DC Circuit Sets Briefing Schedule and Format in Inmate Calling Service Case
A court set an inmate calling service briefing schedule running through early October, largely accepting the timetable and format of a joint proposal by the parties (see 1603280021). Briefs from ICS providers and state and local petitioners challenging the FCC…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
2015 order will be due June 6, with industry allotted 15,500 words (1,500 of which is for a separate brief by Securus Technologies analyzing cost data), and the government parties 14,000, said the order (in Pacer) from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the consolidated case Global Tel*Link v. FCC, No. 15-1461. The FCC response brief is due Aug. 5 and that of supporting intervenors is due Aug. 22, with the FCC allotted 18,500 words, Martha Wright Petitioners 7,500 and Network Communications International 3,500. Petitioner reply briefs are due Sept. 21 and allotted 14,750 words (7,750 for industry and 7,000 for state/local groups). Final briefs incorporating a joint appendix are due Oct. 5, and oral argument will typically be set for at least 45 days later, said the order. It said counsel must notify the court "as soon as settlement negotiations begin, when settlement of the case becomes likely, and when settlement is reached." Various ICS industry representatives met with FCC officials last week to discuss whether a comprehensive resolution of disputes was possible, but they said they didn't discuss substantive proposals (see 1604150054). The court has stayed FCC rate caps, one set of ancillary fees and application of 2013 interim interstate rate caps to intrastate services, pending further review (see 1603070055 and 1603230058). The panel reviewing the merits of the case will be announced later. Also Monday, parties asked for an extra 30 days to file motions advising the court on how the 2015 order affected an earlier Securus challenge to the FCC's 2013 order (Securus v. FCC, No. 13-1280). The parties have conferred but not reached a consensus on what to propose, with the court's partial stays of the 2015 order complicating debate, said an unopposed motion (in Pacer) filed by Securus, the FCC and others.