******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re Complaint of ) ) L. DOUGLAS WILDER and ) MARSHALL COLEMAN ) ) Against Station WRIC-TV ) Petersburg, Virginia ) FURTHER DISCOVERY ORDER Adopted: March 10, 1997 Released: March 11, 1997 By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau: 1. The Mass Media Bureau has before it: i) a request for interrogatories and production of documents filed March 7, 1995, by Nationwide Communications Inc. ("Nationwide") directed toward complainants L. Douglas Wilder and Marshall Coleman ("Complainants"); ii) complainants' response to Nationwide's discovery request; iii) Complainants' request for further discovery filed March 8, 1995; iv) an opposition from Nationwide to Complainants' request for further discovery; v) an opposition from Young Broadcasting of Richmond, Inc. ("Young") to Complainants' request for further discovery; vi) Complainants' motion to strike Nationwide's opposition to their request for further discovery filed March 20, 1995; vii) Nationwide's opposition thereto; viii) Complainants' motion to compel production of documents, for sanctions and for disciplinary action against "WRIC," also filed March 20, 1995; ix) Nationwide's opposition thereto; x) Complainants' second motion to compel production of documents; and xi) Nationwide's opposition. For the reasons which follow, we grant in part Nationwide's and Complainants' requests for further discovery. Specifically, we order Complainants to produce the documents set forth in Appendix A and respond to the interrogatories set forth in Appendix C to this Further Discovery Order. Complainants will not have to produce the documents listed in Appendix B, while Appendix D contains the interrogatories on which we will not allow discovery to Nationwide. Likewise, we order Nationwide to respond to the interrogatories set forth in Appendix E and produce the documents set forth in Appendix G. Nationwide will not have to provide discovery on the interrogatories set forth in Appendix F, nor produce the documents set forth in Appendix H. Nationwide is ordered to respond to the request for admission in Appendix I. We also deny Complainants' motion to strike, as well as its interrogatories and document requests insofar as they are directed toward Young, and we deny Complainants' request for depositions. We also grant Complainants' motions to compel to the extent indicated herein. Nationwide's Request for Further Discovery 2. Nationwide seeks from the Complainants the production of six categories of documents and answers to 24 interrogatories. Nationwide submits that a review of the records turned over to Complainants indicates that the dispute will center around the classes of spot time purchased by them. Nationwide further contends that Complainants' knowledge as to the classes of time sold by the station is also likely to be relevant. Finally, Nationwide alleges that, because of the passage of time between the elections at issue and the filing of the complaint, Complainants may have the only copies of some of the relevant records. 3. Complainants do not object to the production of documents sought by Nationwide in its requests 1 through 5, provided they are not subject to the attorney-client, work product or other legal privilege. Complainants object to Nationwide's request no. 6, which seeks the "buy records" analyzed by Leslie J. Edelstein and referred to in her March 22, 1993, declaration, which was attached to the complaint in this proceeding. See Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 7951  4. Complainants argue that those records were analyzed for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case, which the Bureau found. Complainants contend that Nationwide has not demonstrated a need for such information nor has Nationwide demonstrated that it is entitled to such information. Complainants do not object to Nationwide's interrogatories 1 and 13. Complainants object to the remaining interrogatories because they can be answered only by the media consultants who will be identified in complainants' response to interrogatories 1 and 13. 4. In our Order, we advised the station that any request for further discovery "for production of documents [and] answers to written interrogatories ... must demonstrate that the information requested is necessary for the station to respond to arguments or claims that could be made by complainants in their amended complaint." Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 7952-53. Other than claiming that "dispute will center around the classes of spot time purchased by Complainants," and that "[t]he knowledge possessed by Complainants as to the classes of spot time sold by WRIC-TV is also likely to be relevant," Nationwide does not articulate what arguments or claims it believes could be made by Complainants in their amended complaint. The sole issue on which discovery has been allowed is whether Nationwide overcharged Complainants for advertisements aired during the 45 days preceding the 1989 primary election and the 60 days preceding the 1989 general election. To resolve that issue it will be necessary to determine, inter alia, what Complainants and other legally qualified candidates actually purchased during the lowest unit charge periods. 5. Nationwide asserts that it may no longer possess complete records as to what Complainants purchased. We find it appropriate that Complainants should turn over to Nationwide all non- privileged documents which evidence the advertisements purchased by them during the periods at issue. In addition, because Nationwide may no longer possess documents that sufficiently describe what was sold to other political advertisers during the relevant periods, Complainants should also turn over documents which evidence what was purchased by other legally qualified candidates. We believe such documents may reasonably be included among the "buy records" analyzed by Ms. Edelstein. Hence, we will permit Nationwide discovery on all of its document requests, except request no. 3, which concerns purchases on stations other than WRIC-TV. See Appendix A and Appendix B. 6. With respect to Nationwide's interrogatories, we will allow discovery on interrogatories 1 and 13, to which there are no objections, and interrogatories 9, 10, 21 and 22. See Appendix C. The latter interrogatories seek information that could lead to the discovery of what was actually purchased by Complainants. Hence, we overrule Complainants' objection to the extent that we expect Complainants to make good faith efforts to locate and obtain the requested information from all persons who acted as their agents for the purchase of advertising time on the station. 7. However, we will not allow discovery on Nationwide's remaining interrogatories. We conclude that the information sought is irrelevant. Thus, we will not allow discovery on interrogatories 2 and 14, which seek from the persons responsible for the purchase of spot time for the Complainants a description of their experience and expertise with respect to the purchase of such time. Likewise, we will not allow discovery on interrogatories 3, 4, 15 and 16, which seek from the persons responsible for the purchase of spot time for the Complainants their understanding of the terms fixed spot time and preemptible spot time, not only as those terms were used by WRIC-TV, but also for the television industry generally. Moreover, we will not allow discovery on interrogatories 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19 and 20, which seek information about Complainants' strategies or plans for the purchase of television advertising time. Finally, we will not allow discovery on interrogatories 11, 12, 23 and 24, which seek information about Complainants' purchases of advertising time on stations in the Richmond, Virginia market other than WRIC-TV. See Appendix D. Complainants' Motion to Strike 8. In its motion to strike, Complainants contend that, although they filed with the Commission and served upon Nationwide their request for further discovery on "Day 15," Nationwide did not submit its opposition on "Day 20" as required by our Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 7954, Appendix C. Rather, Nationwide filed its opposition and served it upon Complainants two days late. Complainants argue that Nationwide has repeatedly demonstrated a complete disregard for the procedures established by the Commission to resolve lowest unit charge complaints and that its opposition pleading should be stricken. 9. In opposing the motion to strike, Nationwide submits that Complainants have ignored Section 1.4(g) of the Commission's Rules in computing the due date for Nationwide's opposition to Complainants' request for further discovery. Nationwide notes that Section 1.4(g) and companion portions of that rule provide that if the filing period is less than seven days, intermediate holidays, including Saturday and Sunday, shall not be counted in determining the filing date. Nationwide contends that, because there is a five day period between the filing of the Complainants' request for further discovery and the due date of its opposition, its exclusion of the weekend of March 11 and 12 in determining the due date was proper. Nationwide states that it confirmed its interpretation with Commission staff and thereupon informed Complainants as to when its opposition would be filed. 