Attachment Telesat req dismiss

Telesat req dismiss

OTHER submitted by Telesat Canada

Request for Dismissial

2002-02-08

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20010518-00045 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2001051800045_906938

Before the Federal Communications Commission coPY Washington, DC 20554 HEC,H YELC: FEB — 8 2002 PENERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISRICH OPFICE oF ThE secnstamw In the Matter of DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. File I*\Io.‘ SAT—LOA—20010518—00045 Application to Launch and Operate a Direct Broadcast Satellite Service Space Station TELESAT CANADA REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF THE EX PARTE RESPONSE OF DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, INC. OR APPROVAL TO FILE REPLY Telesat Canada ("Telesat"), by its attorneys, requests that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") dismiss the ex parte‘ response of DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. ("DIRECTV") filed on January 28, 2002 or, alternatively, accept the attached reply. The Commission should dismiss DIRECTV‘s ex parte response because it was filed after the end of the customary pleading cycle established by Section 1.106 of the FCC‘s rules for reconsideration of licensing decisions and without a request for approval." This is the second time that DIRECTV has filed a pleading in this proceeding in violation of the rules." 3 Such disregard for the agency‘s pleading rules threatens the public interest in having the Commission bring this j This proceeding is "ex parte restricted" under the Commission rules. 47 C.F.R. §1.1208. Telesat notes, however, that DIRECTV served its response on Telesat and thus the reply was not "ex parte." 47 C.F.R. §1.1202(b) (an "ex parte presentation" is any written presentation that is not served on the parties to the proceeding). § 47 C.F.R. §1.106 (authorizing an interested party to file an opposition to a petition for reconsideration, the petitioner to file a reply and no further pleadings). * As noted in Telesat‘s December 18, 2001 Reply, DIRECTV previously filed its Response to Telesat‘s Petition for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Reconsideration more than one week late and without a motion for extension of time. 47 C.F.R. §1.46.

13. proceeding to a conclusion and the Commission‘s interest in keeping the filing of pleadings to established boundaries. Alternatively, Telesat respectfully requests Commussion approval to file the attached reply.* Commission consideration of this reply will clarify the record consistent with the FCC‘s rules, whi;:h contemplate an opportunity for Telesat to reply to any opposition of DIRECTV to Telesat‘s petition for reconsideration." | Respectfully submitted, Telesat Canada By: \Q/—Qw\ B \MM Bert W. Rein Carl R. Frank Jennifer D. Hindin of Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP 1776 K Street, NW. Washington, DC 20006—2304 (202) 719—7000 February 8, 2002 Its Attorneys * 47 C.F.R. §1.45(c). * 47 C.F.R. §1.106.

—3 . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Request was delivered via first—class mail, on this 8th day of February, 2002 to each of the following: Gary M. Epstein Tom Tycz* James H. Barker Rockie Patterson* Latham & Watkins Jennifer Gilsenan* 555 11‘ Street, N.W. Steven Spaeth* Suite 1100 Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20004 445 12"" Street, S.W. Counselfor DIRECTVY Enterprises, Inc. ?hingt,on, DC 20554 / Claudia L. Cartagena *via hand—delivery


Document Created: 2011-07-20 17:33:57
Document Modified: 2011-07-20 17:33:57
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC