| Date Filed | Summary | Pages |
| 09/25/2001 | Service Notice. | 2 |
| 09/25/2001 | Entry dismissing the complaint without prejudice and closing this case of record. | 2 |
| 09/10/2001 | Notice of withdrawal filed on behalf of complainant, AT&T Communications of Ohio, by B. Kahn. | 2 |
| 08/03/2000 | Entry denying Sprint's interlocutory appeal of the examiner's January 11, 2000 discovery ruling. Separate Opinion of Commissioner Craig A. Glazer. (7 pgs.) | 7 |
| 03/16/2000 | Entry ordering that AT&T's request for clarification is granted to the extent discussed in this entry. Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Craig Glazer. (8 pgs.) | 8 |
| 03/06/2000 | Memorandum contra Sprint-United's interlocutory appeal of attorney examiner's discovery ruling, filed on behalf of AT&T Communications of Ohio by D. Chorzempa. (7 pgs.) | 7 |
| 03/06/2000 | Memorandum contra Sprint-United's interlocutory appeal of an attorney examiners' discovery ruling, filed on behalf of AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. by D. Chorzempa. | 7 |
| 03/03/2000 | Memorandum contra AT&T application for rehearing or, in the alternative, clarification of United Telephone Company of Ohio, dba Sprint filed by J. Stewart. | 10 |
| 03/03/2000 | Memorandum contra AT&T's application for rehearing or, in the alternative, clarification, filed on behalf of respon- dent, United Telephone Company of Ohio dba Sprint, by J. Stewart. (10 pgs.) | 10 |
| 02/28/2000 | Application for interlocutory review filed on behalf of respondent, United Telephone Company of Ohio dba Sprint, by J. Stewart. (12 pgs.) | 12 |
| 02/28/2000 | Application for interlocutory review of United Telephone Company of Ohio dba Sprint by J. Stewart. | 12 |
| 02/24/2000 |
Entry ordering that Sprint's motion for an indefinite extension of time to file an interlocutory appeal of the examiner's January 11, 2000 discovery ruling is denied; that, if Sprint decides to file an interlocutory appeal of the examiner's January 11, 2000 discovery ruling, that interlocutory appeal shall be filed on or before February 28, 2000. (AE)
| 6 |
| 02/24/2000 | Entry ordering that Sprint's motion for an indefinite extension of time to file an interlocutory appeal of the examiner's January 11, 2000 discovery ruling is denied; that, if Sprint decides to file an interlocutory appeal of the examiner's January 11, 2000 discovery ruling, that interlocutory appeal shall be filed on or before February 28, 2000. (AE) (5 pgs.) | 5 |
| 02/22/2000 | Application for rehearing or, in the alternative, clarifi- cation, and memorandum in support, filed on behalf of com- plainant, AT&T Communications of Ohio, by B. Kahn. (14 pgs.) | 14 |
| 02/22/2000 |
Application for rehearing or, in the alternative, clarification, and memorandum in support, filed on behalf of complainant, AT&T Communications of Ohio, by B. Kahn
| 14 |
| 02/07/2000 |
Memorandum contra Sprint's motion for extension of time to seek interlocutory appeal, filed on behalf of AT&T Communications of Ohio by D. Chorzempa
| 6 |
| 02/07/2000 | Memorandum contra Sprint's motion for extension of time to seek interlocutory appeal, filed on behalf of AT&T Communi- cations of Ohio by D. Chorzempa. (6 pgs.) | 6 |
| 01/31/2000 | Motion for extension of time to seek interlocutory appeal and memorandum in support filed on behalf of respondent, United Telephone Company dba Sprint, by J. Stewart. (6 pgs.) | 6 |
| 01/31/2000 |
Motion for extension of time to seek interlocutory appeal and memorandum in support filed on behalf of respondent, United Telephone Company dba Sprint, by J. Stewart.
