1- ZK1/Sf3 3/30/2018 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Dba AT&T California (U1001C), Complainant, Vs. VAYA Telecom, Inc. (U7122C

ZK1/sf3 3/30/2018

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFILED 03/30/18 11:08 AM

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. dba AT&T California (U1001C),

Complainant, Case 17-09-023 vs.

VAYA Telecom, Inc. (U7122C),

Defendant.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (AT&T California) shall either 1) explain how alleged violations of the interconnection agreement (ICA) between Vaya Telecom, Incorporated (Vaya) and AT&T California due to Vaya’s misrouting interLATA traffic over meet-point trunks is within the scope of issues in this proceeding or 2) request leave to amend the complaint to include the issue of misrouting interLATA traffic over meet-point trunks. The scope of this proceeding is as set in the assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling (scoping memo), dated December 28, 2017. The scope of issues in the current scoping memo relate to whether Vaya violated the terms of its interconnection agreement for improperly routing interLATA traffic over local interconnection trunks and the associated relief. However, the Opening Testimony of Stanley C. Mensinger on behalf of AT&T California (U 1001 C), dated February 2, 2018, and the Rebuttal Testimony of Stanley C. Mensinger on behalf of

212676523 -1-

1 / 2 C.17-09-023 ZK1/sf3

AT&T California (U 1001 C), dated March 16, 2018, alleges Vaya improperly routed interLATA traffic over both meet-point trunks and local interconnection trunks, in violation of the interconnection agreement, and requests the Commission order disconnection and restitution of unpaid access charges for both meet-point trunks and local interconnection trunks. The issue of whether Vaya is in violation of the ICA for allegedly misrouting interLATA traffic over meet-point trunks appears to be outside the scope of this proceeding. The assigned Administrative Law Judge will accord no weight to testimony submitted by either AT&T California, or any other parties, when testimony is deemed outside of the scope of issues set in the scoping memo. The Commission directs AT&T California to respond to this ruling by no later than April 6, 2018. AT&T California’s response must be titled “Response to Administrative Law Judge Inquiry,” otherwise a new protest period may be triggered. IT IS RULED that: 1. On or before April 6, 2018, Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (AT&T California) shall explain why Vaya Telecom, Incorporated’s (Vaya) alleged violation of the interconnection agreement between AT&T California and Vaya for sending interLATA traffic over meet-point trunks is properly within the scope of this proceeding or request leave to amend their complaint to include this additional issue.

Dated March 30, 2018, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ ZITA KLINE Zita Kline Administrative Law Judge

-2-