Prison Phone Justice

MGA/CF1/mef 9/13/2021

FILED
09/13/21
12:14 PM

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking to
Consider Regulating
Telecommunications Services Used by
Incarcerated People.

Rulemaking 20-10-002

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND
ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S RULING
COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
On August 13, 2021, the Public Advocates Office submitted a Motion of the
Public Advocates Office for an Order Compelling Data Request Responses from Global
Tel*Link (Motion to Compel) requesting that the California Public Utilities
Commission (Commission) order Global Tel*Link to provide information in
response to the Public Advocates’ Data Requests in Rulemaking (R.) 20-10-002.
On August 23, 2021, Global Tel*Link filed a Response in Opposition of Global
Tel*Link to Motion of the Public Advocates Office for an Order Compelling Data
Request Responses. On September 2, 2021, the Public Advocates Office filed a
Reply to Global Tel*Link’s Response to Motion for an Order Compelling Data Request
Responses.
Having considered the Public Advocates’ Motion to Compel, Global
Tel*Link’s response, and the Public Advocates’ reply, we hereby grant the
Public Advocates’ Motion to Compel.
Because the Public Advocates Office is an arm of the Commission, its
staff—like all other Commission staff— “may, at any time, inspect the accounts,

406309938

-1-

R.20-10-002 MGA/CF1/mef

books, papers, and documents of any public utility.”1 In addition, the
Public Advocates Office has the specific statutory authority to “compel the
production or disclosure of any information it deems necessary to perform its
duties from any entity regulated by the commission . . . .”2 Further, because the
Public Advocates are a party to this proceeding they, like any party, “may obtain
discovery from any other party regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending proceeding, if the matter
either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, unless the burden, expense, or
intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the
information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”3 Our
discovery rule mirrors California’s,4 which is “applied liberally in favor of
discovery . . . .”5
The Public Advocates have propounded discovery into Global Tel*Link’s
video calling services. Global Tel*Link resists discovery because, it asserts, video
calling services are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction, and that this lack of
jurisdiction also limits the Public Advocates’ discovery rights.6 There are two
problems with this argument.

1

Pub. Util. Code, § 314, subd. (a).

2

Pub. Util. Code, § 309.5, subd. (e).

Rule 10.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Commission, in turn, has
express statutory authority to adopt those rules. Pub. Util. Code, § 1701, subd. (a); see also Pub.
Util. Code, § 701.
3

4

Code Civ. Proc., § 2017, subd. (a).

5

Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.

Response in Opposition of Global Tel*Link Corporation (U5680C) to Motion of the
Public Advocates Office for an Order Compelling Data Request Responses (Aug. 23, 2021), at 14
(“Global Tel*Link Response”).
6

-2-

R.20-10-002 MGA/CF1/mef

First, as Global Tel*Link recognizes, the Commission has yet to determine
whether it may exercise jurisdiction over video calling services; that is an issue in
this proceeding.7 In the meantime, like any other tribunal, the Commission has
jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, and to develop the facts necessary
to make that determination.8 Global Tel*Link asserts that the jurisdictional
question here is purely a question of law.9 At this preliminary stage, we are
unable to agree. Because this is, as Global Tel*Link recognizes, a novel issue for
the Commission, the information sought by Public Advocates may help us
answer the jurisdictional question.
Second, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Commission
lacks jurisdiction over video calling, that this question may be decided without
factual development, and that Public Advocates’ statutory rights to compel
production stop at the end of the Commission’s jurisdiction (a question we do
not answer here), that would not defeat discovery. As explained above, as a
party to this proceeding, the Public Advocates have an independent right to
discovery under our Rules of Practice and Procedure. Thus, we fall back on the
traditional analysis: whether the material sought is itself admissible or is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and, if the
answer to that question is “yes,” whether the party resisting discovery has
shown that the burden of production clearly outweighs its likely value.
7

D.21-08-037, at 103.

See, e.g., Barry v. State Bar of California (2017) 2 Cal.5th 318, 326; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure
(5th ed. 2008) Jurisdiction, § 339, at 963 (“[A] tribunal has the duty, and therefore the authority or
power (jurisdiction), to decide in the first instance whether it has jurisdiction of the subject
matter and the parties, and whether it also has jurisdiction to act in a particular manner. This
process may involve the determination of jurisdictional facts, or of jurisdictional questions of law.”
(emphasis added)).
8

9

Global Tel*Link Response, at 14.

-3-

R.20-10-002 MGA/CF1/mef

Even if the material sought is not itself admissible, Global Tel*Link has not
shown—indeed, does not assert—that the material sought could not lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Information about Global Tel*Link’s video
calling services might, for example, lead to admissible evidence about Global
Tel*Link’s overall business plan or cost structure, which are relevant to the
subject matter of this proceeding and within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Finally, Global Tel*Link asserts that the requested discovery poses “an
undue burden, expense, and intrusion . . .”10 but that argument derives entirely
from its jurisdictional arguments. Global Tel*Link does not raise any
independent argument why the burden of production clearly outweighs its likely
value.
In sum, Global Tel*Link has not shown that Public Advocates lacks the
authority to propound discovery here; nor has it overcome the presumption in
favor of allowing liberal discovery. The Motion is granted.
IT IS RULED that:
1. Global Tel*Link (GTL) shall provide complete and full responses to the
following outstanding data requests propounded by the Public Advocates Office
no later than 10 days from issuance of this ruling:
(a) Data Request 02 Propounded to GTL on February 17, 2021, Responses
Due March 3, 2021, Questions 18 and 22;
(b) Data Request 05 Propounded to GTL on May 25, 2021, Responses Due
June 8, 2021, Questions 1 and 2; and,

10

Global Tel*Link Response, at 14.

-4-

R.20-10-002 MGA/CF1/mef

(c) Data Request 06 Propounded to GTL on May 25, 2021, Responses Due
June 8, 2021, Questions 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13.
Dated September 13, 2021, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES
Martha Guzman Aceves
Assigned Commissioner

/s/ CATHLEEN A. FOGEL
Cathleen A. Fogel
Administrative Law Judge

-5-