10. Section 1.4 of the Commission's Rules sets forth the general rules which govern the computation of time within which actions must be taken in response to deadlines established by the Commission. Section 1.4(g) states: "Unless otherwise provided (e.g.,  1.773 of the Rules), if the filing period is less than 7 days, intermediate holidays shall not be counted in determining the filing date." (emphasis added) The question is whether the five day period of time set forth in the timetable for discovery and post-discovery in lowest unit charge proceedings is subject to the adjustment specified in Section 1.4. We conclude it is not. The point of the timetable was to provide a beginning-to-end calendar for parties in lowest unit charge proceedings. The certainty attendant to such a schedule would be reduced if parties were required to make adjustments to the schedule in order to determine when some event would take place. At the same time, we recognize that our prior orders, including the Order in this proceeding, did not clearly state that we would notutilize Section 1.4 in calculating due dates. In future orders where we find that a prima facie case exists concerning possible LUC violations, we will inform the parties that Section 1.4(g) will not apply in calculating filing dates during the Discovery period. Accordingly, we also conclude that Nationwide did not flagrantly ignore a filing deadline. Hence, given the instant circumstances, it would be inappropriate to strike Nationwide's opposition to Complainants further request for discovery. We therefore deny Complainants' motion to strike. Complainants' Request for Further Discovery 11. Complainants seek answers to 71 interrogatories, the production of two categories of documents, and an admission. In support of their request for additional discovery, Complainants allege that Nationwide produced contracts but did not produce invoices or station logs because the latter supposedly no longer exist. Complainants seek to determine both from Nationwide and from Young when and why documents were destroyed. Complainants also allege that Nationwide, in responding to interrogatories, did not seek the input of former employees who possess knowledge of WRIC-TV's practices in 1989, which resulted in the submission of incomplete information. From the documents produced, Complainants believe the station sold two classes of time, one class being fixed, the other being preemptible with notice. According to Complainants, however, the rates actually charged were different from those appearing on the rate card. In this regard, Complainants state that it appears it was not necessary to pay the higher "fixed" rate in order to avoid preemption. Complainants contend that even when candidates paid the fixed rate, clearance was not guaranteed and that candidates paying the preemptible rate do not appear to have received appropriate rebates. Complainants submit that additional information is necessary to confirm or rebut their preliminary conclusions. 12. Complainants also seek to depose four individuals, all former employees of the station. Complainants submit that three of the proposed deponents -- the general sales manager, the national sales manager, and the general manager -- participated in determining the lowest unit charge, while the fourth -- the station's general sales manager from November 30, 1990 to December 31, 1994 -- may have knowledge of the station's actions regarding retention and disposal of documents. According to Complainants, Nationwide did not attempt to obtain information from these persons in answering the Bureau's interrogatories even though they were identified by Nationwide as the persons most knowledgeable regarding station practices. 13. In response, Nationwide contends that, prior to the filing of the complaint, Complainants had not made an earnest effort to determine how the station's political rates were established. It submits that any present failure to locate relevant documents or the individuals responsible for determining lowest unit charges and for retaining relevant records is solely the fault of the Complainants. As for Complainants' interrogatories, Nationwide objects to nearly all of the interrogatories on the ground that they seek irrelevant information. Likewise, Nationwide objects to Complainants' requests for production of documents, request to take depositions, and request for admission. 14. In its response, Young notes that it did not acquire Station WRIC-TV until November 14, 1994. Young states it has no knowledge of the station's practices in 1989 and that, in any event, Nationwide has specifically assumed all responsibility for defending the instant complaints. 15. In our Order, we advised Complainants that any further request for discovery "must contain a showing that such discovery is necessary to resolve the issue of overcharges." Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 7952. As for depositions, we stated that a request must also demonstrate that depositions are necessary to resolution of the issue of overcharges and that for each witness the request must include specific arguments demonstrating the necessity of the proposed testimony, both in terms of the information sought and the use of depositions as the means for securing the information, and should support those arguments with documentary evidence. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 7953 and n. 8. 16. After considering Complainants' arguments and those of Nationwide and Young, we conclude that Complainants have made a sufficient showing that some of the further discovery they seek is warranted. In particular, we believe that the interrogatories and document requests seeking information that may clarify -- 1) the classes of time that were sold to advertisers during the 1989 lowest unit charge periods; 2) whether certain classes were created only for candidates; and 3) the extent to which no charge and/or bonus spots were factored into Nationwide's calculation of lowest unit rates -- are relevant and should be allowed. In addition, because the circumstances under which certain documents were destroyed may have an impact on inferences to be drawn, we will also allow interrogatories which ask Nationwide to state when specific categories of documents were destroyed. See Appendix E. However, we will not require Nationwide to answer Complainants' interrogatories which appear to be overly broad, irrelevant, incomprehensible, and/or based on unsupported factual assertions. See Appendix F. Finally, because Young had no role whatsoever in the station's 1989 activities and apparently did not receive and does not possess any documents or other information relating to those activities, Young will not be required to answer any of Complainants' interrogatories, provide any documents, or answer the requested admission. Our specific rulings follow. 17. Questions directly relating to Overcharges. We will allow discovery on Complainants' interrogatories 1, 2, 3(a and b), 6, 7, 8(d-f), 9(b), 10 and 11. These interrogatories relate to the issue of preemption. Nationwide argues that all of the questions concerning preemption (interrogatories 1 through 11) are irrelevant. It disputes Complainants' contention that Lawton Chiles, Bob Martinez, and Bill Nelson (WTVT), 8 FCC Rcd 714, 715 (MMB 1993) ("WTVT(TV) Further Discovery Order"), where we allowed discovery on the issue of preemption, governs here. Rather, Nationwide believes that Lawton Chiles, Bob Martinez, Bill Nelson, and Jim Smith (WCIX- TV), 8 FCC Rcd 4019 (MMB 1993) controls. There, we determined that the complainants had not established a prima facie case of a violation of the lowest unit charge provisions because, inter alia, we concluded that the two-tiered rate structure offered only to candidates during the 1990 elections did not, standing alone, violate Section 315(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. See 8 FCC Rcd at 4020 6. However, in this proceeding, we are not now concerned with the legality of the station's offerings to political candidates. Rather, we are focusing on whether certain advertisers that supposedly bought a preemptible class of time actually bought the functional equivalent of fixed time and, if so, what impact that had on the determination of lowest unit charges. Accordingly, we will allow discovery on the issue of preemption to the extent indicated above. 