Home > Documents > FCC FOIA Denial. MCLM-Depriests Investigation. Appeal to FCC Office General Counsel, With 10...

FCC FOIA Denial. MCLM-Depriests Investigation. Appeal to FCC Office General Counsel, With 10...

Date post: 27-Jul-2015
Author: skybridge-spectrum-foundation
View: 217 times
Download: 4 times
Share this document with a friend
Appeal of FCC denial of FOIA request regarding investigation of violation of FCC auction rules and perjury by Donald and Sandra Depriest and Maritime Communications/ Land Mobile LLC (MCLM). FCC unlawful use of FOIA exemptions to bar the public's-- and even FCC-action parties'-- access to information of decisional importance as to violations of public FCC law and US criminal code. See other filings at this Scridb site related to these entities and matters.
Embed Size (px)
Popular Tags:
of 187 /187
ffi NossAMAN'_,, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1666 K Skeet, NW Suìte 500 Washington, DC 20006 T 202.887 .1400 F 202.466.3215 Tamir D. Damari D 202.887 .1442 [email protected] Refer To F¡le #: 29086'1-0003 July 2,2010 Federal Communications Commission Office of General Counsel 44s 12'h street sw Washington, DC 20554 Re: FOIA Control No.2010-379 skybridge spectrum Foundation ("skybridge"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this Application for Review of Freedom of lnformation Act Action. Skybridge seeks review, pursuant to 47 CFR 550.461Ú) and '1 .115, of a June 2, 2010 determination by scot stone, Deputy chief, Mobility Division, wireless Telecommunications Bureau (the "wireless Bureau") denying skybridge's Freedom of lnformation Act Request (the "Request") dated April 19,2010 (FOIA Control No. 2010- 37e). 249387 1.DOC nossaman.con'l




1666 K Skeet, NW Sute 500 Washington, DC 20006 T 202.887 .1400 F 202.466.3215

Tamir D. Damari D 202.887 [email protected] Refer To Fle #: 29086'1-0003

July 2,2010

Federal Communications Commission Office of General Counsel 44s 12'h street sw Washington, DC 20554 Re: FOIA Control No.2010-379

skybridge spectrum Foundation ("skybridge"), by and through its undersignedcounsel, hereby files this Application for Review of Freedom of lnformation Act Action.'1 Skybridge seeks review, pursuant to 47 CFR 550.461) and .115, of a June 2, 2010


by scot stone, Deputy chief, Mobility Division, wireless

Telecommunications Bureau (the "wireless Bureau") denying skybridge's Freedom of lnformation Act Request (the "Request") dated April 19,2010 (FOIA Control No. 201037e).

249387 1.DOC


July 2, 2010 Page 2



7o o






249387 1.DOC

July 2, 2010 Page 3


1. Did the wireless Bureau err on June 2, 2010 by maintaining that certaininformation responsive to the Request was exempt from disclosure by FolA? RELEVANT UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Enforcement and wireless Bureaus of the commission are investigatingcompliance by Maritime communications/Land Mobile, LLC ('MCLM) with 47 cFRwhether ss1.2110, 1.2112, 1.17 and 1.65. Specifically, these Bureaus are investigating

MCLM and its principals failed to disclose all required ownership information in its application to participate in FCC Auction No. 61 and in subsequent filings with theCommission. (the "MCLM lnvestigation").

By letter dated AUguSt 18,2009, the Wireless Bureau directed MCLM'


principals sandra and Donald DePriest, and its affiliates MariTEL, lnc. ("MariTEL") and

wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc. ("wPV") (collectively, the "lnvestigated Parties") toprovide certain information related to the MCLM lnvestigation (See letters collectivelyattached as Exhibit


This letter prohibited the lnvestigated Parties from withholding

information based upon generalized or unsubstantiated claims of confidentiality: Request for confidental Treatment. lf [you] request that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner,

[you]shallsubmit,alongwithallresponsiveinformationanddocuments,a tatement in accordance with Section 0.459 of ihe Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. S0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by Section 0 459(b) 1 Accordingly' "blanket" requests forI This regulation states, in relevant part

2493A7 1.DOC

July 2,2010 Page 4

documents' and casual requests' large set confidentiality of unacceptable' including simply stamping pages "confidential," Pursuant to Section 0.459(c),2 the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of Section 0'459'




Id., atPageT.

..(b) Except as provided in a.statement of S0.a59(aX3), each s.uch request shall-contain and of the facts t reasons foi withhotding-tne mtials from inspection (see $0.457) upon which those records are based, including:

(1) ldentification of the specific information for which confidential treatment is sought; (2) ldentification of the commission proceeding in which the information was submitted r a description of the circumstances giving rise to the submission; (3) Explanation of the degree to which the information is commercial or financial, or contains a trade secret or is privileged; (4) Explanation of the degree to which the information concerns a service that is subject to competition; (5) Explanation of how disclosure of the information could result in substantial competitive harm;


of (7) ldentification of whether the information is available to the public and the extent ny previous disclosure of the information to third parties: (8) Justification of the period during which the submitting party asserts that material should not be availabl for public disclosure; andmay be (9) Any other information that the party seeking- confidential treaiment believes granted." eful'in assessing whether its request for confidentiality should be2 This regulation states, in relevant part: "(c) Casual requests (including simply stamping

pug.;"niiduntiat') wtrich do not cmply wt' tf'e requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will noi be considered."


July 2,2010 Page 5

The lnvestigated Parties responded by letters dated September 28, 2009 andseptember 30, 2009. (see response of sandra DePrieslMCLM, attached as Exhibit 2'4) response of wPV, attached as Exhibit 3, response of MariTEL, attached as Exhibit

ln wPV's response, its counsel stated that "l am concurrently filing Attachment ll to

wPV's response under a request for confidential treatment of the document." (seeExhibt 3). WPV did not provide any further explanation for this request'

on February 26,2010, the Enforcement Bureau sent a follow-up letier of inquiryto to the lnvestigated Parties, seeking additional information and documentation relating

the MCLM lnvestigation. (see letters collectively attached as Exhibit


This letter

once again prohibited the lnvestigated Parties from withholding information based upon generalized or unsubstantiated claims of confidentiality:

RequestforConfidentialTreatment,lf[therespondingpartyrequests]lhat any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a cofidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information



treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of spcificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, ,,blanket" requests for cofidentiality of a large set of documents,. and casual requsts, including simply stamping pages "confidential"' are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureu will not consider requesti that do not comply with the requirements of Section 0'459'See Exhibit 5, at Page 8.

The lnvestigated Parties responded by letters dated March 29,



response of sandra DePriesvMCLM attached hereto as Exhibit 6, response of Donald DePriesuwPV attached hereto as Exhibit 7, response of MariTEL, attached hereto as Exhibit 8). once again, the lnvestigated Parties disregarded the Enforcement Bureau's

249387 1.DOC

July 2,2010 Page 6

claims of admonition regarding withholding information based upon unsubstantiated

the confidentiality. lnstead, they made generalized and conclusory claims regarding purported confidentiality of information responsive to the Enforcement Bureau's request'For example, MariTEL's response stated: Certain of the requests seek confidential information ' ' Accordingly'

MariTelherebyrequestsconfidentialtreatmentundersection0.4S9ofthe Commission'srules,forcertaincommerciallysensitivecorporateand financial information contained in its response. . . MariTEL requests that theredactedconfidentialinformationbepermanentlywithheldfrompublic inspection under section 0.459 of the Commission's rulesSee ExhibitS, at Page 1.

