Skip navigation

Florida Utilities Commission v Evercom Fl Def Response to Petition to Inspect W Letter Jail Phone Overcharge 2007.pdf

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Page 1 of 1

In re: Compliance investigation of TCG Public
Communications, Inc. for apparent violation of
Section 364.183(1), F.S., Access to Company
Records, and determination of amount and
Appropriate method for refinding overcharges
For collect calls made from inmate pay telephones

Docket No. 060614-TC
Filed: April 9 2007

T-NETIX Telecommunication Systems, Inc. (T-Netix) and Evercom Systems,
Inc. d/b/a Correctional Billing Services (Evercom) (collectively, “Respondent”), pursuant
to Rule 25-22.006(5)(~)2,Florida Administrative Code, hereby respond to Petitioner
Kirsten Salb’s (“Salb”) Petition and Memorandum to Inspect Confidential Material and
informs the Commission that an agreement of consent has been reached to permit the
inspection and examination.


Respondent is not a party to the above-referenced Public Service

Commission matter. Respondent received a subpoena dated October 25, 2006 from the
Public Service Commission seeking certain documents.

On November 30, 2006,

Respondent objected to the subpoena and moved to have the subpoena quashed. On
December 4, 2006, Respondent responded to Staffs requests 1 through 4 affixed to the
subpoena and asserted confidentiality over such information pursuant to section
364.183( l), Florida Statutes. On December 13, 2006, Respondent supplemented its
original response to Staffs request number 4 affixed to the subpoena, and again asserted
confidentiality over such information pursuant to section 364.183(l), Florida Statutes.

Respondent received an informal data request from Staff on February 6, 2007.
Respondent responded to this informal data request on March 7, 2007 and asserted
confidentiality over such information pursuant to section 364.183(l), Florida Statutes.

Petitioner Salb is the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit pending before the

federal district court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 06-20290-civUNGARO-BENAGES/O’ SULLIVAN. Respondent is a defendant in that case.

In the federal class action matter, Salb sought discovery from Respondent

of all documents provided to the Florida Public Service Commission.


produced the requested documents to Salb. The documents produced are confidential
pursuant to an Order entered by Judge Ungaro-Benages. (Stipulated Protective Order
entered June 26, 2006). Counsel for Respondent has represented that all documents
produced to the PSC have also been produced to counsel for Salb. These documents have
been afforded confidential protection at both the PSC and before the federal district court.
Petitioner’s Petition to InsDect and Examine Confidential Information

Petitioner now apparently seeks to inspect and examine the documents

Respondent produced to the PSC merely “to confirm the completeness of discovery.”
(“As to documentation and information relating to these parties or entities [Evercom,
CBS, and T-Netix], Petitioner simply seeks to confirm the completeness of discovery
from said entities and such parties representation as to production.” Petitioner’s Petition
and Memorandum to Inspect and Examine Confidential Material, p. 3.

On March 23, 2007, Petitioner Salb filed her Petition and Memorandum to

Inspect and Examine Confidential Material. Petitioner’s express purpose for reviewing
the documents produced by Respondent to the PSC is to double check the completeness


of the documents that have already been produced directly to it.


Respondent does not object to the Petitioner being provided the opportunity to inspect
and examine the documents Respondent produced to the PSC under the following

A date and time for such review that is acceptable to counsel for

Petitioner and counsel for Respondent be established;

Staff and counsel for Respondent and Petitioner be present during

the inspection and, examination;

That the documents will continue to be treated as confidential by

the parties and the PSC unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction;
provided, however that Respondent reserves its right to seek confidentiality protection by
means of a protective order or other appropriate mechanism and Petitioner reserves her
right to challenge the confidentiality of such documents in a subsequent pleading if
The parties have agreed to allow the inspection and examination to take place as
outlined in Paragraph 5 above, and as contemplated by Rule 25-22.006(7)(b).

s/Jon C. Moyle. Jr.
Jon C. Moyle, Jr.
Moyle Flanigan Katz Breton
White & Krasker, P.A.
118 N. Gadsden Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Telephone: (850) 681-3828
Facsimile: (850) 681-8788

Is/ R. Jason Richards
Douglas A. Kreis
R. Jason Richards
Justin G. Witkin
Aylstock, Witkin & Sasser, PLC
4400 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 58
Pensacola, FL 32503
Telephone: (850) 916-7450

Attorneys for Respondent

Attorneys for Kirsten Salb


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to

Petitioner’s Petition and Memorandum to Inspect and Examine Confidential Material and
Notice of Agreement was krnished by electronic mail and U.S. Mail this gfhday of April,
2007, to:
Adam Teitzman
Lee Eng Tan
Staff Counsel
Florida Public Service Commission
Division of Legal Services
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850
ltan@p sc.state.fl.u s
FloydR. Self
Messer Law Firm
Post Office Box 15579
Tallahassee, FL 323 17
fselfalawfla. com
Tracy Hatch
AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc.
3 15 South Calhoun Street
Suite 750
Tallahassee, FL 32301

s/Jon C. Moyle, Jr.
Jon C. Moyle, Jr.