Justifications definition
Justifications. See general justification. The reply report prepared by ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ refers to an unidentified IFT publication covering plans and rates for fixed-line services, which also serves as the source for “Table 15”. The Respondent will observe that, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the IBA Rules (which apply in this case pursuant to PO 1, section 20.3 the expert reports shall contain inter alia: the “Documents on which the Party- Appointed Expert relies that have not already been submitted shall be provided”. IFT publication covering plans and rates for fixed-line services analysed and used by ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ in his second expert report constitutes one of such documents. The requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome because they are necessary to properly evaluate and challenge assertions made in the expert report The requested document may be in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent, however, without any identification details, it is impossible for the Respondent to conclude whether or not it is in its possession. The Respondent believes that the requested document exists and is in the Claimants’ possession, custody or control because it is referenced in ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ second expert report.
Justifications. As noted in the request, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ states that his estimations regarding Tele Fácil’s “but-for international termination traffic” are based on “actual Future Telecom traffic” (¶8, bullet 3) and “actual international termination rates paid by Future Telecom” (¶8, bullet 6). However, he did not include the source documents used for the “actual Future Telecom traffic” or the “actual international rates paid by Future Telecom”. The Respondent will observe that, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the IBA Rules (which apply in this case pursuant to PO 1, section 20.3 the expert reports shall contain inter alia: the “Documents on which the Party- Appointed Expert relies that have not already been submitted shall be provided”. The documents containing the data relied on by ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ for the proposition that the “but-for international termination traffic” are based on “actual Future Telecom traffic” and “actual international termination rates paid by Future Telecom” fall into that category. The requested documents are also relevant to the case and material to its outcome because they are necessary to understand ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ assertions and challenge his assessment of damages. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent believes that the requested documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because they would have been prepared and kept in the ordinary course of business given the importance attributed to Future telecom traffic for Tele Fácil’s business.
Justifications. The Respondent submits that all the documents relied on by the Claimants’ experts are ipso facto relevant to the case and material to its outcome. They are necessary to properly understand, evaluate and corroborate assertions made in the expert report and the expert’s assessment of damages. Moreover, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the IBA Rules (which apply in this case pursuant to PO 1, section 20.3) the expert reports shall contain inter alia: the “Documents on which the Party-Appointed Expert relies that have not already been submitted shall be provided”. The Respondent further submits that it is entitled to provide its expert with the same information that was provided to the Claimants’ expert to ensure that both reports are in equal footing. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent believes that the requested documents exists and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because they are referred to in the expert report.
Examples of Justifications in a sentence
Justifications is as follows: Work will be performed on a day or days when school is not in session (holidays, weekend or non-teaching days – may not include after school hours).
Other Supporting Justifications Although the cost benefit analysis does not demonstrate that this matching program is likely to be cost effective, the program is justified for other reasons, as explained in this section.
Justifications for such transfers may include a catastrophic medical condition, injury or incapacitation of the employee.
Justifications is as follows: ______ Work will be performed on a day or days when school is not in session (holidays, weekend or non-teaching days – may not include after school hours).
Justifications for such extensions of duty are limited to reasons of required continuity for a severely ill or unstable patient, academic importance of the events transpiring, or humanistic attention to the needs of a patient or family.
Justifications and approved data shall be required for substantiation; otherwise the proposal will be rejected.
Subrecipient shall comply with any cost sharing commitments included in such FY12 Investment Justifications, where applicable.
Justifications may include, but are not limited to, new academic programs and current programs where student learning or program viability is affected due to difficult to fill assignments.
Subrecipient shall comply with any cost sharing commitments included in such FY11 Investment Justifications, where applicable.
The contracting officer, requirements office, procuring activity advocate for competition, and the Procurement Executive shall ap- prove all Justifications for Other than Full and Open Competition that cite standardization of technical equipment as justification to restrict competition.
More Definitions of Justifications
Justifications. The Claimant contends that: “152. [w]hen the IFT resolved the interconnection dispute and issued Resolution 381, Tele Fácil’s founders understood and appreciated the opportunity presented by the reforms. Most importantly, they realized that the penalties imposed on Telmex as a predominant economic agent, coupled with the rate offered by Telmex and accepted by Tele Fácil, combined to enhance Tele Fácil’s business prospects. 153. Tele Fácil’s founders revised their business strategy to pursue four distinct lines of business. [...]” The requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome. The Respondent observes that the revised business plan was not submitted into evidence and it is necessary to the defense of the claim for damages. The requested documents are also relevant as they provide Procedural Order No. 5 contemporaneous evidence of the Claimants’ expectations regarding, inter alia, the viability of the intended projects and will allow the Respondent to corroborate/contest allegations of fact made in the SoC and witness statements regarding the intended scope of operations in Mexico. Finally, they are needed to dispute the assertion that the alleged wrongdoing prevented Tele Fácil from launching services in Mexico (see ¶ 11 of ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ expert report.) The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent reasonably believes that the documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because they refer to the revised business plan in section II.E and because the requested documents would have been necessary to make an informed decision on which projects to pursue.
Justifications. As stated in the previous Request, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ criticises the Respondent’s expert for using data from AudioNow and SIP, arguing that such information, unlike the data used in the case of FreeCC (which was not disclosed), was very limited.30 The Respondent requires additional traffic data from AudioNow, SIP Meeting, No Cost Conference and Zenofon and any other DID vendor, for at least the same number of years as that provided for FreeCC, and for a representative sample of countries including, but not limited to, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Puerto Rico, United Kingdom, which are the selected countries of operation highlighted by ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ in its first report.31 The requested documents are relevant and material to the outcome of the case as they will be used to challenge ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ assertion that that Respondent’s expert wrongfully “used international data from Free Conference Calling despite having no knowledge as to whether FreeCC’s experience are indicative of the experiences of other DID vendors, like Audio Now and SIP”.32 29 ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Reply Expert Report, ¶ 9; C-112. 30 ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Reply Expert Report, ¶ 9; C-112. 31 ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Expert Report, ¶44-50; C-010. 32 ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Reply Expert Report, ¶ 9; C-112. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent believes that the requested documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because they would have been prepared and kept in the ordinary course of business given the importance attributed to Future telecom traffic for Tele Fácil’s business.