exceed the maximum rates permitted to be imposed by tariff under applicable federal law. 7. Before becoming aware of the numerous defects and

improprieties in Pac-West's invoices, Verizon Business paid PacWest substantial amounts of money that it did not owe. Business now seeks to recover that money and to obtain declaratory relief to compel Pac-West to cease its unlawful practices. IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings. 1. The Complaint has been amended to designate the correct Verizon

Defendant entity, MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services, the real Defendant-party in interest. 4 The

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

parties do not currently contemplate the need for amending the pleadings. V. Factual Summary. A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 1. Plaintiff, Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. is a

corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of California that operates as a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") that operates primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington. 2. Defendant, MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a

Verizon Business Services, is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware that operates as an interexchange carrier that provides interstate and intrastate interexchange service throughout the United States. 3. Commencing in July 2009, Defendant disputes

Plaintiff's current and past invoices and has withheld payments of disputed amounts invoiced from June 2009 through the present. B. Contested Facts. 1. Pac-West submits that its invoices to Verizon

accurately reflect the tariffed services it provides to Verizon, and have always done so. As an accommodation to Verizon, Pac-

West has agreed to reformat and make other cosmetic changes to its invoices at Verizon's request to enable Verizon to (re)verify that Pac-West is indeed providing Verizon the services for which it bills Verizon. By these actions, however, Pac-West does not

admit that its invoices, as previously formatted, were in any way deficient or did not provide Verizon with sufficient information 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

to calculate the charges owed to Pac-West for the services PacWest has performed for Verizon pursuant to the terms and conditions of Pac-West's tariffs. 2. The nature of the telecommunications traffic for

which Pac-West has billed Verizon. 3. The amount of the traffic for which Pac-West has

billed Verizon that is jurisdictionally interstate and intrastate. 4. The amount of the traffic for which Pac-West has

billed Verizon that is originated by or delivered to customers of wireless carriers. 5. The amount of the traffic for which Pac-West has

billed Verizon that is originated by or delivered to customers of Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") providers. 6. Whether the entities to (or from) which Pac-West

delivered (or received) the traffic for which it billed Verizon are bona fide end-user customers of Pac-West. 7. The facilities Pac-West uses in carrying the

traffic for which it billed Verizon. 8. The number of minutes of traffic for which Pac-

West billed Verizon that Pac-West actually routed over its CLEC network. 9. The central offices used by Pac-West or other

carriers to switch the traffic for which Pac-West billed Verizon. VI. Legal Issues. A. Uncontested. 1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 47 Jurisdiction is also invoked under 28 6

U.S.C. §§ 151, et seq.

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

U.S.C. § 1367. 2. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The parties agree that for supplemental claims

where applicable tariffs apply, the substantive law of the State of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington will provide the rule of decision. 4. carriers. The parties are regulated telecommunications

As regulated telecommunications carriers, the parties

are subject to the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, et seq., as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. CLECs

such as Plaintiff are generally required or permitted to file access service tariffs with the FCC and state public service commissions to set forth the rates, terms and conditions of the access services CLECs provide to IXCs. 5. The FCC and state public service commissions have

jurisdiction over the access charges that apply to any given interexchange call, depending upon whether the call is interstate (FCC) or intrastate (state public service commission). With

regard to access services provided to IXCs for interstate traffic, in 2001, the FCC issued its CLEC Access Charge Order I, in which it modified its existing access charge rules to regulate CLEC access rates by more closely aligning CLEC access rates with those of the ILECs. The FCC established a "benchmark" or "safe

harbor" at or under which CLEC access rates are presumed just and reasonable as a matter of law. Under the FCC's regulations, the

benchmark declined over a three-year period until it reached the competing ILEC's rate. ILECs' rate structures. CLECs need not, however, mirror the In two subsequent orders issued in 2004 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

and 2008 - the CLEC Access Charge Order II and III - the FCC amended and clarified its "benchmark" rules. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims

asserted in Pac-West's First Amended Complaint and over the counterclaims asserted in Verizon's Answer to Complaint and Counterclaims. B. Contested. 1. Verizon has asserted various legal arguments to

excuse its unlawful refusal to pay Pac-West's tariffed access charges as invoiced. Verizon's first argument is that Pac-West's

tariffs are void because they contain cross-references to other carriers' tariffs. Pac-West submits that Verizon's argument in

this regard is without merit, as it ignores the applicable FCC tariffing regulations for non-dominant carriers that expressly permit carriers like Pac-West to cross-reference dominant carriers' tariffs, and further ignores controlling precedent holding that Verizon does not have a private right of action to seek relief from this Court based on the (inapposite) tariffing regulations on which Verizon relies. In any case, Pac-West's

tariffs, and the rates, terms and conditions contained in those tariffs, comply with all applicable federal and state regulations. 2. Verizon further asserts that Plaintiff is not

properly jurisdictionalizing the traffic that Pac-West carries for Defendant, and as a result Pac-West is purportedly applying one of Pac-West's intrastate tariffs when Plaintiff's interstate tariff allegedly should apply. Pac-West, however, disputes