18. However, we will not allow discovery on interrogatory 3(c) through 5. Interrogatory 3(c) is overly broad in that it asks Nationwide to list all spots that were preempted in 1989 even though many such spots would have absolutely no impact on lowest unit rates. Although interrogatory 4 generally relates to questions concerning preemption, the question itself and the exhibits upon which they rely are confusing at best. In this regard, we agree with Nationwide that the spots appearing in Exhibit B of the request, upon which interrogatory 4 is based, in part, are grouped in no rational order. This makes it difficult to comprehend the related interrogatory and fashion an appropriate answer. Finally, even assuming that many of the spots referenced in Exhibit B are relevant to a determination of lowest unit charges, it also appears that many are not. In this regard, there is no apparent connection between the classes and periods of time for many of the spots listed and spots purchased by Complainants. With regard to interrogatory 5, it appears that Nationwide has adequately answered it in its opposition. 19. Likewise, we will not allow discovery on interrogatories 8(a-c) and 9(a). Interrogatory 8(a-c) seeks information as to the priority the station assigned to trade, barter programs and other barter spots in making preemption decisions. However, we have previously stated that "trade-out" or barter deals not involving cash payments need not be taken into account in calculating lowest unit charges. Lawton Chiles, Bob Martinez, and Bill Nelson (WTVT), 9 FCC Rcd 1593, 1595 (MMB 1994), citing 1984 Political Primer, 100 FCC 2d at 1517. Accordingly, the interrogatory as framed seeks irrelevant information. With respect to interrogatory 9(a), Nationwide contends, and we agree, that the factual analysis upon which the interrogatory relies is inaccurate rendering the interrogatory incapable of being answered. 20. We will allow discovery on interrogatories 12 and 13. Those interrogatories ask Nationwide to explain various notes which appear on contracts supplied by Nationwide during discovery. Complainants submit that the referenced notes are not self-explanatory and that clarification is necessary to allow a determination whether the information is relevant to a lowest unit charge. Although Nationwide contends that the notes are self-explanatory to individuals who purchased time on behalf of candidates, we do not perceive how this justifies its refusal to explain the notes. Likewise, although the person who made the notes appearing on the document referenced in interrogatory 13 is no longer employed by Nationwide, this does not necessarily prevent Nationwide from explaining the notes. If it can do so, it should do so. 21. However, we will not allow discovery on interrogatories 14 through 18. As Nationwide notes, the referenced documents for interrogatories 14-17 are not included with Complainants' request, and it is unable to identify them. We will not require Nationwide to explain what it cannot see. As for interrogatory 18, Nationwide has provided an adequate explanation in its opposition and nothing further is required. 22. We will allow discovery on interrogatory 19. That interrogatory asks why there was no charge for referenced spots and whether those spots were factored into the station's lowest unit charge calculations. Although Nationwide submits that the spots on which Complainants seek a response render the interrogatory overly broad and unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant facts, we believe Nationwide should state whether the listed spots were considered in calculating the lowest unit rates. As the Commission stated in the 1984 Political Primer, 100 FCC 2d 1476, 1517 (1984), free spots "must be included in computing the station's charge for spots to the advertiser." Of course, if any of the spots were not considered or if Nationwide has no present knowledge whether such spots were considered in calculating the lowest unit rates, Nationwide can so state. 23. We will also allow discovery on interrogatories 20 through 22, 70 and 71. Generally, they seek to ascertain whether "news adjacencies" can reasonably be deemed a separate class, and whether the rates charged are the lowest unit rates whether or not the news adjacencies are a separate class. In addition to objecting to each on the ground of relevancy, Nationwide objects to interrogatories 20 and 21 because they cite documents (BB00372, 379 and 381) absent from Complainants' request Exhibit N. Although it is true that the documents themselves are not included in Exhibit N, Exhibit K of the request, together with Exhibit N, contain enough information for Nationwide to answer the interrogatories. In this regard, we note that Nationwide does not dispute that the price it charged for 6 - 7 p.m. news adjacency spots during the 60 days preceding the 1989 general election was $1,200, while the prices charged for segments within the news or at the end of the news varied between $65 and $800. Nationwide also objects to the interrogatories on the ground that in 1989 there was no prohibition on charging candidates more for a news adjacency spot than would be charged an advertiser for a spot within the news program. We disagree. In WTVT(TV) Further Discovery Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 715, we observed "broadcasters do not have total discretion to define the classes of time they offer to candidates, as this would allow stations to exclude candidates from the discount privileges offered commercial advertisers. Hernstadt v. FCC, 677 F.2d 893 (D.C. Cir. 1981)." Thus, where a station has established two separate classes of time which, in practice, have virtually the same benefits and values, candidates have been overcharged if they paid more than commercial advertisers purchasing time in the same time period. Although Nationwide contends that the Commission did not definitively decide until 1991 that news adjacencies could not be priced at rates higher than those in the news, citing Codification of Political Programming Policies, 7 FCC Rcd 4611 (1991), we view the Commission's statement as simply a reaffirmation of our prior policy in the area. See Codification of Commission's Political Programming Policies, 7 FCC 2d 678, 682-83 (1991); Political Programming Audit, 68 RR 2d 113 (1990). That policy barred the creation of "news adjacencies" that are sold only to candidates at premium rates. Accordingly, we conclude the interrogatories seek relevant information and we will allow discovery on them. 24. However, we will not allow discovery on interrogatory 23, which seeks information about "billboard" advertising for commercial advertisers. As Nationwide notes, the Commission has held that billboards are of de minimis value and need not be factored into the lowest unit charge. Further, they need not be offered to candidates. Codification of Political Programming Policies, 7 FCC Rcd at 4618. Accordingly, the interrogatory is irrelevant. 25. We will allow discovery on interrogatories 63 through 67. These interrogatories seek information on what documentation Nationwide reviewed in determining whether or not Complainants were entitled to rebates and whether rebates were actually made. Where the interrogatories, which rely on Exhibit L of Complainants' request, compare spots purchased by Complainants which are for the same class and time period with lower priced spots purchased by commercial advertisers, Nationwide should answer the interrogatories and explain why the referenced commercial spots do not establish the lowest unit rate. However, where Exhibit L contains inaccurate information, such as reference to spots purchased by Complainants which were fixed and hence a different class from the spots with which it is being compared, we conclude that Nationwide has already answered the interrogatories in its opposition and need not answer further. 26. Finally, we will allow discovery on interrogatory 68, which seeks the job title, current address and phone number of the persons Complainants wish to depose. Nationwide argues that Complainants have not established that depositions of these individuals are necessary. Although we are not, at present, allowing the depositions of these individuals (see, infra, at  32), there is no reason why Complainants should not be allowed to attempt informal interviews. Accordingly, if Nationwide knows the information requested, it can so inform Complainants. 27. Questions relating to Retention/Destruction of Records. We will allow discovery on interrogatories 46 through 60. These interrogatories seek information about Nationwide's policies and practices relating to the retention and disposal of specific classes of documents which are likely to contain relevant information as to what the lowest unit charges for various classes and periods of time should have been for the 1989 elections. Obviously, if the requested records were destroyed in the normal course of business prior to the filing of Complainants' complaint in this proceeding, Nationwide should not be held responsible for their unavailability and Complainants may well be unable to establish that overcharges occurred. Conversely, if Nationwide destroyed the requested records after receiving notice of Complainants' complaint, an inference may be drawn that information in those documents is unfavorable to arguments advanced by Nationwide. See, generally, F.R. Civ. Pro. 37(b)(2). 