Why is Nevada's PUC Intentionally Ignoring Plaintiff's Public Records Request Regarding Litigation?

CARSON CITY, Nev. - July 18, 2016 - PRLog -- On July 12, 2016, litigation commenced in United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case #2:16-cv-01629-JCM-CWH, regarding, Switch, Ltd. v. PUC of Nevada; PUC Regulatory Operations Staff, Carolyn 'Lina' Tanner, Esq., an individual, et al. Tanner is the former General Counsel of the Public Utilities Commission.

Paragraph 31 of the Complaint:  "Thereafter, Switch submitted a Nevada Open Records Act request to the PUCN on June 28, 2016, and again on July 1, 2016, pursuant to NRS 239.0107, requesting information related to this Complaint . . .Switch has yet to receive any documents from the PUCN."

Whatever records were requested pertinent to PUCN activities, Tanner (before her June 16, 2016 'resignation') apparently directed her two Assistant General Counsels to respond with demands for outlandish fees from records requesters.  While the PUCN can charge a 'reasonable' fee, here are both Assistant General Counsels' calculations:

May 7, 2014, Garrett Weir, Assistant General Counsel
Use of Personnel

160 hours to locate, copy and redact travel and training documents
(160 hours x $22.23/hour) =$3,556.80
160 hours to locate/copy invoices and checks
(160 hours x $16.57/hour) =$2,651.20
20 hours for legal review
(20 hours x $49.91/hour) =$998.20
Total: $7,206.20

July 12, 2016, Hayley Williamson, Assistant General Counsel
Use of Personnel

Unspecified "hours of staff time and three weeks to comply".
Initial Estimate of $57.50 for copies, which could increase, even though 105 pages had been determined to comply with records request. While claiming it would take three weeks to produce the documents, Williamson was able to respond with fees in less than five days. Since there were multiple request dates that would have allowed for a more professional response regarding fees.

Over half of these two open records requests were for e-mails and in digital, not paper form.  Some of the other requests were for their internal manual which is online, outside activities which are written etc. Because the number of copies had been pre-determined, there should be no excessive time for research, copying or delay in providing these documents. Every item requested was via electronic submission and nothing under Nevada Open Records Request would be deemed confidential, negating the claim of potential redaction.

The e-mails from the July 12, 2016 request would provide proof of certain activities the PUCN had failed to perform under the state open meeting law.

Williamson has proven that she is biased and selective, as to who she generously responds to regarding Open Records Request, while fully providing the requested information, question remaining, did she charge them?

On February 21, 2016, (a Sunday), a blogger provided the emails that they requested from the PUC, with the last email dated February 16^th. Three days, full compliance, when it involves someone that is not auditing their concerted stealth activities.

In addition, the public has already paid to generate these records and should not be required to pay an excessive fee to access public records.

If and when the PUCN decides to provide requested records to Switch, the surcharges are likely to be just as inflated and intentionally vague as those disclosed on May 7, 2014 and July 12, 2016.