From: "Tymkovich, Timothy M." <TTymkovich@halehackstaff.com>

To: 'Carl Oppedahl' <carl@oppedahl.com>

Subject: RE: Discovery issues

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:43:21 -0700

Here is a response to some of your points:

1. I do not know what your evidence will be on some of the points you mentioned so it is premature to discuss what, if any, rebuttal will be necessary.

2. Admission 24 -- Go ahead and email the digital photograph you said you had. That may help me respond.

3. I am sending the confidentiality agreement.

4. Regarding prefiled testimony, I think we can agree along the lines we discussed. Please call.

-----Original Message-----

From: Carl Oppedahl [mailtocarl@oppedahl.com]

Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 526 PM

To: Tymkovich, Timothy M.

Subject: RE: Discovery issues

At 04:34 PM 1/7/2002, you wrote:

Carl: See my response to your earlier email regarding cost information. With respect to your other requests:

Admissions 4, 5 and 6: Your requests are irrelevant, and were covered by the Commission's ruling in 577T. Ruby Ranch is not entitled to pursue a new cost docket in the guise of arbitration when it chose not to participate in 577T. However, you may examine cost information pursuant to the email referenced above.

As I understand it, Qwest does not intend to dispute our evidence as to the physical places (and number of places) a Qwest technician must visit to activate a subloop, nor the places and number of places that a Qwest technician visits to activate a business voice POTS line. This may prompt us not to move to compel as to these admissions.

Admissions 24 and 25 and Interrogatory 1: Qwest is reviewing your request but does not yet have additional information.

You said you would get back to me soon about this.

Admissions 48-61: Please see Qwest's responses.

You said that Qwest is not going to question whether it sent or received these documents, and that the cautious wording was merely intended to save Qwest having to check the documents word for word.

Document Request 5: I am sure you can access the referenced website.

As I mentioned, the ANSI web site charges money ($346, it turns out) for the ANSI document that you cite, and the Telcordia web site charges money ($350, it turns out) for the Telcodia document. Please produce them, since Qwest presumably already has them. You said you will get back to me about that.

I do not yet have a response to your request to file prefiled testimony. If we do, the normal process is to file simultaneous opening testimony and then simultaneous reply testimony.

You said you would get back to me about this.