28. We will not allow discovery on interrogatories 24 through 45. They seek information about Nationwide's policies and practices relating to the retention and disposal of documents generally between 1989 and the present. Thus, they concern not only what Nationwide did and/or should have done with documents that are relevant to this proceeding -- for example, contracts, invoices and logs from 1989 which are likely to contain relevant information about lowest unit charges for the elections in 1989 -- but what Nationwide did with documents that have absolutely no bearing on the issue of overcharges in 1989. Likewise, we will not allow discovery on interrogatory 62, which seeks names of all advertisers and advertising agencies which bought time on the station between 1989 and the present. We agree with Nationwide that the interrogatories are overly broad. Moreover, we specifically warned that, "in the future, we will dismiss such interrogatories rather than modifying them to ensure that they are within the scope of the issue(s) established for discovery. Thus, we strongly advise future complainants to carefully craft their proposed discovery, and provide detailed justification for each section or subpart of a proposed interrogatory or document category, where necessary." WTVT(TV) Further Discovery Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 715, n. 11. Apparently, Complainants chose to ignore our warning. 29. Miscellaneous. Finally, we will not allow discovery on interrogatories 61 and 69, which seek information about arrangements and understandings between Nationwide and Young with respect the instant complaint. In this regard, Nationwide and Young have notified both us and Complainants that Nationwide has assumed responsibility for responding to Complainants' discovery requests in this proceeding. Complainants have not made any claim or showing that Young possesses any documents or specific information relating to the issue of overcharges, and Young has denied having any such documents and appears to have previously so informed Complainants. In short, the interrogatories have already been answered. 30. Request for Production of Documents. Complainants request production of two broad categories of documents. The first category calls for the production of "[a]ll documents specifying the basis for preemption policies." The request is clearly too broad in that it is not limited in time, and discovery on it will not be allowed. The second, however, is more focused, in that it seeks production of documents specified in answers to particular interrogatories. Thus, to the extent that discovery on an enumerated interrogatory is allowed, we will also allow discovery on the related document request. Accordingly, Nationwide shall produce documents specified in interrogatory 2 and 64 through 67. See Appendix G. Nationwide will not have to produce documents specified in interrogatories 3, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 and 61. See Appendix H. 31. Request for Depositions. Complainants request to take the depositions of four former employees of Nationwide. Three are alleged to have had a role in determining lowest unit charges for the station in 1989, while the fourth is alleged to have knowledge of when, why and how certain classes of documents were destroyed. Nationwide objects to the taking of depositions on two grounds. Nationwide submits it cannot be ordered to produce individuals who are no longer under its control. Nationwide also contends Complainants have failed to make, as to each requested individual, specific arguments which demonstrate the necessity of their testimony. See Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 7953 n. 8. We agree with both arguments. First, it is plain that Nationwide cannot compel the named individuals to appear for a deposition inasmuch as none of them now works for Nationwide. Indeed, it is unknown whether Nationwide can even locate them. Second, at this stage in the proceeding, it is by no means clear that Nationwide's documents and interrogatory answers, including those mandated by this Further Discovery Order, will not adequately provide Complainants with the information needed to establish overcharges in the event they actually occurred. We therefore conclude that Complainants have not demonstrated that testimony of any of the named witnesses is necessary. Accordingly, the request to take depositions is denied. 32. Request for Admission. Complainants ask that Nationwide admit or deny whether for commercial advertisers in 1989, preemptible spots were not always subject to preemption by higher- priced spots. Nationwide objects to the request on a variety of grounds, including form and relevance, and because the request supposedly calls for a conclusion of law. Because we have determined that discovery on the issue of preemption in 1989 is relevant to a determination of lowest unit charges in 1989, we will allow discovery on Complainants' admission request. See Appendix I. If Nationwide believes that a simple affirmation or denial is not an adequate response, it may provide whatever explanation it deems necessary. See, generally, Section 1.246(b) of the Commission's Rules. Complainants' Motions to Compel 33. In its first motion to compel, Complainants contend that Nationwide has contemptuously failed to produce a category of documents encompassed within our Order, namely, documents relating to political advertisers other than the Complainants. Complainants ask that we order Nationwide to produce the documents and take appropriate disciplinary action against Nationwide. Specifically, Complainants seek their attorneys' fees for the cost of bringing the instant motion. 34. In opposition, Nationwide explains it interpreted our Order to mean that it was required to produce documents relating to spots sold to Complainants and those sold to commercial advertisers, not those for other political advertisers or for "issue" advertisers. Nationwide states it has the contracts and political files for time sold to other candidates and controversial issue advertisers and will produce same to Complainants if so ordered. Nationwide submits its interpretation of our Orderis not unreasonable and that, in any event, the Commission has no authority to award attorneys' fees, citing Turner v. FCC, 514 F.2d 1354, 1356 (D.C. Cir. 1975). 35. We will order Nationwide to produce documents relating to spots sold to political advertisers other than Complainants as well as documents relating to spots sold to issue advertisers. We believe our Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 7954 at Appendix A, 3 called for the production of these documents, and our use of the term "commercial time" was meant to cover all commercials, including those sold to candidates other than the Complainants as well as those sold to so-called issue advertisers. At the same time, we have no reason to believe that Nationwide's interpretation, which excluded political advertisers other than the Complainants as well as issue advertisers, was so unreasonable as to suggest bad faith. Accordingly, we conclude that sanctions of any kind are not appropriate. Conclusion 36. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that Nationwide's request for further discovery IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND IS OTHERWISE DENIED and Complainants must produce the documents set forth in Appendix A and respond to the interrogatories set forth in Appendix C within 10 days of the date of release of this Further Discovery Order. Complainants need not produce the documents set forth in Appendix B nor need they respond to the interrogatories set forth in Appendix D. 37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Complainants' request for further discovery IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND IS OTHERWISE DENIED and Nationwide must respond to the interrogatories set forth in Appendix E and produce the documents set forth in Appendix G, and respond to the request for admission set forth in Appendix I by the date of set forth in Appendix J of this Further Discovery Order. Nationwide need not respond to the interrogatories set forth in Appendix F, nor produce the documents set forth in Appendix H. Nationwide need not produce anyone for deposition. Young need not respond to any of Complainants' further discovery requests. