BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

In Re:						)	DOCKET NO. 050863-TP
						)
dPi Teleconnect, L.L.C. v. 			)
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. 	)

RESPONSE TO BELLSOUTH’S 
MOTION TO STRIKE dPi’s POSTHEARING STATEMENT

	BellSouth’s Motion to Strike must be denied because dPi’s statement is less than 25 pages, and the appendix complained of contains not evidence, but analysis of the evidence contained in Exhibit 13 --  not just appropriate, but classic closing argument material.
The page limit issue: the body of dPi’s filing is no more than 24 pages. 

	An examination of dPi’s Posthearing Statement shows that it consists of the following 24 pages: 

	18 pages of text;
	3 pages dedicated to an appendix; and
	3 pages of graphs or charts.
	.  
	In addition, the filing contains 

	1 signature page with text approximately ¼ of the page, 
	1 page for the certificate of service with text on approximately ½ of the page.

	In the unlikely event this Commission elects to depart from general legal practice of not counting tables of contents, tables of authorities, signature blocks, and certificates of service toward page limits, dPi is happy to resubmit its filing with the signature page and certificate of service on a single page, which will bring the total down to 25.  

The appendix contains nothing more nor less than an analysis of evidence already in the record – Exhibit 13 --  and is thus perfect posthearing statement argument material 

	BellSouth complains the appendix to dPi’s posthearing statement must be stricken because of its similarity to testimony proffered but not accepted as evidence in this case. This objection is utterly without merit.  
	The Appendix contains not evidence, but analysis, description, and explanation of the significance of evidence already in the record – the evidence contained in Exhibit 13.  Far from being objectionable, this kind of information is classic closing argument material.  
Conclusion and Prayer

	BellSouth’s motion to strike imposes on the credulity of the Commission; its goal can only be to hide from the Commission legitimate information that is potentially useful to the Commission in its analysis so as to prevent a fair and just resolution of this case.  The motion is patently without merit: it complains without justification that dPi has overshot the page limit, and complains of dPi’s analysis, description, and explanation of the significance of evidence already in the record – material traditionally permitted in closing statements.  

					Respectfully Submitted,

Foster Malish & Cowan, LLP

/s/ Chris Malish
Chris Malish
Texas Bar No. 00791164
cmalish@fostermalish.com
Steven Tepera
Texas Bar No. 24053510
stepera@fostermalish.com
1403 West Sixth Street
Austin, Texas 78703
Phone: (512) 476-8591
					Fax: (512) 477-8657
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

	I hereby certify that the above document was served on counsel below as indicated on the 9th day of May, 2008

						/s/ Chris Malish 
						Christopher Malish 

Lee Eng Tan, Staff Counsel			Via First-Class Mail		
Florida Public Service Commission 		and Via Electronic Mail: ltan@psc.state.fl.us
2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850	
	
J. Phillip Carver, Sr. Attorney			Via First-Class Mail
BellSouth Southeast				and Via Electronic Mail: pc0755@att.com
675 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4300
Atlanta, Georgia 30375	
	
Manuel A. Gurdian, Attorney			Via First-Class Mail
BellSouth Florida				and Via Electronic Mail: mg2708@att.com
150 South Monroe Street, Room 400
Tallahassee, Florida 32301