With particular respeci to MariTEL's aggregate gross revenues and other financial information, MariIEL responded:

Mr.Schonman'sletterrequestsdocumentationdemonstratingMariTEL,s aggregate gross revenues and other financial information ' This


CONFIDENTIAL version of MariTEL's response' The information containedintheseExhibitsiscommerciallysensitivecorporateand financial information that customarily would be guarded from competitors and would not be made routinely available for public inspection' ld., at page 2. Similarly, Donald DePriestNPV stated:.. DePriest requests confidential treatment of the Exhibits in their entirety ' The Exhibits merit confidential treatment because they address strategically sensitive matters, including specific commercial and financial ntortton. DePriest would not cusiomarily release this type of sensitive information to the public and believes that exposure of the specific Such business arrangements or its financial information is unwarranted by placing DePriest at release could rsult in substaniial competitive harm providers a disadvantage vis--vis other telecommunications servlce industry in general ad against the private mobile radio service


249387 1.DOC

July 2,2o1O Page 7

. . . There is no reasonably segreable information which could be released without competitive harm to DePriest.See ExhibitT, at Page 1.

MCLM/Sandra DePriest likewise responded by stating:

The Exhibits merit confidential treatment because they address strategicallysensitivematters,includingspecificcommercialandfinancial informtion. MCLM would not customarily release ihis type of sensitive information to the public and believes thai exposure of the .specific

businessu,,"ng"*"nt.oritsfinancialinformationisunwarranted.Such disadvantagevis--visothertelecommunicationsserviceproviders

a release could result in substantial competitive harm by placing MCLM at

general specificallynd against the private mobile radio service industry in . . . There ls no reasonably segreable information which could be released without comPetitive harm io MCLM.See Exhibit6, at Page 1.


lntheRequest,skybridgesoughtthefollowingdocumentsrelatedtotheMCLMlnvestigation: vireless Bureau to MCLI, Sandra DePriest, MariTEL, Donald DePriest "section 308 and wpV n connection *i' tn" MCLM lnvestigation (the Letters");


All records relating to the August 1 8, 2009 letters sent by the


nforcement Bureau to th lnvestigated Parties (the "EB Letters");

All records relating to the February 26, 2010 letters sent by the

Copies of all correspondence between the Commission and the iecipients of the section 30g and EB Letters, regarding the subject matters of these letters;



Copies of all correspondence between the staffs of the Wireless

andEnforcementBureausrelatingiothesubjectmattersoftheSection308 Letters and the EB Letters; and

249387 1.DOC

July 2, 2010 Page



Copies of all correspondence between ihe Commission and any the n_commission governmental entity relating to the subject matters of Section 308 Letters and the EB Letters.

See Exhibit9.

On June 2,2O1O,the Wireless Bureau responded to the Request as follows:


prevlousty prodced all responsive documents in its possession in i""ponr" to'st ybridge's prior FO|R request dated October 27, 2009 (FCC FOIA Control No. ioos-o+s), except for a document for which the Commissionhadtentativelygrantedconfidentiality;i.e.,Attachmentll^to wpV's september 30, 200 response to the August 18, 2009 section 308letter ("Attachment Il").

As to Request No. 2' the Wireless Bureau maintained that "you wre copleo on the. . EB letters to all three parties,.as well as the ,etpon." by those parties. No additional records beyond what you were on ave been filed or are in the commission's possession."


"oji"o the Bureau However,

further acknowledged that MCLM' WPV and MariTel portions of their had sought and obtained confidential treatment of certain responses to the EB letters.

As to Request No. 3, the Wireless Bureau maintained that "you wre copied on ihe three Section 308 Letters and Responses; the three


Commission staff may have [EB] Letiers and responses; and any e-mail1 other had with the affected parties. Beyond that, the Commission has no records."

(4) f

As to Request No.4, the Wireless Bureau maintained that all iesponsive documents "are protected by - the attorney work-product

into Exemption 5 of the Freedom oobtrinel which has been incoiporated U.S.C. S552(b)(5), and are therefore . not lnformation Act' discloseable. ln the alternative, and also under Exemption 5, any such e-


mailswouldbe.pre-decisional,innature,andlikewisenotsubjecttodisclosure."See Exhibit 10.

249387 1.DOC

July 2, 2010 Page 9


A. lntroduction,,FOIA is often explained as a means for citizens to know what their government

isupto.,,NARAv.Favish,541U.S.157,171(2004).Thisphraseisnota..convenientformalism," but rather "it defines a structural necessity in a real democracy72.

" ld''a|171-

Thewithholdingagencybearstheburdenofestablishingthatagivendocumentis exempt from the disclosure requirements of

FolA. center for Internatonal17

2d Environmental Law v- oftice of the IJS Trade Representative, 237 F. Supp.


(D.D.c.2002).Mostrecently,thePresidentoftheUnitedStateshasissuedamay not be memorandum to the heads of all agencies instructing them that information fears" withheld under FOIA simply because of the agency's "speculative or abstract Government (fhe regarding disclosure. FOIA Post (2009): Creating a New Era of open,,FOIA Memorandum"), at page

1 The FOIA Memorandum also "strongly encourages

page agencies to make discretionary disclosures of nformation." /d.' at



might apply should not be withheld simply because an exemption "technically or legally" Id., at page 4.

justify nonThe wireless Bureau has failed to meet its stringent burden towith disclosure, for the reasons set forth below. lts actions are therefore in conflict

policy. Furthermore, statute, regulations, case precedent and established commissionthese actions have caused prejudicial procedural error to Skybridge'



July 2,2010 Page 10

B. The Wreless Bureau Has Not Established that lnformation Mav Be Properlv \ ithheld As Confidential Business Information

As noted above, the wireless Bureau has withheld certain responsive informationas based on a request by the lnvestigated Parties that this information be treated confidentiat under 5 Exemption

u.s.c. s552(b)(4) (colloquially known as FOlA "Exemption 4.).3


exempts from the disclosure requirements of FolA "trade secrets and

commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."with Nonetheless, because courts "have viewed [Exemption 4] arguments

2008))' the skepticism" (ln Defense of Animats v. NlH, 543 F' Supp 2d'70'79 (D D'C'"the government scope of Exemption 4 has been carefully circumscribed. Firstly,in any retains the burden of demonstrating that the specific information withheld

particular instance qualifies as confidential commercial information." Government(D D'C 2010)' Accountability Proiectv. HHS,2010 U.S. Dist LEX|S 21415 "29 be secondly, information will be considered confidential only if disclosure wouldin the likely either to (1) impair the government's ability to obtain necessary information

person from future; or (2) cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the

whom information was obtained. see Government Accountability Proiect, at.13'

Thirdly,aparty..maywaiveitsclaimthatinformationisexemptfromdisclosureifpublic domain a FOIA plainiiff carries his burden of pointing to specific information in the 3 This statute states that "trade secrets and commercial or financial information from disclosure under obtained from a person and privileged or confidential" are exempt FOIA.