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Complainants' motion to for protective order IS DISMISSED AS MOOT; that Complainants' motion to strike IS DENIED; and that Complainants' motions to compel ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT HEREIN AND ARE OTHERWISE DENIED, and Nationwide is to produce the documents described in paragraph 34 above within 10 days of release of this Further Discovery Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED TO NATIONWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Certain documents shall be produced by Complainants to Nationwide Communications, Inc. ("Nationwide"), by delivering them to the offices of Edward W. Hummers, Jr., Esquire, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 N. 17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209. The documents to be produced are as follows: 1. All Documents received by Complainants from Nationwide that refer to, describe, discuss or concern the purchase of time on the Station with regard to the Elections. 2. All Documents of Complainants communicated to Nationwide with regard to the Elections. 4. All Documents that refer to, describe, discuss or concern the spot time purchase strategy or plan of Complainants for the Elections. 5. All Documents that refer to, describe, discuss, concern or analyze the effectiveness of Complainants television advertising campaign for the Elections. 6. The "buy records" analyzed by Leslie J. Edelstein and referred to in her Declaration of March 22, 1993, which was attached to the Complaint in this proceeding. For definitions of terms and instructions, Complainants should consult "Initial Request of Nationwide Communications, Inc. for Document Production," dated March 7, 1995. APPENDIX B DOCUMENTS COMPLAINANTS NEED NOT PRODUCE 3. All Documents that refer to, describe, discuss or concern the class of spot time desired to be purchased by Complainants on television stations operating in the Richmond television market. APPENDIX C INTERROGATORIES TO BE ANSWERED BY COMPLAINANTS The following interrogatories propounded by Nationwide shall be answered by Complainants, by delivering the answers to the offices of Edward W. Hummers, Jr., Esquire, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 N. 17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209. The interrogatories to be answered are as follows: 1. State the name, employer and address of each person responsible for the purchase of spot time on the Station for the Elections on behalf of Wilder. 9. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, state whether that person ever specifically requested to purchase preemptible spot time from the Station for the Primary Election, and, if so: (a) identify each such time; (b) how the request was made; and (c) to whom the request was made. 10. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, state whether that person ever specifically requested to purchase preemptible spot time from the Station for the General Election, and, if so: (a) identify each such time; (b) how the request was made; and (c) to whom the request was made. 13. State the name, employer and address of each person responsible for the purchase of spot time on the Station for the Elections on behalf of Coleman. 21. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 13, state whether that person ever specifically requested to purchase preemptible spot time from the Station for the Primary Election, and, if so: (a) identify each such time; (b) how the request was made; and (c) to whom the request was made. 22. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 13, state whether that person ever specifically requested to purchase preemptible spot time from the Station for the General Election, and, if so: (a) identify each such time; (b) how the request was made; and (c) to whom the request was made. For definitions of terms and instructions, Complainants should consult "Initial Interrogatories of Nationwide Communications, Inc. to L. Douglas Wilder and Marshall Coleman," dated March 7, 1995. APPENDIX D INTERROGATORIES COMPLAINANTS NEED NOT ANSWER Complainants need not answer the following interrogatories propounded by Nationwide: 2. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, describe the experience and expertise of such person at the time of the Elections with regard to the purchase of spot time: (a) on the Station; and (b) on television stations generally. 3. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, state that person's understanding of the meaning of the term "fixed spot time" as used: (a) by the Station; and (b) by the television industry generally. 4. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, state that person's understanding of the meaning of the term "preemptible spot time" as used: (a) by the Station; and (b) by the television industry generally. 5. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, identify any documents setting forth the strategy or plan of Wilder for the purchase of television advertising time for the Primary Election: (a) in the Commonwealth of Virginia; (b) in the Richmond television market; and (c) on the Station. 6. In the event the response to Interrogatory 5 is that no such documents exist, have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, describe the strategy or plan of Wilder under which that person purchased television advertising time for the Primary Election: (a) in the Commonwealth of Virginia; (b) in the Richmond television market; and (c) on the Station. 7. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, identify any documents setting forth the strategy or plan of Wilder for the purchase of television advertising time for the General Election: (a) in the Commonwealth of Virginia; (b) in the Richmond television market; and (c) on the Station. 8. In the event the response to Interrogatory 7 is that no such documents exist, have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, describe the strategy or plan of Wilder under which that person purchased television advertising time for the General Election: (a) in the Commonwealth of Virginia; (b) in the Richmond television market; and (c) on the Station. 11. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, state: (a) whether that person ever purchased fixed spot time for the Elections on behalf of Wilder on any other television station in the Richmond television market; and (b) if so, for which of the Elections and on what stations. 12. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1, state: (a) whether that person ever purchased preemptible spot time for the Elections on behalf of Wilder on any other television station in the Richmond television market; and (b) if so, for which of the Elections and on what stations. 14. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 13, describe the experience and expertise of such person at the time of the Elections with regard to the purchase of spot time: (a) on the Station; and (b) on television stations generally. 15. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 13, state that person's understanding of the meaning of the term "fixed spot time" as used: (a) by the Station; and (b) by the television industry generally. 16. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 13, state that person's understanding of the meaning of the term "preemptible spot time" as used: (a) by the Station; and (b) by the television industry generally. 17. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 13, identify any documents setting forth the strategy or plan of Coleman for the purchase of television advertising time for the Primary Election: (a) in the Commonwealth of Virginia; (b) in the Richmond television market; and (c) on the Station. 18. In the event the response to Interrogatory 17 is that no such documents exist, have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 13, describe the strategy or plan of Coleman under which that person purchased television advertising time for the Primary Election: (a) in the Commonwealth of Virginia; (b) in the Richmond television market; and (c) on the Station. 19. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 13, identify any documents setting forth the strategy or plan of Coleman for the purchase of television advertising time for the General Election: (a) in the Commonwealth of Virginia; (b) in the Richmond television market; and (c) on the Station. 23. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 13, state: (a) whether that person ever purchased fixed spot time for the Elections on behalf of Coleman on any other television station in the Richmond television market; and (b) if so, for which of the Elections and on what stations. 24. Have each person identified in response to Interrogatory 13, state: (a) whether that person ever purchased preemptible spot time for the Elections on behalf of Coleman on any other television station in the Richmond television market; and (b) if so, for which of the Elections and on what stations. APPENDIX E INTERROGATORIES TO BE ANSWERED BY NATIONWIDE The following interrogatories propounded by Complainants shall be answered by Nationwide, by delivering the answers to the offices of Robert S. Kahn, Esquire, Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, 166 Anderson Street, Suite 225, Marietta, Georgia 30060. The interrogatories to be answered are as follows: 1. Completely and comprehensively state each and every factor considered by WRIC in determining whether a particular commercial or political spot would be preempted in 1989. 