May 16, 2006

By U.S. Mail and Facsimile:  (212) 715-8000

Abbe L. Dienstag, Esq.
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
(212) 715-9100

Re:	InfoUSA Inc.
  	Additional Definitive Soliciting Material filed May 10, 2006
	filed by Dolphin Limited Partnership I, L.P. and Dolphin Financial
	Partners, L.L.C.
      File No. 000-19598

Dear Mr. Dienstag:

We have reviewed your filing and have the following comments.

Schedule 14A

1. As we noted in our prior comment letters to you, each statement
or assertion of opinion or belief must be self-evident, disclosed in
the proxy materials, or provided to the staff on a supplemental basis.
Please address the following points, by providing the basis for
your statement or amend the language accordingly:

* We note your statement on page 25 that Mr. Trevisani served on
the Home Port Bancorp Board of Directors for five years.  It appears
that his tenure may have been for a time period of less than five
years. For example, the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
1998 for Home Port Bancorp, filed on March 31, 1999, indicates that Mr.
Trevisani was elected to the Home Port Bancorp Board of Directors
on February 3, 1999 to replace Daniel D. McCarthy, who resigned
effective March 1, 1999.  It appears that the proxy statements for
Home Port Bancorp`s 1996, 1997, and 1998 annual meetings make no
reference to Mr. Trevisani.  Additionally, the Form 3 filed by or
on behalf of Mr. Trevisani when he joined the Home Port Bancorp Board
of Directors identifies the date of the event requiring the filing as
February 3, 1999.

* It appears that the biography for Mr. Karl L. Meyer may be
incomplete because while the disclosure states that Mr. Meyer was
nominated to the Board of Directors of OfficeMax by its third
largest stockholder, it does not state that K Capital Partners
subsequently withdrew its nomination and OfficeMax security holders
never voted on Mr. Meyer`s proposed candidacy.  We note that the withdrawal
of nomination was pursuant to settlement of the potential proxy
contest in connection with the election of directors at the company`s 2005
annual meeting of security holders.

* Please tell us the basis for the P/E Ratios for infoUSA shown on
page 5 of the materials.  It appears that in determining P/E
Ratios, one would rely on the diluted earnings per share for each of
the years presented in your chart, as reported in the Company`s annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.

* We note your EBITDA information for infoUSA and that the charts
on pages 3, 4, and 5 are based on EBITDA data.  Please revise your
materials to explain how you calculated EBITDA.  Further, tell us
if your method of calculating EBITDA is consistent with Regulation G
and staff guidance with respect to Regulation G.  In this respect we
note that an overstated EBITDA would result in lower Total Enterprise
Value to EBITDA ratios in the charts on pages 4 and 6 and make
InfoUSA`s performance against the peer group look less favorable.

* Please revise your disclosure on pages 10-11 regarding
management and board turnover to include the following publicly
available facts:

Stormy Dean, as announced by the company in a press release issued
on September 12, 2003, resigned to pursue his political career.
Further, with the exception of the period from October 2003
through August 2004, when Mr. Dean was pursuing political office,
Mr. Dean has been continuously employed by the company since 1995,
note 2000, as stated in your materials.    See infoUSA`s Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, page 11.  In addition, Mr.
Allen Ambrosino had been employed by the company since 1997, not 2000
as stated in your materials.  See infoUSA`s Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2002, page 12.  Finally, Messrs. William
Chasse and William Kerrey began their employment with the company
in 1988 and 1989, respectively, not 1999 as indicated your materials.
See infoUSA`s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
1999, page 9.

* We note your statement on page 18 that the "Board`s Compensation
Committee has never explained why it believes [the grants of 3.2
million options since 1998] were appropriate."  It appears,
however, that the board`s compensation committee has disclosed the
basis for the option grants to Mr. Gupta.  For example, in the company`s
proxy statement for its 2006 annual meeting, filed April 17, 2006, the
compensation committee noted that its policy is to provide Mr.
Gupta with long-term incentives in the form of stock options and stated
its belief that the grant of an option for 500,000 shares at an
exercise price of 125% of the then-current market price in 2005 served to
further align Mr. Gupta`s incentives with the interests of all of
the Company`s stock holders.  Similarly, in the company`s proxy
statement for its 2002 annual meeting, filed on March 29, 2002, the
compensation committee explained that the grant of options
covering 1,200,000 shares to Mr. Gupta in 2001 was intended to replace an
out-of-the money option that expired in 2001, and that the replacement
option grant had been made at the original exercise price of $8.53
per share compared to a fair market value of $5.75 per share on
the date of the grant. Where the basis of support are other documents, such
as analysts` reports and newspaper articles, provide either complete copies
of the documents or sufficient pages of information so that we can assess
the context of the information upon which you rely.  Mark any
supporting documents provided to identify the specific information
relied upon, such as quoted statements, financial statement line
items, press releases, and mathematical computations, and identify
the sources of all data utilized.

      Please direct any questions to me at (202) 551-3257 or by
facsimile at (202) 772-9203.

Very truly yours,



Celeste M. Murphy
Special Counsel
Office of Mergers and Acquisitions