249387 _1.DOC

July 2,2010 Page l1

Ethical that appears to duplicate that [which is] being withheld." People for the -26 (D D'C' 2005)' Treatment of Anmals v. USDA,2005 U.S. Dist' LEXIS 10586provide a soFourthly, when an agency asserts Exemption 4, is must generally

calledVaughnlndex'whichdescribeseachwithhelddocument,andstatesajustification for the exemption claimed. see vaughn v. Rosen, 449 F.3d 820 (D.c. cir.

1973)',JudicialWatchv.FDA,44gF.3d141,146(DDC2006)(stating'inthecontextof Exemption 4, that "the Vaughn index . . .gives


the challenging party a measure of

Treatment of access without exposing the withheld information."); People for the EthicalAnimals

.11 (May 24' 2005)' v. ]JSDA,2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10586

Finally,andmostimportantly,aconclusoryorgeneralizedallegationthat perse insufficient to responsive financial information is "privileged" or "confidential," is demonstratethattherequestedinformationiswithinthescopeofExemption4.See*14 ("Conclusory and generalized allegations of Government Accountabtity, atdecision competitive harm, of course, are unacceptable and cannot support an agency's489 to withhold requested documents."); Green v. Dept' of Commerce'

F Supp' 977'

invocation of 980 (D.D.C. 1980). The paradigmatic example of an improper conclusory of alleged Exemption 4 occurs when no facts or supporting detail is alleged in support

-23-25 ("the explanation lacks competitive harm. Government Accountability Proiect, althe withheld any supporting detail demonstrating that a competitor could, in fact, use point is fatal material . . The conclusory nature of Defendants' explanation on this



(D'D'C. 2008) (..NlH's argument ;In Defense of Animats v. NIH, 543 F. Supp. 2d'70,79

249387 1.DOC

July 2,2010

Page 12

identify with for application of this Exemption consists of tvvo sentences . . . NIH fails to explains how any level of specificity what it means by 'cost and rate' information, nor

such information could be used by competitors to cause substantial harm to



Exemption 4 failure in this regard is problematic, as courts in this circuit routinely reject

of arguments that are grounded in generalizations.") ; People for the Ethical TreatmentAnimals, al*22.Section 0.45g of the Commission's rules likewise obligates parties requesting

confidential treatment of financial records to provide:a statement of the reasons for withholding the materials from inspection and of the facts upon which those records are based, including '(1) ldentification of the specific information for which confidential treatment is sought . . . (3) Explanation of the degree to which the information is (4) com-mercial'or financial, or contains trade secret or is privileged . , . Explanation of the degree to which the inform_ation concerns a service that is ubject to competition . . .(5) Explanation of how disclosure of the information could. result in substantial competitive harm (6) ldentification of any measures taken by the submitting party to prevent . unauihorized disclosure. . . (7) ldentification of whether the information is available to the public and the extent of any previous disclosure of the


public the submitting party asserts that material should not be available for disclosure; acj (S) nny other information that the party seeking .. -believes may be useful in assessing whether its confidential treatment request for confidentiality should be granted'


Applyingtheforegoingstandardtothismatter,thelnvestigatedParties,wireless talismanic invocation of Exemption 4, which has been rubber stamped by theBureau, fails as a matier of law. The lnvestigated Parties have provided no

particularized ground for treating any of their information as confidential under Exemption

4. Their arguments in support

of confidentiality are nothing more than

2493a7 1.DOC

July 2,2010

Page 13

response io tautologies devoid of any underlying factual basis. For example, MariTEL',s. the EB Letter stated: "certain of the requests seek confidential information ''

of the Accordingly, MariTel hereby requests confidentiality under section 0.459

commission's rules, for ceriain commercially sensitive corporate and financialin these information contained in its response," and that "the information contained and Exhibits [provided by MariTEL to the FCC] is commercially sensitive corporate

and would not financial information that customarily would be guarded from competitors regurgitation of be made routinely available for public inspection." This self-serving more flimsy than the one summarily rejected S552(bX4) comprises an argument even

bytheadjudicatingcourtsinGovernmentAccountabilityProjecfandlnDefenseof Animals,supra.ltalsoplainlyviolates$0.45goftheCommission,sRules,which,as notedabove,mandatesthatapartyclaimingExemption4protectionmustprovideadetailed explanation of the basis for this claimed exemption'the This gossamer-thin justification for withholding information properly within provide the scope of FolA is only underscored by the wireless Bureau's failure to

requiredVaughnlndex,whichdeprivesSkybridgeofeventhemostbasicinformationregarding the documents withheld. Finally, as noted above' a party may..waive its claim that information is exempt

information in from disclosure if a FolA plaintiff carries his burden of pointing to specific People for the public domain that appears to duplicate that [which is] being withheld." which the the Ethical Treatment of Animals, at"26. Much of the information for



July 2, 2010 Page 14

is attfibutable gross revenues, as disclosed in tax returns and other documents)

seeks a information that must be publically disclosed when a wireless license applicant

Designated Entity bidding credit. Having sought the bidding credit, the lnvestigated parties have waived their right to now seek the confidentiality of this information'a

UnderFolA,skybridgehasarighttoobtainthisinformationasamemberofthegeneral public. skybridge also has the right to obtain such information as an interestedparty in the MCLM lnvestigation. The MCLM lnvestigation stems directly from the

lnvestigated Parties' misstatements in Auction


Furthermore, as the commission is

aware, skybridge (along with companies that are affiliated with and have ongoing business relationships with skybridge, including lntelligent Transportation & Monitoring

wireless LLC and Environmentel LLC) (collectively, the "Petitioners") have filed apending, petition to deny and several petitions for reconsideration, which remain challenging the MCLM long-form submitted in Auction

61. lnformation responsive to the

petitions, including Request is necessary for Petitioners to adequately prosecute theseis via a formal hearing pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S309(d). The MCLM lnvestigation

premised upon the facts asserted in the Petitioners' challenges to MCLM in Auction 61'Parties lndeed, the Enforcement and wireless Bureaus' letters to ihe lnvestigated chosen specifically reference Auction 61 as the gravamen of the investigation. Having purported to participate in Auction 61, the lnvestigated Parties have waived any


process required MCLM sought and obtained a bidding credit in Auction 6'1 . This its controlling interests and disclosure of ihe gross revenues ot trCt-tr, its affiliates, and WPV)' officers, and their;ffliates (including Donald and Sandra DePriest, MariTEL See 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart Q, including 51.2110'

249387 1.DOC

July 2,2010 Page 15

disclosures in that confdentiality rights regarding information relevant to their truihful convert public auction. Neither the wireless Bureau, nor the lnvesiigated Parties, can private affairs under the petitions to deny and reconsideration proceedings into de facfoup guise of FOIA exemptions. As discussed supra' the purpose of FOIA is to open

government,nottocurtailaparty'srightstoadequatelyprosecuteapublicchallengetoa license award.C. The Wireless Bureau Has Not Establish9d that DoctmenG Mav Be Properlv Withheld As Attornev Work Product

TheWirelessBureaualsoclaimsthatitmaywithholdinformationonthebasisofinformation is 5 U.S.C. S552(bX5)5 (colloquially known as"Exemption 5"), since such


ThescopeofsU'S.C.552(bX5)mustbeconstruedas..narrowlyasconsistent withefficientgovernmentoperation.,,seeLevyv.USPS,S6TF'2d162,166(D.D.c. 2008).Thus,..conclusoryexplanations''astowhyadocumentisbeingwithheldunderEnvironmental exemption 5 is perse insufficient. Id., at167; center for International Law v. office of the IJS Trade Representative, 237 F. Supp. 2d17

,23 (D'D'C' 2002)

(..lnkeepingwiththeFolA,sgoalofbroaddisclosure,theSectionss2(bxs)exemption isconstruednarrowly.,,);Nickersonv.US,,1996U.S.Dist.LEXIS14489-5(N.D.lll.