2. In reference to the preemption of political and commercial advertising on WRIC during 1989: a. Provide the name and job title of all employees who were involved in preemption decisions. b. State with sufficient particularity, so that each document can be later identified, all documents which would be generated by the station to record the fact of preemption. c. State with sufficient particularity, so that each document can be later identified, all documents which would be generated by the station to inform the advertiser of preemption. d. State what guidelines or rules (written or oral) have been developed by WRIC for use in making preemption decisions. 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a list of all spots contained in the documents produced by WRIC that failed to run as ordered. Regarding Exhibit B, please explain: a. Which of the spots listed in Exhibit B were preempted in favor of higher-priority spots. b. Which of the spots in Exhibit B failed to run for other reasons, such as a decision by an advertiser to withdraw the spot from the air, or failure of the spot to run for technical or logistical reasons. 6. When a spot is preempted, and a makegood is scheduled, are the chances of preemption of the makegood greater than, less than, or the same as a non-makegood spot of another advertiser costing the same? 7. Under what circumstances would a higher-priced spot be preempted in favor of a lower-priced spot. 8. In making preemption decisions, what priority is assigned to these types of spots: d. Bonus weight or compensatory spots; e. Spots purchased as part of package plan; f. Other charge spots. 9. In many of the examples set forth in Exhibit B, two or more spots ran, while a spot costing the same failed to run. For example, Document BB00607 indicates that Vax Appliances ordered a 6-7a spot on 9/20 for $25, and the spot failed to run. Document BB00707 indicates that a Merchant Square spot ran for $25 during the same period. Document BB00019 indicates that a Bell Atl spot for the 6-7p news costing $350 failed to run on 9/18, while a Lawrence Motors spot costing the same ran on the same day (Document BB00798). b. In general, when spots cost the same, and one needs to be preempted, how did WRIC determine which spot to preempt? 10. What impact does the date of placing an order have on preemption priorities? 11. WRIC produced four political ratecards. Three of the ratecards, attached as Exhibits E, F and G, contain two rates, "fixed" and pre-emptible." A fourth ratecard, attached as Exhibit H, contains two rates, "fixed" and "pre-emptible with notice." Regarding these ratecards, please explain: a. The meaning of the term "fixed." b. The meaning of the term "pre-emptible." c. The meaning of the term "pre-emptible with notice." d. The difference between "pre-emptible" and "pre-emptible with notice." 12. Attached as Exhibit I is a summary of notes contained on contracts. The notes are not self- explanatory. The portion of each note giving rise to a question is underlined. Explain these notes. 13. Document BB01163 contains handwritten notes. a. Identify the author or authors of the handwritten notes. b. Transcribe the handwritten notes and explain what they mean. 19. Exhibit J contains a list of "no charge" spots. For each spot: a. Please explain why there was no charge. b. Please indicate whether these no charge spots were factored into lowest unit charge calculations. 20. In the general election, the rate for the 630pm and 7pm news adjacencies was $1200. During this period, the price for the 6-7pm news ranged from $65 to $800, as set forth in Exhibit K. No charge spots also aired. Some of these rates include specific times within the news, such as weather or sports (Document BB00372 indicates that Sears was charged $300 for the sports). Please explain: a. How WRIC arrived at this rate. b. How WRIC can justify charging this rate, in light of rates charged inside the news. c. How WRIC can justify charging this rate, in light of rates charged for specific segments of the news. d. When the 630pm adjacency break was scheduled. e. When the 700pm adjacency break was scheduled. 21. Documents BB00379 and BB00381 indicate that the National Rifle Association paid $800 for a 7pm break. Please explain why this rate does not set the lowest unit rate for the early news adjacencies. 22. The ratecards indicate that the rate for the 11pm news adjacency is based on the "prime program rate." Please explain: a. For a commercial advertiser ordering the 11pm news, is it possible to run just prior to 11pm (e.g., 10:58pm) by paying the rate for the 11pm news? b. If the answer to subpart a is yes, why did WRIC not allow candidates to order the 11pm news, and take their chances of airing at 10:58 or 11:28? c. When the pre-11pm adjacency break was scheduled. d. When the post-11pm adjacency break was scheduled. 46. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the contracts for Paul Tribble, 1989 candidate for Governor of Virginia, were destroyed. 47. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the contracts for Stan Parris, 1989 candidate for Governor of Virginia, were destroyed. 48. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the contracts for Don Beyer, 1989 candidate for Lt. Governor of Virginia, were destroyed. 49. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the contracts for Eddy Dalton, 1989 candidate for Lt. Governor of Virginia, were destroyed. 50. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the contracts for Mary Sue Terry, 1989 candidate for Attorney General of Virginia, were destroyed. 51. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the contracts for Joe Benedetti, 1989 candidate for Attorney General of Virginia, were destroyed. 52. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the invoices for Douglas Wilder, 1989 candidate for Governor of Virginia, were destroyed. 53. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the invoices for Paul Tribble, 1989 candidate for Governor of Virginia, were destroyed. 54. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the invoices for Stan Parris, 1989 candidate for Governor of Virginia, were destroyed. 55. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the invoices for Don Beyer, 1989 candidate for Lt. Governor of Virginia, were destroyed. 56. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the invoices for Eddy Dalton, 1989 candidate for Lt. Governor of Virginia, were destroyed. 57. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the invoices for Mary Sue Terry, 1989 candidate for Attorney General of Virginia, were destroyed. 58. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when the invoices for Joe Benedetti, 1989 candidate for Attorney General of Virginia, were destroyed. 59. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when station logs covering the period April 28, 1989 through June 12, 1989 were destroyed. 60. State the date (or if you are unable to state the exact date, state the approximate time) when station logs covering the period September 7, 1989 through November 6, 1989 were destroyed. 63. In response to Interrogatory 3 of the Order (attached as Exhibit A), WRIC stated, "The class of spot only be judged by the rate charged." Attached as Exhibit L are examples of candidate spots that, based on the ratecard (Exhibit G), were purchased at preemptible rates. Exhibit L also includes commercial spots that cleared at rates lower than the candidate-preemptible rates. Please explain: a. What rebates, if any, were issued in connection with the 1989 election. b. The spots for which rebates were issued. c. The dates such rebates were made. d. Whether the station issued rebates for the spots set forth in Exhibit L. 64. For each spot identified in Interrogatory 63 for which a rebate was not issued, completely and comprehensively a. Explain why no rebate was given. b. Explain how the rate for each spot is the lowest unit charge. c. Identify any witnesses to any of the facts in subsection a or b. d. List any documents to support the answers to subsections a or b. 65. In response to Interrogatory 2 of the Order, WRIC stated, "By letter of May 29, 1991, Mr. Hummers advised Mr. Kahn that 'we have reviewed the contracts and invoices for the commercial time purchased in 1989 on behalf of the Marshall Coleman Campaign Committee and we have concluded that the rates charged comply and are consistent with the rules governing the rates to be charged political candidates.'" Regarding this statement, please a. Indicate if, in response to Interrogatory 63, rebates had not been issued, why this statement was made. b. State with sufficient particularity, so that each document can be later identified, all documents (i) Supplied by WRIC to Mr. Hummers on which Mr. Hummers based this statement. (ii) All contracts and invoices reviewed by WRIC in connection with this conclusion. 