| 6 |
| 01/28/2000 | Entry ordered; that AT&T's motion to compel is granted; that Sprint provide responses to interrogatories one and two, as narrowed by AT&T, but need not do so until the stay of discovery is lifted or otherwise ordered by the Commission; that if Sprint decides to file an interlocutory appeal, it shall be filed on or before February 2, 2000. (GLP) | 4 |
| 01/28/2000 | Entry ordering that AT&T's motion to compel is granted; that Sprint provide responses to interrogatories one and two, as narrowed by AT&T, but need not do so until the stay of discovery is lifted or otherwise ordered by the Commission; that, if Sprint decides to file an inter- locutory appeal, it shall be filed on or before February 2, 2000. (AE) (3 pgs.) | 3 |
| 01/20/2000 | Entry Ordering, that discovery shall be stayed in both of these matters, until otherwise ordered by the Commission, and that the deadlines for filing and service of expert testimony are vacated in both of these cases. It is further order that the evidentiary hearings scheduled to begin on 3/8 and 4/4/2000, in these matters are canceled. (4 pgs) | 4 |
| 12/16/1999 | Entry ordering that Sprint's motion to dismiss this com- plaint is denied; that OCC's motion to intervene is granted; that responses to written discovery requests shall be served within 10 calendar days of service of the discovery re- quests; that AT&T file its initial direct, expert testimony and serve such upon the other parties by January 21, 2000; that Sprint and OCC file their direct, expert testimony and serve such upon the other parties by February 18, 2000; that AT&T file its reply direct, expert testimony and serve such upon the other parties by February 28, 2000; that, if the parties have reached any stipulations of fact or law, they shall also be filed by February 28, 2000; scheduling the evidentiary hearing at 10:00 a.m. on March 8, 2000, at the Commission offices. (AE) (6 pgs.) | 6 |
| 12/10/1999 | Reply memorandum filed on behalf of respondent, United Telephone Company of Ohio dba Sprint, by J. Stewart. (16 pgs.) | 16 |
| 11/29/1999 | Memorandum contra United Telephone Company of Ohio's motion to dismiss complaint, filed on behalf of complainant, AT&T Communications of Ohio, by D. Chorzempa. | 17 |
| 11/29/1999 | Memorandum contra United Telephone Company of Ohio's motion to dismiss complaint, filed on behalf of complainant, AT&T Communications of Ohio, by D. Chorzempa. (17 pgs.) | 17 |
| 11/12/1999 | Motion to dismiss and memorandum in support filed on be- half of respondent, United Telephone Company of Ohio dba Sprint, by J. Stewart. (11 pgs.) | 11 |
| 11/12/1999 | Answer filed on behalf of respondent, United Telephone Company of Ohio dba Sprint, by J. Stewart. (10 pgs.) | 10 |
| 11/01/1999 | Motion to intervene and memorandum in support filed on behalf of OCC by D. Bergmann. (4 pgs.) | 4 |
| 10/29/1999 | Memorandum contra United Telephone Company of Ohio's motion to dismiss complaint, filed on behalf of complainant, AT&T Communications of Ohio, by D. Chorzempa. | 2 |
| 10/29/1999 | Request that the settlement conference scheduled for Novem- ber 4, 1999, be postponed until approximately one week after Sprint has filed its responsive pleading to AT&T's amended complaint, filed on behalf of complainant, AT&T Communica- tions of Ohio, by D. Chorzempa; and respondent, United Tele- phone Company of Ohio dba Sprint by J. Stewart. (2 pgs.) | 2 |
| 10/25/1999 | Letter stating that, as a result of the filing of a motion for leave to file amended complaint, Sprint need not respond to the original complaint, filed by J. Stewart. | 2 |
| 10/25/1999 | Letter stating that, as a result of the filing of a motion for leave to file amended complaint, Sprint need not respond to the original complaint, filed by J. Stewart. (2 pgs.) | 2 |
| 10/22/1999 | Entry scheduling a settlement conference at 1:30 p.m. on November 4, 1999, at the Commission offices; that, in the event a settlement is not reached at the conference, the parties thereafter discuss with the examiner several pro- cedural matters. (AE) (2 pgs.) | 2 |
| 10/21/1999 | Amended complaint filed on behalf of complainant, AT&T Communications of Ohio, by D. Chorzempa. (21 pgs.) | 21 |
| 10/21/1999 | Motion for leave to file amended complaint and request for expedited ruling filed on behalf of complainant, AT&T Com- munications of Ohio, by D. Chorzempa. (3 pgs.) | 3 |
| 10/04/1999 | Complaint letter and copy of complaint mailed to: Joseph R. Stewart, Sprint. (1 pg.) | 1 |
| 09/30/1999 | In the matter of the complaint of AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. (vs) United Telephone Company of Ohio dba Sprint relative to the alleged unjust and unreasonable violation of Ohio law by imposing switched access rates in Ohio inter- exchange carriers. (20 pgs.) | 20 |