This sub-section permits an agency to withhold "inter-agency or intra-agency a party other than an memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to agency in litigation with the agency."

249387 _1.DOC

July 2,2010

Page 16

-7-8(ND Ca' October1,1996); Miscavigev'/RS, 1992US Dist LEXIS19493December 10,

1992). With

respect to Exemption 5, the FolA Memorandum states:

memorandum containing a [A] requested record might be a draft, or a ieommenOation. Such records might be properly withheld under .. Exemption 5, but that should not b the end of the review' Rather' the be content of that particular draft and that particular memorandum should reviewed and a determination made as to whether the agency reasonably foresees that disclosing that particular document, given its age'-content' and character, would hrm an interest protected by Exemption 5 ln making these determinations, agencies sho-uld keep in mind that mere ;,sfecative or abstract fears" are not a sufficient basis for withholding. lnstead,theagencymustreasonablyforeseethatdisclosurewouldcause

harm.Moreover,agenciesmustbemndfutofthePresident'sdirectivethat in the face of doubi, openness prevails ' ' records protected by Exemption 5 hold the greatest'piomise for increased discretionary release under theAttorney Gieneral's'Gudelines. Such releases will be fully consistent with the purpose of the FOIA to make available to the public records which reflect ihe operations and activities of the government'/d., at Pages 5, 7 (emPhasis added).

Also,anagencyclaimingExemptionSshouldordinarilyprovideaVaughnlndexproviding,,a particularized explanation of how disclosure of the particular document

to "afford the would damage the interest protected by the claimed exemption," in order

FolArequesterameaningfulopportunitytocontest...thesoundnessofthewithholding." Miscavige, at "10. This index must include a "relatively detailedjustification." Center for lnternational Environmental Law' at"22'5 The wireless Bureau has failed to meet its burden with regard io Exemption

"are protected by the The wireless Bureau',s contention that the withheld documents Exemption 5 of the attorney work-product [doctrine] which has been incorporated into conclusory Freedom of lnformation Aci . . . and are iherefore not discloseable" is utter

249387 1.DOC

July 2, 2010 Page 17

applicability of the and therefore essentially meaningless. ln order to demonstrate the developed work product doctrine, a party must show that the material at ssue has been

see, F.R.C'P' in anticipation of litigation or for trial by an attorney, or on his behalf'

26(bX3).Documentspreparedintheordinarycourseofbusiness,orforanyothernonv. Bally's Park litigation purpose, are not covered by the work product doctrine. Martin

place Hotel & Casino,g33 F.2d 1252,1260 (3'd Cir. 1993). Moreover, the work productwith exception must be "strictly confined within the narrowest possible limits consistent(3'd Cir. the logic of its principle." tn re Grand Jury Proceedings, 604 F.2d 798, 802-03

1979). The wireless Bureau's work product doctrine claim, like its Exemption 4 claim,assertion that all is unsubstantiated by any facts. lt amounts 1o the prima facle suspect developed documentation exchanged by the wireless and Enforcement Bureaus were failure to by attorneys in anticipation of litigation. once again, the wireless Bureau's

fact provide any substantiation for this claimed exemption is only underscored by the

thatithasfailedtoprovideaVaughnlndex,deprivingSkybridgeofanyinformationhas failed to regarding the documents withheld. Furthermore, the wireless Bureau

is reasonably even allege (let alone prove) that disclosure of the withheld informationof the FolA likely to harm an interest protected by Exemption 5, in blatant disregard


rcc'dn on certain Letters Transmitted Bv The D. The Fact That skvbridqe was lnvestiqated Parties ls Leqallv lmmaterial

Asdiscussedsupra,inresponsetoRequestNos.2and3,theWirelessBureauSkybiridge had maintained that production of information was unnecessary because

249387 1.DOC



Page 18

beencopiedonthelnvestigatedParties,responsestotheWirelessBureauandEnforcement Bureau's letters. This argument is beside the point'

SkybridgeacknowledgesthatitwascopiedontheSection30sletters,theEB(with certain documents Letters and the lnvestigated Parties' responses to these letters

enclosed).Nonetheless,thisfactdoesnotremedytheharmcausedbytheWirelessany authority in Bureau,s non-disclosure. lndeed, the wireless Bureau does not cite to simply by suppori of its iacit assertion that it can jettison its obligations under FolAfrom claiming that the requesting party has obtained some of the responsive information another source. selfFurthermore, Skybridge was not copied on the information and documents

servingly designated by the lnvestigated Parties as "confidential" under


U S C'

s552(bx4),and,forthereasonsdiscussedabove,skybridgeisentitledtothisinformation. Additionally, neither the FCC, nor Skybridge, has any way of discerninginclude all of whether the documents enclosed with the lnvestigated Parties' responses

the documents actually submitted to the wireless and Enforcement Bureaus'wireless skybridge is entitled to whatever responsive documentsi information the Bureau may have, and should not be forced to rely upon the Bureau's unfoundedParties' assurance that the documents enclosed with the cc'd copies of the lnvestigated

responses include all of the documents actually submitted

io the wireless


instant Enforcement Bureaus. This holds particularly true given the fact that theand investigation arises out of the lnvestigated Parties' affirmative misstatements

truthfulness material non-disclosu res. As such, the lnvestigated Parties' propensity for


July 2,2010 Page 19

onevenbasicmattersisclearlySuspectinthiscase,andshouldnotbeacceptedasagiven. CONCLUSION

Foreachoftheforegoingreasons,iheWirelessBureau'sdenialoftheRequest shouldbereversed'andtheBureaushouldbecompelledtoproducetheinformationbasis of responsive to the Request that has been previously withheld on the

erroneously-claimed FOIA exemptions.

Tamir Damari NOSSAMAN LLP 1666 K Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 887-1442Counsel for SkYbridge SPectrum Foundation

cc. Dennis C. Brown, Esq. Russell Fox, Esq. Donald R. DePriest




Auf-ZZ-2009 05: 56 AM Te.l'esqurus 5IOA412276

Federal Communications Comnission 'TVashington, D.C' 20554August 18, 2009


Cun'"ing, GA 300284084 ATTN: Jason SmithRussell H. Fox, Esq.