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

Verizon's submitted Percentage Interstate Usage1 ("PIU") factor because it is not based on data from its actual call flows, but rather on Verizons' erroneous legal conclusions concerning various "sub-categories" of traffic and/or the protocol in which a particular call is generated or received by the applicable caller. Foremost among Defendant's mistaken arguments is that

all traffic carried by Pac-West that is transmitted in Voiceover-Internet Protocol ("VoIP") is jurisdictionally interstate, even if the beginning and end points of the call are within the same state. No FCC order or regulation, however, supports

Verizon's position that a LEC cannot assess originating or terminating switched access charges for such VoIP traffic pursuant to a LEC's intrastate access tariff. On the contrary,

Pac-West's position is that VoIP traffic is compensable under its federal or intrastate tariffs, depending on the end points of the particular call, just as a call placed in the traditional time division multiplexing ("TDM") protocol would be. 3. Verizon further objects to other artificial

subcategories of traffic that Pac-West handles on behalf of Verizon, such as toll-free traffic that is initiated by wireless carriers' customers. But much like Verizon's arguments

It is a common practice in the telecommunications industry that in lieu of submitting call detail records that measure with certainty the beginning and end points for each call - which will thus enable an accurate determination of the jurisdiction of each call, but which is extremely costly to do - carriers instead submit a PIU as a good faith approximation of the jurisdictional breakdown or traffic. As an example, if a carrier submits a PIU of 60, 60% of the traffic will be billed at the interstate rate, while 40% will be billed at the intrastate rate. 9

1

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

concerning VoIP traffic, Verizon relies upon distinctions without a difference in terms of whether a particular subset of telecommunications traffic is compensable under Pac-West's applicable tariff. 4. Verizon, moreover, has refused to abide by the For

dispute-resolution provisions of Pac-West's tariffs.

example, Pac-West's California intrastate access tariff requires a carrier-customer to dispute any charges billed pursuant to that tariff within ninety days, which Verizon failed to do. 5. Equally irrelevant is Verizon's characterization

of Pac-West's commercial relationships with some of its customers. Verizon asserts that Pac-West treats certain of its

customers, such as VoIP providers, as business partners rather than as bona fide customers, which, according to Verizon, disqualifies these entities as "end-users" under Pac-West's tariffs. Pac-West's contracts with these customers, however,

comply with federal and state regulations, and in no way alter or affect the access services that Pac-West provides to Verizon. This is but another example of Verizon attempting to obfuscate the simple fact that Pac-West has provided, and continues to provide, Verizon with the switched access services, as defined in Plaintiff's tariffs, that enable Verizon to provide its forprofit long-distance services, and that Verizon is improperly trying to co-opt those services without due compensation. 6. The rates, terms, and conditions contained within

Pac-West's federal and state tariffs for interstate and intrastate switched access services Pac-West provided to IXCs pursuant to those tariffs during the periods for which Pac-West 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

is seeking to collect amounts allegedly due from Verizon. 7. Whether Pac-West's federal and state tariffs were

void ab initio or otherwise invalid. 8. Whether the terms of Pac-West's tariffs were

consistent with applicable federal and state regulations. 9. Whether Pac-West's interstate tariffed access

charge rates exceeded the rates permitted to be tariffed under the FCC's benchmark rules. 10. Whether Pac-West's invoiced charges to Verizon

were consistent with the terms of its tariffs. 11. Whether the services described in its federal and

state tariffs for which Pac-West invoiced Verizon are the services Pac-West provided to Verizon. 12. Whether, if the entities to (or from) which Pac-

West delivered (or received) the traffic for which it billed Verizon were not bona fide end-user customers of Pac-West, PacWest was entitled to bill Verizon pursuant to the terms of its federal and state access charge tariffs for traffic Pac-West delivered to (or received from) those customers. 13. Whether, if Pac-West billed Verizon for minutes of

traffic that Pac-West did not route over its CLEC network, PacWest is entitled to recover the amounts it billed for that traffic. 14. Whether Pac-West complied with the applicable

provisions of its federal and state tariffs regarding the use of a Percentage Interstate Usage factor to invoice Verizon. 15. Whether Pac-West would be unjustly enriched by

retaining amounts it has received from Verizon to which it was 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

not entitled. 16. liable. 17. Attorneys' fees that either party is entitled to Damages for any issue on which a party is held

recover, if any. VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. 1. The parties have not consented to transfer the