66. In response to Interrogatory 2 of the Order, WRIC stated, "By letter of June 10, 1992, Mr. Hummers responded to the April 20, 1992 letter of Mr. Kahn that '[w]e have again reviewed the records and we are convinced that the Coleman Committee was charged the lowest unit rate for the classes, time and periods purchased.'" Regarding this statement, please a. Indicate if, in response to Interrogatory 63, rebates had not been issued, why this statement was made. b. State with sufficient particularity, so that each document can be later identified, all documents (i) Supplied by WRIC to Mr. Hummers on which Mr. Hummers based this statement. (ii) All contracts and invoices reviewed by WRIC in connection with this conclusion. 67. In response to Interrogatory 2 of the Order, WRIC stated, "Subsequent to the July 22, 1992 letter of Mr. Kahn to Mr. Hummers advising that Mr. Kahn was retained by the Wilder for Governor Committee, a review of the rates charged Douglas Wilder was made and the station confirmed that the candidate had been charged the lowest unit rate for the classes, time and periods purchased." Regarding this statement, please a. Indicate if, in response to Interrogatory 63, rebates had not been issued, why this statement was made. b. State with sufficient particularity, so that each document can be later identified, all documents (i) Supplied by WRIC to Mr. Hummers on which Mr. Hummers based this statement. (ii) All contracts and invoices reviewed by WRIC in connection with this conclusion. 68. Provide the job title and current address and phone number of the following individuals: Jack Porray Claudia Brooks Joseph Lewin Tim Frame 70. For the early news (6-7pm), please indicate when commercial breaks are scheduled. In answering this interrogatory, please include pre- and post-program breaks. 71. For the late news (11-1130pm), please indicate when commercial breaks are scheduled. In answering this interrogatory, please include pre- and post-program breaks. APPENDIX F INTERROGATORIES NATIONWIDE NEED NOT ANSWER 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a list of all spots contained in the documents produced by WRIC that failed to run as ordered. Regarding Exhibit B, please explain: c. In addition to the spots listed in Exhibit B, list all spots that were preempted during 1989. 4. For certain spots contained in Exhibit B, lower priced spots ran, while the indicated higher- priced spots did not run. Attached as Exhibit C are examples of higher-priced spots that failed to run, together with a list of lower-priced spots that ran. For each higher-priced spot that failed to run because of preemption by spots costing less or the same, as listed in Exhibits B and C, explain in detail why each spot that failed to run was a lower priority although a higher price. 5. Attached as Exhibit D are examples of higher-priced candidate spots that failed to run, together with a list of lower-priced spots that ran. a. For each higher-priced spot that failed to run because of preemption by spots costing less or the same, as listed in Exhibit D, explain in detail why each spot that failed to run was a lower priority although a higher price. b. If spots such as those listed in Exhibit D were bought at fixed rates and were preempted, what was the benefit of buying at fixed rates? 8. In making preemption decisions, what priority is assigned to these types of spots: a. Trade: b. Barter programs and/or promotional announcements for WRIC; c. Other barter spots. 9. In many of the examples set forth in Exhibit B, two or more spots ran, while a spot costing the same failed to run. For example, Document BB00607 indicates that Vax Appliances ordered a 6-7 a spot on 9/20 for $25, and the spot failed to run. Document BB00707 indicates that a Merchant Square spot ran for $25 during the same period. Document BB00019 indicates that a Bell Atl spot for the 6-7p news costing $350 failed to run on 9/18, while a Lawrence Motors spot costing the same ran on the same day (Document BB00798). a. For these examples, explain why some spots ran while others failed to run. 14. Document BB01230 includes this note. "Line 1 - from $90 to $145." Please explain why the rate was increased. 15. Document BB01237 contains handwritten notes. a. Identify the author or authors of the handwritten notes. b. Transcribe the handwritten notes and explain what they mean. 16. Document BB01382 designates two spots as "Replacement." Please explain this designation. 17. Document BB01621 contains this statement: "ALSO NOTE THAT THE BUYER HAS ONCE AGAIN BEEN REMINDED THAT LATE NEWS MUST BE ORDERED FOR 7 DAYS." Please explain this statement. 18. Document BB00001 labels certain contracts "COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS NATIONAL." Document BB00534 labels certain contracts "COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS LOCAL." a. Explain the meaning of "COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS NATIONAL." b. Explain the meaning of "COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS LOCAL." c. Explain the difference between "COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS NATIONAL" and "COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS LOCAL." 23. For certain news spots, WRIC included a 5 second billboard, in addition to the 30 second spot. For example, document BB00322 indicates that an advertiser paid $300 for a 30 second spot on the late news (1115-1130p), and was charged nothing for [a] 5 second billboard. Document BB00928 indicates that an advertiser paid $475 for an early news spot, and was charged nothing for a 5 second billboard. Please explain how the 5 second billboard was factored into lowest unit charge calculations. 24. Completely and comprehensively detail all policies used by the station between 1989 and present regarding the general retention and disposal of documents. 25. If the policy or policies enumerated by you in the previous interrogatory was in writing (whether hardcopy or machine-readable), then: a. Describe each document by (i) Identifying the author or authors; (ii) Identifying all recipients; (iii) Specifying any date that appears on the document which would indicate the date of authorship, distribution or in some other way serves to identify the document; (iv) Specifying the title, heading or other categorization which appears on the document; (v) Specifying all locations where the document can presently be found or where it is stored. b. State the name, address and telephone number of every person who now had custody of each document; c. State the names, addresses and telephone number of all people who ever were given custody of either the documents or copies of the documents; d. State the job title and description of duties for every person named by you in your response to subparts (b) and (c) of this interrogatory. 26. Completely and comprehensively detail all policies used by the station between 1989 and present regarding the retention and disposal of contracts for commercial (herein defined as non- political) advertisers. 27. If the policy or policies enumerated by you in the previous interrogatory was in writing (whether hardcopy or machine-readable), then: a. Describe each document by (i) Identifying the author or authors; (ii) Identifying all recipients; (iii) Specifying any date that appears on the document which would indicate the date of authorship, distribution or in some other way serves to identify the document; (iv) Specifying the title, heading or other categorization which appears on the document; (v) Specifying all locations where the document can presently be found or where it is stored. b. State the name, address and telephone number of every person who now had custody of each document; c. State the names, addresses and telephone number of all people who ever were given custody of either the documents or copies of the documents; d. State the job title and description of duties for every person named by you in your response to subparts (b) and (c) of this interrogatory. 28. Completely and comprehensively detail all policies used by the station between 1989 and present regarding the retention and disposal of contracts for political advertisers. 29. If the policy or policies enumerated by you in the previous interrogatory was in writing (whether hardcopy or machine-readable), then: a. Describe each document by (i) Identifying the author or authors; (ii) Identifying all recipients; (iii) Specifying any date that appears on the document which would indicate the date of authorship, distribution or in some other way serves to identify the document; (iv) Specifying the title, heading or other categorization which appears on the document; (v) Specifying all locations where the document can presently be found or where it is stored. b. State the name, address and telephone number of every person who now had custody of each document; c. State that names, addresses and telephone number of all people who ever were given custody of either the documents or copies of the documents; d. State the job title and description of duties for every person named by you in your response to subparts (b) and (c) of this interrogatory. 