Mintz, Levin, Cohen, Fenis, Glovs and Popeo, P.C. 70 I Pennsylvania Ave., N'W. - Suite 900Whi-ugton,

DC 20004

Re: FCCFilesNos.0002303355'0003463998,0003470447'0003470497'09034105n' 0003470576, 00034?05s3, 0003470593, 00034?0602, 0003470608, 00034706i3Der Mr. Sith nd lW. Fox:is The lVireless Telecommunications Bureau of tho Federal Communications Commission 1? and I'65 of invesdsatiE comoliarce bv MariTBL, Inc. ad its subsidiaries (MariTEL) with Sections I tie Coirmision's nulesr rhting to providing truthll and accumte information to the Commission' ip""i.rlv, "rcribed more rly-below, tie Comnission has received conllicti.ng bformation ftom

* lri*iiei *a a*itimeml.rt

Communcations/Land Mobite, LLC (lvfC/LM) regarding tlte involvement ofl4r. tf a eceflt Ensacton' Mr. bon n Oltr. De.hiest) vith MriTBL prir t0 the corisuftrati tq have a conUolling interest in MffLM as the husbnqd of Sandra DePdest DePriest has been deemed (li4s. DepriesL). MC/LM, in its prosecution of its application for new.Autoi ed Maritime i"l""o**onitotions Sysiem AMts) ticcnses fo which it was tlie high bidder in FCC "4uction No' 6l Mr. DePriest did not trflLVt Apptication)i nas rep"atediy represented in pleadings and_other filings thathowevr, in Fansfer itself reprcerted to the contrary, ontrol lvlai'itl- at any relevant peiod, ivIariTEL authority to of oonttol oppli*tionsit filed in iune 2008 for the exprs purpose. of seeking Comnrrssion TC AppLications)'' divest Mr. Diest of conrol of MiTEL 0vfariTEl

Alough both MC,iLM ad MaiTEL subsequently fiIed pleadings addressilg this discrepalcy' as to whether or not Mr, the existilrg reclord is insuffrcent to pemit us to each a defrnitive determination the current record provide us Depriest hd exerc ised dc jure or difacfo control of MiTEL. Nor does (and litigated) with a sufficenr basis for detenining why iaccurale nforrnation tht bears on a rn$erial Application or tlre is"L .ift t tp""t to both applicationi apparently was submitted in either the MOLM MariTBL TC pplications.

'47 c.F.R. $$ 1.17,2


(MC/LM Application)' FcC File No. 0002303355 (flled sept. 7, 2005, amended Aug. 21, 2006)


0003470583' 0003470593' FCC Fite Nos. 0003463998, 00034?0447, 0003470497, 00034?0527, 00034?0576, Applications)' 0003470602, 0003470608, 0003470613 (collectivsly, MaiTEL TC

Alg-22-2OO9 05:56 AM Telesourus 5LO84I7'?,26


MariTBL, Inc.Letter of Inquiry re Donld R. DePesta$ ib conolling pdncipal.4 Thc Mobity Division Bureau, detorminecl that, under the spousal flffiation rule.) Mr. (Division), Wireless Telecomuunications DePriest was tequired to be listed 8s a tisclosable inteest holder for the puose of determining MOLM's cligbility for biddidg redits s a dsignatd entity, irrespective of whatever ctuai role Mr. DePriest played in MCyLMJ The M{JLM Appliction v,as amended orr August 21, 2006, to include the grass rv;nues of Mr. DePfiest in MC,/LM's desiguated entity showing, in keeping with the Division's etermiation. h te amendment, MI-lvf represented, inrc drt, thst Mr. DPriest "controls Amefic Nonwovons Corportion (ANC)" aud that "ANC is the odly revenue producing entity that Don owns o-r conols.,'7 Lr reipouse to a pleading frled by \Vaneu Havens on $eptember 6, 2006,0 M/LM expressly denied that Mr. DiPriest ownerl ar controlled MariTEL, and stated t}.1t whil Mr. DeFtiest cotrolld MCT Investors, L.P., which held stock h MariTEL, contol of MaiTEL w instead vested in American

Ms. De.Priesr ha6 been identified by MC/LM

Tower, Ic.e

on June i2, 2008, MariTEL fited the ten MzriTL Tc applications, one for MariTEL itself and one for eaclr of nie MariTEL subsidiades holding of,e maritime VIIF Prblic Coast sttion licnse aPiece. The MaiTEL TC Applicarions each included an identical, one-page exhibit descrilring the transaction, ,tontot ot M.ireL .. .. will pass from Donald R. ePriest and MCT hvestos, L.P. t0 which stated thatr

In its FC Form 602 ownership rlisclosure filing thst ficcol)lpsnied the MC/LM Applicstion, YcyIM listcd thrc disclosb1e intrest hotdrst Sandra M, Dehiest, Conmunicatious hvestments, Irc., and SII{IW Porurership, L.P. S FCC Filc No. 0002302467 (filcrl Sepr 6, 2005)' An exhibit to the FonD 602 clarified that:one hundred percelt of the membership intaests in Maritim comrnunications/Land Mobile, LLC are ownd by SJW Paruership, L.P- Thc goneral partno ir S/RW Farterthip' L P' is onmunications investunls, Inc. Onc hundrcd pcrcont oftho shaes in CommunicEons Investmets, Inc. are owned by ssndrs M. DePicst Onc hundrtd porcant of tho partnorship M. DoPfiest is sbares in slRJW partnersh, L.p. nre owned :y sandra M. DePricsr. Ssndfa the sole of6cer, dctot - k"y **"g"rnunt perso'ael Of Maritims C.fiflunictions/Lnd Mobile, LLC' Sandra M. DePdest is tle sole key $nagement personnel of S/RIW Partnership, L.P. Saldra M. DePriest is tl sole officer, director atrd key rnsngemnt personne of ommunications Investmetrts' Inc.5

4? c.F.R 1.2110(cX5X(A). The spousal affiliatiorr rulo providcs that, for prpnses ofidcntifying discloable inter.est otders irr demonstrating an appticant's aligibility for dsignated ntity benefits, "[b]oth spouses are deemed re to own or contol or have the po-wer t control intercs wncd or conEolled by ifhol Of fl, nleli! ey scpation rcognized y I aourt ofcompctottjurisdiction in tho Unitd Sttos." subject to a legal6

to list Mr, DePriesl s a disclosable intere8t holder, and argued tltat dle sPousal fflliation rule was either lives,"_thc fuapplicable ot should be waiyed n this ce because Mr. DePriest ond his wife led "separau economic fid ffiliated Diiision wns unpersuaded by either argumont, nd deermincd that c gross fvcrucs of Mr- DoPriost entties shoutd b i*cluded in esscssing MC/LI4's desgntcd cntity eligibility, ld. at 13738-40 llll 5-8.? ,See

'1v1D2006), aff'd, Orcr on Maritime Comrnunications/Land Mobile,LLC, Otder,ZtRCC Rcd 13?35 (WTB (WTB MD2007, recon. and reviw pning. Although MCYIM initisly filed Reconsideraton,ZZFCC Rcd 4780See

