Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
Metrocall, Inc., )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) File No. EB-01-MD-008
)
Concord Telephone Co., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Adopted: May 10, 2002 Released: May 14, 2002
By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. On February 8, 2002, the Enforcement Bureau released a
Memorandum Opinion and Order resolving liability issues in this
proceeding.1 Defendant Concord Telephone Company (``Concord'')
filed an Application for Review of the Liability Order on March
11, 2002.2 Under the Commission's rules, complainant Metrocall,
Inc.'s (``Metrocall'') opposition to Concord's Application for
Review was due March 26, 2002.3
2. On March 26, 2002, Metrocall filed its first Consent
Motion for Extension of Time.4 Metrocall requested a brief
extension of time, up to and including April 5, 2002, to file its
opposition to Concord's Application for Review. Metrocall
represented that the parties were involved in settlement
discussions and that the possibility of settlement would be
reduced if Metrocall were required to file its opposition at that
time.5 Further, Metrocall represented that Concord had consented
to Metrocall's requested extension.6 Accordingly, for the
reasons stated in the consent motion, we granted the requested
extension.
3. On April 5, 2002, Metrocall filed a second Consent
Motion for Extension of Time.7 Metrocall requested a brief
extension, up to and including April 12, 2002, to file its
opposition to Concord's Application for Review.8 Metrocall again
represented that the extension would help facilitate ongoing
settlement discussions and that Concord had consented to the
requested extension.9
4. On April 9, 2002, Metrocall filed a Consent Motion for
Extension of Time,10 requesting a brief extension of time, up to
and including April 22, 2002, to file a supplemental complaint
for damages. Pursuant to section 1.722(e) of the Commission's
rules,11 Metrocall's supplemental complaint for damages was due
sixty days after release of the Liability Order, or April 9,
2002. Metrocall reported in its consent motion that the parties
had reached a tentative agreement to settle their dispute and,
thus, the extension would conserve the parties' and the
Commission's resources and would help facilitate conclusion of
the settlement.12 Further, Metrocall represented that Concord
consented to the requested extension.13
5. On April 12, 2002, Metrocall filed another Consent
Motion for Extension of Time.14 Metrocall requested another
brief extension of time, up to and including April 22, 2002, to
file its opposition to Concord's Application for Review.
Metrocall noted that the Commission had not yet ruled on its
April 12 Consent Motion for Extension of Time.15 Metrocall
further reported on the parties' progress towards settlement and
that Concord had consented to its latest requested extension of
time.16 In an order released April 17, 2002, we granted
Metrocall's April 5 and April 12 Consent Motions for Extension of
Time to file its Opposition to Concord's Application for Review
and Metrocall's April 9 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to
file its Supplemental Complaint for Damages.17
6. On April 19, 2002, Metrocall filed another Consent
Motion for Extension of Time. Metrocall requested an extension,
up to May 2, 2002, to file its Opposition to Concord's
Application for Review and its Supplemental Complaint for
Damages.18 Metrocall represented that the extension was
necessary to allow the parties to reach agreement on the terms of
their settlement agreement.19 On May 2, 2002, Metrocall filed a
further Consent Motion for Extension of Time seeking an extension
until May 8, 2002, to file the two documents identified above.20
Finally, on May 8, 2002, Metrocall filed its most recent Consent
Motion for Extension of Time, seeking an extension until May 21,
2002, to file the subject documents.21 In both its May 2 and May
8 motions, Metrocall represented that it needed additional time
to finalize its settlement agreement with Concord.
7. Thus, currently pending are Metrocall's April 19, May
2, and May 8 Consent Motions for Extension of Time to file an
Opposition to Concord's Application for Review and a Supplemental
Complaint for Damages. We are satisfied that granting
Metrocall's three pending consent motions will serve the public
interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by
postponing the need for further litigation and expenditure of
further time and resources of the parties and of this Commission
until such time as may actually be necessary.
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i),
4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.115 and 1.722
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.115, 1.722, and the
authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that Metrocall's
Consent Motions for Extension of Time, filed on April 19, May 2,
and May 8, 2002, ARE GRANTED.
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise extended
by order, the deadlines for Metrocall to file its opposition to
Concord's Application for Review under section 1.115 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, and to file a supplemental
complaint for damages under section 1.722 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.722, are extended to May 21, 2002.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Radhika V. Karmarkar
Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
Resolution Division
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 Metrocall, Inc. v. Concord Telephone Co., DA 02-301 (Enf.
Bur., rel. Feb. 8, 2002) (``Liability Order'').
2 Concord Telephone Co. Application for Review, File No. EB-
01-MD-008 (filed Mar. 11, 2002).
3 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(d).
4 Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed Mar. 26, 2002).
5 Id. at 2.
6 Id.
7 Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed Apr. 5, 2002).
8 Id. at 2.
9 Id.
10 Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed Apr. 9, 2002) (``April 9 Motion'').
11 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(e).
12 April 9 Motion at 2.
13 Id.
14 Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed Apr. 15, 2002).
15 Id. at 2.
16 Id.
17 Metrocall, Inc. v. Concord Telephone Co., DA 02-301 (Enf.
Bur., rel. Apr. 17, 2002).
18 Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed Apr. 19, 2002).
19 Id. at 2.
20 Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed May 2, 2002).
21 Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed May 8, 2002).