30. Completely and comprehensively detail all policies used by the station between 1989 and present regarding the retention and disposal of invoices for commercial (i.e., non-political) advertisers. 31. If the policy or policies enumerated by you in the previous interrogatory was in writing (whether hardcopy or machine-readable), then: a. Describe each document by (i) Identifying the author or authors; (ii) Identifying all recipients; (iii) Specifying any date that appears on the document which would indicate the date of authorship, distribution or in some other way serves to identify the document; (iv) Specifying the title, heading or other categorization which appears on the document; (v) Specifying all locations where the document can presently be found or where it is stored. b. State the name, address and telephone number of every person who now had custody of each document; c. State the names, addresses and telephone number of all people who ever were given custody of either the documents or copies of the documents; d. State the job title and description of duties for every person named by you in your response to subparts (b) and (c) of this interrogatory. 32. Completely and comprehensively detail all policies used by the station between 1989 and present regarding the retention and disposal of invoices for political advertisers. 33. If the policy or policies enumerated by you in the previous interrogatory was in writing (whether hardcopy or machine-readable), then: a. Describe each document by (i) Identifying the author or authors; (ii) Identifying all recipients; (iii) Specifying any date that appears on the document which would indicate the date of authorship, distribution or in some other way serves to identify the document; (iv) Specifying the title, heading or other categorization which appears on the document; (v) Specifying all locations where the document can presently be found or where it is stored. b. State the name, address and telephone number of every person who now had custody of each document; c. State that names, addresses and telephone number of all people who ever were given custody of either the documents or copies of the documents; d. State the job title and description of duties for every person named by you in your response to subparts (b) and (c) of this interrogatory. 34. Completely and comprehensively detail all policies used by the station between 1989 and present regarding the retention and disposal of station logs. 35. If the policy or policies enumerated by you in the previous interrogatory was in writing (whether hardcopy or machine-readable), then: a. Describe each document by (i) Identifying the author or authors; (ii) Identifying all recipients; (iii) Specifying any date that appears on the document which would indicate the date of authorship, distribution or in some other way serves to identify the document; (iv) Specifying the title, heading or other categorization which appears on the document; (v) Specifying all locations where the document can presently be found or where it is stored. b. State the name, address and telephone number of every person who now had custody of each document; c. State that names, addresses and telephone number of all people who ever were given custody of either the documents or copies of the documents; d. State the job title and description of duties for every person named by you in your response to subparts (b) and (c) of this interrogatory. 36. State the name, job title, address and telephone number of each individual responsible for making decisions regarding retention or disposal of contracts for commercial (i.e., non-political) advertisers between 1989 and [the] present. 37. State the name, job title, address and telephone number of each individual responsible for making decisions regarding retention or disposal of contracts for political advertisers between 1989 and [the] present. 38. State the name, job title, address and telephone number of each individual responsible for making decisions regarding retention or disposal of invoices for commercial (i.e., non-political) advertisers between 1989 and [the] present. 39. State the name, job title, address and telephone number of each individual responsible for making decisions regarding retention or disposal of invoices for political advertisers between 1989 and [the] present. 40. State the name, job title, address and telephone number of each individual responsible for making decisions regarding retention or disposal of station logs between 1989 and [the] present. 41. State the name, job title, address and telephone number of all individuals who participated in the disposal of contracts for commercial (i.e., non-political) advertisers between 1989 and [the] present. 42. State the name, job title, address and telephone number of all individuals who participated in the disposal of contracts for political advertisers between 1989 and [the] present. 43. State the name, job title, address and telephone number of all individuals who participated in the disposal of invoices for commercial (i.e., non-political) advertisers between 1989 and [the] present. 44. State the name, job title, address and telephone number of all individuals who participated in the disposal of invoices for political advertisers between 1989 and [the] present. 45. State the name, job title, address and telephone number of all individuals who participated in the disposal of station logs between 1989 and [the] present. 61. In 1994, WRIC was sold by Nationwide Communications to Young Broadcasting. State with sufficient particularity, so that each document can be later identified a. All documents made available by the seller to the buyer in connection with the buyer's due diligence review of WRIC's records prior to the closing, related to WRIC's invoices, contracts, or station logs for 1989; b. All documents reviewed by the buyer prior to the closing, related to WRIC's invoices, contracts or station logs for 1989. 62. Please provide names, addresses and telephone numbers of all advertisers and advertising agencies placing time on WRIC for the period 1989 to [the] present. 69. On January 11, 1995, a letter was sent to the FCC on behalf of WRIC and its new owner, Young Broadcasting. The letter is attached as Exhibit M. The letter notes, "The pendency of the subject political broadcasting complaint was previously disclosed to YBI by Nationwide and Nationwide has assumed all responsibility for its further prosecution before the Commission." Regarding this letter: a. Please detail the nature of the disclosure of the pendency of the Complaint. b. Please detail any agreements regarding responsibility for any liabilities arising out of the Complaint. c. State with sufficient particularity, so that each document can be later identified, all documents generated by the buyer and/or the seller in connection with the disclosure of the Complaint. d. State with sufficient particularity, so that each document can be later identified, all documents generated by the buyer and/or the seller in connection with the seller's assumption of responsibility for the prosecution of the Complaint before the Commission. e. State with sufficient particularity, so that each document can be later identified, all documents generated by the buyer and/or the seller in connection with the seller's assumption of any liabilities arising out of the Complaint. APPENDIX G DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED TO COMPLAINANTS The following documents requested by Complainants shall be produced by Nationwide, by delivering the documents to the offices of Robert S. Kahn, Esquire, Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, 166 Anderson Street, Suite 225, Marietta, Georgia 30060. The documents to be produced are as follows: 2. All documents specified in answer to Interrogatories 2, 3(a and b), 64, 65, 66 and 67. APPENDIX H DOCUMENTS NATIONWIDE NEED NOT PRODUCE 1. All documents specifying the basis for preemption policies. 2. All documents specified in answer to Interrogatories 3(c), 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 and 61. APPENDIX I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION Nationwide is to admit or deny, as appropriate, the following statement: For commercial advertisers in 1989, preemptible spots were not always subject to preemption by higher-priced spots. APPENDIX J REVISED TIMETABLE FOR DISCOVERY AND POST-DISCOVERY Documents and answers to written interrogatories (if allowed by Bureau) pursuant to station's request for discovery due: Day 45 (deemed to be 10 days after release of Further Discovery Order in this proceeding) Production of additional documents and/or answers to additional written interrogatories (if allowed by Bureau) pursuant to complainants' request for further discovery due: Day 60 Final day of discovery period: Day 60 Complainants' amended complaint due: Day 90 Station's answer to amended complaint due: Day 105 Joint notice of election of complaint resolution procedure due: Day 116