MC/LM Application, Disclosablc Intercst Holdors Amcndmont at

I (file/ AUE

2l 2006)''


l,LC, Orde See Waren C. Iavens Perition for Rcconsidcratioo [of Mutimo Communicationsllad Mobile Sept. 6' 2006. FCC Rcd 8?94 (WIB PSCID 2006)1, fllede


filed Sept 18' 2006' See Maitime ommunications/Land Mobile LLC Opposition to Petition for Recousideration, DePdesL hold common stock in Maritel' MC/LM explained that "lvlgf Invstors, L.l', 'rhich iionholled by Don c, MCT invesrors, L.P. does not control Maritel, In.; funedcar To*eI, Inc. conbols Maritel, Inc.' Pursuant to a of lhe common ,hui,oide, ug.."ntunl This agreement provides American Tower,Inc. as the holders ofa majority with the power to etecia simple uajorily of the bord of dfueclors of Maitel, hc', subject to the stock equivalJnts Conmission, ifre4uired. Becaue control ofMaritei, Inc. resides in the hands of American Tower, cs"niof


Inc., Mitel, Ino, is not an atliate of MC/I-M." Id' s 10'


Aug-22-20O9 05:57 AM Telesourus 5LO84I2226

MariTEL, Inc.Letter oflnquiry re Dorld R. Dc.Priet

the sharetrolders of MariTBL as a group. Mr^ DePriest has cotfoiled MriTEL through a combittation of direct inves,nent tud his role as Genel Patner of MCT Investors, L.P,"l0 (This representation is substantially consistert with i.nforuf,tiotr provided by MaTEL in eulier FCC Form 602 ownership disclosuro filings, except that the Fonn 6CZ fllings indicated, correctly as it now aPpcals' that Medcom Developmeot iporation, not Mr. DePrest, wai the general patrer of MCT krvestors, L'P', nd Mr' DePriest sontrolled Medcom Development Corpomtiou.rl)

MC/LM and MariTBL thus presented the ommission with con-flicfiDg rePresnttions_al_to -. whether Mr. DePriest had conuolled MriTEL' Both MC/LM rd MariTL subsequently filed pleadittgs discussing is cliscrepncy in ther feprsenttions, but this discussion is not adequate for the Commission to ascertio whi"h tepret*tation is acc-rate nd which represeuution is not accurate' In fact, botl MC/LMr? ad MaiTELl3 contirrued ro stand by their erlier representations, and shed little Iight on why they believe the other party is mistakeu.




"""nt 74 corrstitueur iflvostrs. This ttistribution will substsntially diluto thc ovnorship interest of fvostors, L,p. to its "ause _ MCT lvo$tors, L.P, to approximately tw pcrccnt, and will decrease Mr. DePriest's ownefship intoro$l ppt*.i*o"i' Z.Z% (i'nctuOing the reuraining stake of MCT ivcstos,-L'P', as Mr- DePdest shall rcouin Genrl p-ainer of tlrat entity). s res1t of th" distributio* no single eotty will contol MariTEL." Id. " rr cunent upuntit_the time the In FcC Form 602 repor tht woro ffied on March 13, 2001, and appareny rcmaincd of couuol ws$ con$u*macl in 2008, MariTEL indicated that MCr Invtslors' L'P' held 58'30 MariTEL tansfer of

Exlbit to MariTEL TC Applications (MariTBL TC Bibit). Thc MriTEL T Exhibt turther explai ed' rhc tanfor of control is the voluntory distibution of tho tajority of the sets of MCT t^t *tt


VlariTEUsissuedandoutsmndingvoringsrock(nd26.190ofallstock,votingandnon'votin_g),thatMedlm. Ouu*uni Cotpo*tion was th solc g-onorsl pattner of M.I Investo$, L'P', flrd that Mr' Prost \4,s Urs sole . (filed Mar. 13' 200i). Tho sffohdo ofvldom Developmant orporaon. ,S"", ag,, FCC File No. 0002080704 name' that Mr.bePriest hcld an atklitionl 8.9fl0 of the voting stock in ls own MariTBL Form 602 also itrdicated nd rlnt Arflolican Tower Corpomtiofl held 1?.19 of MsriTEL's vqti[g stok'tz

on July 31, 2008, for examplq MC/LM filed

a pleading


MuiTBL h""" .t*,iu o* a enor in MariTBLs irfonnstion nd from a diffeence in methodology between ;dDoItisl"butofferedlittleexplanationastootrofthatsuggestedmetltodologicaldifferoncc.-See.. Rcgarding Maitimo communications&anal Mobile LLc, OPposition to supPlement to Petition for Reconsidetation niesr betieves rhst MfirBL fflay hvo conted "ii*t , l"ry 31, 2008, at 3_4; see abo r ar + n,r cpe ,*r""-i","g r*'.k twsrd controi, $ crtiflg a diffeience betweetr MflriTBL strd De riost ad botwen s iri*iTEi * it.ltss Properties ofvirginia, fnc";' In the next sentence' moreovor' MCJJ-M indicad thatundpr concluded tbat it lnd been Jluded+o metbodologioal itrerence wo-uk not sufhce o erplain why MariTEL

rgrd "apPears t it at it i ad been conolted by M. 'icsL, ntl-said that MariTtsL's enor ilt ds

in which itsserted thatMffiTEL was simply incorrcct in

control. Pdest 1old,not Mr. ePriesi's conhoi because "even if Do Picst hatl uscd aiTELs methodology, De which arc applicable to the instant matlel." Id. at 4. MC/LM also ugued' MairEL under the c;ormissiol's Rules

would lnve pfevented nter ali, thal if Mr, DePriest atually contolled Mg;TL but unted to onceal that facL he c filing of the MariTEL TC Appctions, rC. ar 3 ; that Mr, DePriest neithcr "endoffiefs] nor suppot't[s]" Inc' "ffif,, j ovnustrip report, d-. sr 4 tr.z; snd at MCyLM stnds by its ea.rlier sttrtemetrt that Americ',' Towet, d. t 5. MCYI,lvf a'lso argued thatreither MC/LM norMr' .nuof * fr,lier- pri*t to a shareholer agresrnent, becuse attdbudon Oeeriest t"A any ,iOtive to deceile the Courssion regarding Mr- oPrieSt's ole in MariTEL bidding to M/LM wotld ror have sffecred MC/tM's uligibility for the smail business of MariTEL's evenues credit fat it received in Auc[on No. 61. /d.

thatit had MaiTL likewise filed a pleading on July 31, 2008, in which it rcaffimed irc ealier rcPresertation N4r. DePricsis ownorship of 5Eyo__of MariTEL's common stock, direcy been contolied ty Mr. De.Priest tJ*ugll13


