This case was entered at the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC)in their
complaint proceeding. The case continued a long debate about if PRC had
oversight jurisdiction of the USPS nonpostal lines of busienss. The case
ended with the passage of the PAEA (new postal law) in December 2006. This
complaint was successful in the sense that the new law: 1. defined postal
services more clearly as the physical carriage of mail 2. the postal service
may not begin new nonpostal services.
The USPS EPM (electronic postmark) was the subject of the DigiStamp complaint
The document below summarizes, in chronological order, the set of documents that comprise the DigiStamp case at the Postal Rate Commission.
Opening
February 2004 DigiStamp's original complaint
Associated Press Release
Associated Letter to Representatives
United States Postal Service Request to Dismiss Complaint
DigiStamp Answer in Response To Motion of the United States Postal Service
to Dismiss
DigiStamp web site has an early summary and position statement: http://www.DigiStamp.com/postmark.htm
The subject of another Motion is "various state laws are being passed
to use the EPM to replace registered mail". This will be important
for evidence for our case.
Motion to Notify the Postal Rate Commission of A Recent Example Where the
Use of USPS EPM Replaces Traditional Mail Service
Case begins
March 2006 Commission chooses to not dismiss and defines the scope and issues of the
case
Good Summary: DigiStamp summarizes their case and why they should prevail
Associate Oped published in 7 newspapers
Definitions
In Docket No. RM2004-1, the Commission proposed and, after several rounds
of comments, subsequently adopted an amendment to its Rules of Practice
defining the term postal service as follows: Postal service means the receipt,
transmission, or delivery by the Postal Service of correspondence, including,
but not limited to, letters, printed matter, and like materials; mailable
packages; or other services incidental thereto.
Evidence of DigiStamp (complaint)
Direct Testimony of Rick Borgers, on Behalf of DigiStamp, Inc.
Postal Service written cross-x
They asked reasonable questions and I answered.
Interrogatories of the United States Postal Service to DigiStamp Witness
Rick Borgers
Responses of DigiStamp Witness Rick Borgers to Interrogatories of the Unites
States Postal Service
Authentidate written cross-x
Authentidate attorneys asked abrasive questions. I said, “no thanks” and the Commission agreed that I did not need to answer
most of their questions.
Authentidate’s Interrogatories and Request for Documents to DigiStamp,
Inc. Witness Rick Borgers
Responses of DigiStamp Witness Rick Borgers to Authentidate's Interrogatories
Evidence of Postal Service (defense)
Rebuttal Testimony of Thomas J. Foti on Behalf of the United States Postal
Service
DigiStamp
Interrogatories of DigiStamp to the United States Postal Service witness
Thomas J. Foti
Response of United States Postal Service Witness Foti to Interrogatories
of DigiStamp
Transcript of Oral cross-x of Mr. Foti is here, beginning on Page 170
Office of Consumer Advocate
Office of the Consumer Advocate Interrogatories to United States Postal
Service Witness Thomas J. Foti
Response of United States Postal Service Witness Foti to Interrogatories
of the OCA
Surrebuttal testimony
Surrebuttal Testimony of Rick Borgers on Behalf of DigiStamp, Inc.
Motion of the United States Postal Service to Strike Portions of the Surrebuttal
Testimony of DigiStamp Witness Borgers
DigiStamp's Response to Motion of the United States Postal Service to Strike
Portions of the Surrebuttal Testimony
Commission denies motion to strike
Briefs
October 2006
Postal Service
initial brief
reply brief
OCA
initial brief
reply brief
DigiStamp
initial brief
reply brief
Authentidate
reply brief
New Legislation passes
December 2006
This section of the new law gives PRC direct oversight responsibilities
and sets a 2 year mandate for review
(2) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit or require that
the Postal Service provide any nonpostal service, except that the Postal
Service may provide nonpostal services which were offered as of January
1, 2006, as provided under this subsection.
(3) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, the Postal Regulatory Commission shall review each nonpostal service offered by the Postal Service on the date of enactment of that Act and determine whether that nonpostal service shall continue, taking into account—
(A) the public need for the service; and
(B) the ability of the private sector to meet the public
need for the service.
(4) Any nonpostal service not determined to be continued by
the Postal Regulatory Commission under paragraph (3) shall
terminate.
(5) If the Postal Regulatory Commission authorizes the Postal
Service to continue a nonpostal service under this subsection, the
Postal Regulatory Commission shall designate whether the service
shall be regulated under this title as a market dominant product, a
competitive product, or an experimental product.
DigiStamp entered it Motion to drop the case to allow new law to engage the EPM as a "non-postal" service as the USPS has argued.
Related cases / info
Interesting document from another case where the Postal Service tells the
Commission you have no authority:
In this case, the Commission said that it has jurisdiction over services
like USPS EPM.
Response of the United States Postal Service to Order No. 1449
Business of objecting to questions, no significant information here, boring:
Objections of DigiStamp Witness Rick Borgers to Interrogatories of Authentidate
Authentidate, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and
Document Request
(Don’t PRINT the above document – most of the last pages are repeats of
other documents)
Presiding Officer's Ruling Denying Motion to Compel
Postal Service asked for transcript changes and DigiStamp objects.:
Postal Service corrections
DigiStamp Objects
Commission partial accept / deny