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial. VIII. 1. Corporate Identification Statement. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information. IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date. A. Discovery Relating to Electronic, Digital, and/or Magnetic Data. 1. Notification of Intent to Seek Electronically Stored Information. a. Each party expressed its intent to seek

electronically stored information, as well as to identify the categories of such information. b. Plaintiff intends to seek the following

categories of electronically stored information: i. Electronically stored documents and

information, as defined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A), 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

including, without limitation, e-mails, word processing documents, spreadsheets, databases and PDFs; ii. Exchange Message Interface ("EMI")

records, Call Detail Records ("CDRs"), and any electronically stored documents, data, or information derived from such records; iii. Electronically stored data or other information used in the course of calculating or creating invoices; iv. Electronically stored data or other

information used in the course of calculating or creating invoices; v. Electronically stored financial and

accounting data or other information relevant to the revenues and profits Verizon earns for the traffic at issue in this case; vi. Electronically stored financial and

accounting data or other information relevant to the rates paid by Verizon to other carriers for services comparable to those Pac-West provides to Verizon. c. Defendant intends to seek the following

categories of electronically stored information: i. Electronically stored documents and

information, as defined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A), including without limitation, emails, word processing documents, spreadsheets, databases, and PDFs; ii. Exchange Message Interface ("EMI")

records, Call Detail Records ("CDRs"), and any electronically stored documents, data, or information derived from such records; iii. Electronically stored data or other 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

information used in the course of calculating or creating invoices; iv. Electronically stored financial and

accounting data or other information relevant to the damages claimed by Pac-West in this litigation. 2. Information. a. Computer-based information. i. The parties have conferred and Conferral Regarding Electronically Stored

represented to each other that litigation hold notices have been sent to the appropriate officers and employees within their respective organizations, which the parties have agreed will be sufficient to avoid accusations of spoliation. ii. E-mail information: The parties have

conferred regarding e-mail relevant to claims and defenses at issue in this litigation and have agreed to work together to develop mutually agreeable search terms to capture such information. iii. Deleted information: The parties do

not anticipate the need to restore deleted information, except for information that is readily accessible, such as from a "Recycle Bin," "Deleted Items" folder, or comparable location on a user's computer. iv. Back-up data: The parties do not

anticipate the need for discovery of any back-up data. B. The Court orders: 1. The parties have exchanged their Rule 26(a)(1)

initial disclosures. 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

2.

The parties are ordered to file mid-discovery

status reports on or before February 14, 2011. 3. February 25, 2011 at 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 3 is The

the date scheduled for a mid-discovery status conference. parties are authorized to appear telephonically. 4.

The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert

discovery on or before April 11, 2011. 5. The parties are directed to disclose all expert Any rebuttal or

witnesses, in writing, on or before May 9, 2011.

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before June 6, 2011. The parties will comply with the provisions of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 6. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery,

including experts, on or before July 1, 2011. 7. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the designation. result in the imposition of sanctions. 8. The parties have agreed to limit the number of Failure to comply will

sets of requests for production propounded by each party to three 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

sets, but otherwise the parties do not propose further changes in the limits on discovery imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties do not anticipate the need to take

discovery outside of the United States, nor do the parties anticipate utilizing video and/or sound recording of depositions. The parties will negotiate and agree upon an appropriate protective order for the discovery materials that will be produced and exchanged in this case. X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule. 1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before July 20, 2011, and heard on August 26, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin in Courtroom 10. 2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251. 3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than August 1, 2011, and will be heard on September 26, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230. XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date. 1. October 31, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge. 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

2.

The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pre-

Trial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules. XII. Motions - Hard Copy. 1. The parties shall submit one (1) courtesy paper copy to Exhibits shall be marked with

the Court of any motions filed.

protruding numbered or lettered tabs so that the Court can easily identify such exhibits. XIII. 1. Trial Date. December 13, 2011, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge. 2. 3. This is a non-jury trial. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time: a. 4. Three days.

Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. XIV. Settlement Conference. 1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for July 5, 2011,

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before the Honorable Gary S. Austin, United States Magistrate Judge. 2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons 17

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

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any terms at the conference. 3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in advance by letter copied to all other parties. 4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose of the statement. 5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: a. case. b. A brief statement of the claims and 18 A brief statement of the facts of the

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

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in dispute. c. d. A summary of the proceedings to date. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial. e. f. The relief sought. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers and demands. XV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master,

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. A. Stipulation to Consolidated Discovery: The parties

agree that discovery may be consolidated with discovery in the related case Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. v. AT&T Communications California, Inc., 1:10-cv-0968 OWW GSA. The parties further

agree that discovery taken in each of the cases may be used reciprocally in the other case without the necessity for motion or other Court order. B. The parties do not suggest bifurcation or phasing, but

reserve the right to determine whether a consolidated presentation of the Plaintiff's evidence, or any other party's evidence, would serve the interests of the parties and justice. XVI. Related Matters Pending. 1. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. v. AT&T Communications of

California, Inc., 1:10-cv-0968 OWW GSA. /// 19

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

XVII. 1.

Compliance With Federal Procedure. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto. XVIII. 1. Effect Of This Order. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is If the parties determine at

specifically reserved for this case.

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent scheduling conference. 2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 8, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20