Auq-Z-ZOOg 05:58 At4 lelesourus 510A4I6

MariTL, Inc. Letter of hquiry rc Donsld R ePiestBased


the existing record, \1re ae unable t determine whetler or not Mr, DePrist xercised

de jure or defacto oontrol of-MariTEl.la We have direcqy contratictofy stteme.nts on the mtter, udan inabilty at this junctwe to determin prccisely why thre is a codlict on ilris poiut, why on oJ the parties

evidently provied inaccurat informton on this material issue to the Comnission, and whether dre submission of such inaccufte information arises to tho level of misrepresentation or laok of cndor under the Commissiou's Character Qualificrtions Policy.rs We tlerefore direct MariTEL to provide addtional information regarding this matter, as specified below.R ea

uests for Info r nntiotz

As explainecl above, we have determincd that dditionl fuformation is reired to assist the Cornmi ssion in reolvhg the issues that have arisen regarding the role played by Mr. DePriest in MadTEL. MaiTEL is accordingly directed. pursunt t0 Section 308(b) oI the Communications Act of 1934, s amendcd (thc Act),r6 to respond ro the foliowig fequests for information. and to Flovide vait;bte dlmenation supporting its rcspnses. Unless otlelwise indicted, the pedod of time covered by these iniries is ranuary t,200-2, to th present (tJre relevant period).u


Describe tha extnt anal nature f Mr. DePriest's ownersh holdings fu MariTELrs during the rolevani period. Describa te porcentage of the equity in MarifBL held by Mr. dePriest, and the form in which that equity was held, .8., $tock, prefeffed stock, etc. Describe the pefce age f the voting equity in MariTBL held by Mr' DePriest and the form in which that equity was held' IT M. DePriest's holdings in MariTEL fluctuated rluring the relevant pe.riod, provide s dotailed explarratio.

In a plerding in a separate proceedng, MsfiTEL gued that, conb y to -tl flssenios in s pctiton tO deny, MoriTEL TC Applications and ltltrer is no Jontrov*uy r"g*Oing otio owns and controls MariTEL,'; ond tlat tho o\'r'rship inforuratiol regardirg MTEL and its_ _ _ iifwt cC nor* Zit"rJnt "..*"tu afld complete ,ree oppositioriof MaTEL inc. [to Petition to Deny flled by AMTS Corsortium LL er 4' re FCcIa

"uutii*i"t'" Ue tos. OOOsiOgS,

0003516656, 0003534598, 0003534602, 0003534?63, 0003534766, 0003534767, dro uuthfrlncss of. oOSjS+ZeS, OooSS5bB?1, fited Sept 5,2008, tz. Ever ifthe ltter statement legding that the contadictory replcsotlttions do by MaiTEL'S sarlier filings ii ultimately show[ t0 bo lfuo, wo bslive MCILM nd MriTEL have inrleed generatad contovrsy flc$sitting further Commssol irquiry'ls Eee Policy Regarding chfctr Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Arnendment of Rules of Broadast practice an poiedutJR"l"ring to W.iun Responses to Commission Inqurios and the Making of Misrepresentations to the Commission by Pomitte and Licen es, Report, Oer dn POII Strrnent,l0Z n C.cl zo trzs, 1210-1r lH[ 60-61 (19 8Q, Memorundwn Qpinion and otde\ 1 Fcc Rcd 421 (1986); Policv ielarding Character Quatlcrtions in Bioaclct Licensing, Amendment offft I , e Rul of Practic and prJcur nehting to-Written Responses to Commission Inquiries and the Making of Mistepresenltions to the Comurission by Apjcants, Permiriees, and Licensees, and the Reping 6f Infor'mation Regarding Character (1990 Charcter Policy Statemet), euliflctions;p:ry Stdtement and Order,S FCC Rcd 3252 (1990) optniLt anrl order,6FCCRcd 344s ( 1991), Me morand.wn opinon anl ortlr,7 FCCkcd 65.64 tenoronaun' in thc oc adio ffSgz). tt r Co;.t*ision appties irs broadqst character strdardslo applicstrts d licensea

services. See e.g.,t990ChmcterPot!Ststement,5FCRcdat32539110(adoPting47C.F.R.$ltZ-foap-ty nl mtril omi$sions to pplicanS, licensees, and permittees in all radio

pr"f'Ulii"" r,rU




+l u.s.c.

$ so(b).

January l, 2002, is the beginning of the fust calendar yeor in which the rovfluos of MCILM's disclosabie iLterest with the MC/LM holdes were to be co6idered iD dtexaining MgI4's dosgntd ontity eiigibility in conjunctionApplication.lE

,MariTEU' meas Meri'IEL, Jnc, and/or any ofits subsidiaries. For purposcs ofthis and all folloving questions,

AuGf-2.-2009 05:58 At4 Ielesourus 5LOA4L:6

MaiTEL, Ic. ffter of Inquiry


Donsld R. DePdost State wheer Mr. DePiest ever served s a dirctor' offrcer' ol emloyee

2. 3. 4,


MariTEL. If Mr, DePriest formerly held one or more of

such positions in MariTEL, but no longer does, stlte when the periotl in which he held dre positiott(s) ended' Stt whethor Mr. DePiest eve held or xercised delcta contoi of MariTL by any eans during th relevsnt pedod. If so, describe the natur of that conlrol, andho',Y

it was obtained,

If you betieve tJrat Mr. DePiest did control MariTEL, xplain, to the best of your, knowledge anrl belief, why and how MC/f4 cold ririve st the conclusion at Mr' DePrist did not coEl MariTEL.

We heteby direct MariTEL, pursuant to Sections 308(b) ard 403 of the Act'e to Jespond in wriring d under ath, separately antl fuIly, to each of the foregoing requests within 30 business days from he dute of this lotr., tl,i. Smirlr may provide any additional information tht he believs is relevant to this ttr. Th IDstuctions for responiling to this letter ae contained in the Atthment hereto. Nf. Smith's responso shall be dirccted to: Jefftey Tobi, Esq. MobilitY Division Wireloss Telecommunication Bureau

445 t2 SheeE S.Tv.lYaslrington, D.C. 20554 you have any qriestions rolating to this frfttter, ple$ contact Mr, Tobias at (20?) 418'1617 or


[email protected]

Mr. Smith is atlvised that 18 u.s.c. $ 1001 and section 1.17 of the comission's Ru]es, 47 to c.F.R. 1.1?, prohibit misrepresentations and/or wllful omissious of mateal fats in response Commission inquiries.Sincerely,


Deputy Chief, Mobility Divsin Wireless Telecommunications Burcau



u.s.c. $$ 308(b), 403.to

wo arc conremporsneously rnailing similar letters of inquiry under secdon 308(b)

MC/l4 and to Mr' DePriest

Aug-ZZ-Oog 05r58 AM



M$iTEL, Itrc. Lettr of Iquiry re Doflsld R. Dekiest


Maritifie Corications/Lad Mobile, Ll206 North 8th Sheet

Columbus, MS 39701 ATTN: Sadra M. DPriest Dennis C. Brown, Esq. 8124 Cook Co Suito 201Mars,

VA 2'0109-7406

Donald R. DePriest 206 North 8th Stret Columbus, MS 39701Wireless hoperdes of Virginiq Inc, 1555 King Stret - Suite 500 Alexadria, V 22314 ATTN: Don8ld R. DPriest

Waneu Havets2649 Benvenue Ave.- Suites 2-6 Berkeley, CA 94704

Auq-22-2OO9 05:59 AM Te.Iesqurus 5108412226



MsriTEL, Inc.Letter of Itrquiry re Donald R. DePrest

TTACHMEI.ITInstruclionsor documents responsive RequestlOr Confidendal Treatmen| lf MariTEL requests'tat sny information nnr, it sbIl submit, lorg with Il tesponsive ifotmation and io inis Urrnr e treat i. a conlidertiI C.F.R $ 0.459' documents, a statement in accordance with Secdon 0.459 of tll Ccmmission's Rille,47 coply with te fquifeetts of Sectiol 0.459, ifcludfug th Ilequests for coDfidtrtial teatet tuust requests for staridards of specificity mandated by Section 0459(b). Accordingly, "blankef' Frsunt to Se4tion 0.459(c)' we wl not confidentiality of a large set of docments fe ac4eptble. consider requests that o not comPly with fhe requirements of Section 0459'

privilege, it Clams oJ Prvilege. If MariTEL withholds ay nfo(mation or docDents under claim of states, schedr:Ie of thg items v\tithIeld sha suumit, toeerhr wfth ny clim of privilege, a "to such itlm: the nrimbere inguiry to which each iiem rsPonds nd thE type,,title, ininiooUy'* "ach nd dste of the item; the names, *ddresses, Positions' and arganizatios of aII specinc suuect maner privileged. a:uthors and"recipients of thc item; and the specific ground(s) for ctaiming that the item is


Format ofResponses- The response must be consistent with the forrat of the questions askcd.its Methnd of producitzg Documents. Each requested docume, as define(i herein, shalt be submiited in herein. This mears that a portion of that docuent is responsive to an inquiry made if "otit.ty, tfie dorument shall notie edited, cut, or extfiged, nd shll include a]l appendices, tables, or other. All dfie materils Jtachments, and all othe doc.uments refened to in tle document or attachments. submitted' o""u*-y to on""tand any docuft rcspotsive t these inquides must also be

* *li


Identffication of Dorjrflnt!. For each document or statement submitted in respanse to the inquiries - and_ identify thc person(s) stated in flte coer letter, iudicate, by number, to which iaquiry it is responsive date on which lt ws from whose files the docueut ws fetrieved. If any document is not dsted, state flle of prpfed. If ay document does not idettify its author(s) or recipien(s), state, if lflown, the name(s) it u'*o(t) oi*apient(s). The License mu$ identify with reasonable specificity all documentsprovided in respons to these i.qtriries.

Auq-22-2O09 05:46 AM Telesourus 5LO84t22?'6


Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C.20554August18, 2009

VIA gERflFIE MAII, - RETURN RECIPTMatime Communicationsllard Mobile' LLC 206 North 8th SEetColumbus, MS 39701 ATTN; Sandra M. DePriest


Dennis C. Brown, Esq.Manassas

8124 Cooke Court, Suite 201 VA 20109-7406

Re: FCC Files Nos. 0002303355,0003 463gg8,l[tr/347044'l, 0003470497, 003470527,0003470576, 0003470583, 0003470s93, 0003470602. 00034?0608' 0003470613 Dear Ms. DePriest and Mr. Erown:

cofifluictons commission is with Sectiotls i'17 inve,srigng cmpliance by Maritime Communications/l,and Mobile, LLC OfCiLM) ccte information to fie an t.65 otile Cmmission's Ruiest relatisg ro poviding firtthftf nd Cms.ion. Specifically, described more fu below. the Commission has received conflicting inforrnation from MariTEL, hrc, and its subsidiares (lvfariTBl) and MC/LM regardirg the involvement oi tr. Oona n. nepriest (Mr. Delrriest) with MarilEL prior to the consummation of a recent trunsaction. The Commission alsq has r;eived conflcting information regatding the involvement ofMr' DPdest with MC/LM and othe entities'


\Viroless Tolcommunicatious Bueau of the Ferleral

Mr. DePfiest hs bee deemed to have a contolling intefest in Maritime MC/LM the husband new of Sanclra DePriest (Ms. DePriest). As you know, MC/LM, i its Prosecutiou of its application for bidder in Automared Maitime Telecommunicatins system (AMTS) licenses for which it w the high 61 (MglI.\{ Application)," h repeadly reprcsented in pleadings and othor frlings CC Auction No. -aiTEL at any relevart period. MriTBL itseu rePresented to the thst Mr, DePriesr did not control ho*"u"r, in kmsfer of control appiications it filed in Juue 2008 fo the express purpose of "nt*y,ommission uthoTity to divest Mi, ePriest of connol of MariTEL MatiTEL TC seekinApplications).3 Alrhough both MC/LM and MariTEL subsetlueEtly filed pleadings addressing this discrePnc_y: or not Ml. the existing recrd is insufficiont to permit us to reach I defilitive determaon as to whether the current record provide us DePriest hd rxercised de jure or dlfacfo cnhol of MiTEL. Nor does (and litigated) with a sufficicnt basis for etermining why ineccurte information that bears on a matcrial M(YLM Application or tbe issue with respect to both applicationi apparently was submitted in either te ' 47 C.F.R 0 1.17, 1.65.23

(l\4ClLM Applicadon)' FCC pite No. 0002303355 (frlod ScFt 7, 2005, amonrlcd .{ug. 21' ?006)

0003470593' FCC FileNos. 0003 463998,0003410441,0003470497,0003470527, 0003470576.0003470583' (collectivelv, MariTEL TC A'pplicatons)' 0003470602,0003470608, 00034?06I3

A:g-22-2OQ9 05r47 AM




MaitirLe Commurcations/Lad Mobilc, LLCLeer of Inquiry re Donald R. cPricst

MariTEL TC Applications.


find, moreover, that the rocoftl


ttrese ad

otler licensirg proceedings

also reflects potential inconsistencies and inaccuacies in the information provided by MC/T,M regarding Mr. DePriesf s role in MC,/LM ad other entities,

Cofficting Reprcscfltatins Re7ardin7 Control of MariTELMs. Depriest has been identified by MqrLM s ils controltig pricipal.4 The Mobility Division (Division), Wireless Telecommunications Bureu, detenied tht, ndex tlie spousal affiliation rule'' Mr' DePriest w5 requircd to be listed s a dsclsble interest holder for the putpose of determining. . _ MC/LM'S eliCibility for bidding credits aE design4ted entity, inespective of whtver actul role lvfi. Depriest ptay;d in vfc[Mj TTe MC/LM Application w ameuded on August 21, 2006, to include the gross revenues of Mt. DePriesr in MC/LM's designatetl entity showing in keeping wth the Divisiod's etermiation. In the arnendment, MC/LM teprescnte d, inter ala, thatw. DePriest 'iconnols American Nonwovens Corporation (ANC)" ard that "ANC is the only revenue producing entity that Don owns or cotrols.,'7 In response to a pteading filcd by Wanen Havens on September 6, 2006," MC/LM expressly denied that Mr, DcPriest owned or cotrklled MariTL, and stated that wbile Mr. DePriest controlled MCT lvesros, L.P., which held stock in MadTEL, control of MiTEL was instead vested in'Americau Tower,Inc.9

on June 12, 2008, MaliTEL fled the ren MariTBL TC applications, one for MaiTEL itself aud one fo each of nine MariTEL subsidiies holding one maritime Vi{F Public Coast sttion license apiece. The MiTEL TC Applioations eech included an i