Southern Pac. Com. Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 78-0545. |
| Citation | 556 F. Supp. 825 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Stephen Ailes, Richard A. Whiting, Richard Diamond, Edmund W. Burke, John R. Labovitz, Ellen M. McNamara, Janet L. Kuhn, Ralph A. Taylor, Jr., Michael C. Miller, Philip L. Malet, John W. Rumely, Jr., Kevin J. Brosch, Maureen O'Keefe Ward, James R. Young, Mark F. Horning, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, D.C., for Southern Pacific Communications Co., et al.
George L. Saunders, Jr., Michael S. Yauch, Kenneth K. Howell, Chicago, Ill., Lee A. Monroe, Washington, D.C., Theodore N. Miller, C. John Buresh, Chicago, Ill., David J. Lewis, Washington, D.C., Gerald A. Ambrose, Robert E. Mason, Jules M. Perlberg, John C. Woulfe, Chicago, Ill., Langley R. Shook, Stewart A. Block, Washington, D.C., Craig L. Caesar, Charles H. Kennedy, Deborah H. Morris, Chicago, Ill., Alan L. Morrison, Julie D. Nelson, William P. O'Neill, Merinda D. Wilson, Sidley & Austin, Hugh N. Fryer, John M. Friedman, Jr., James F. Bendernagel, Jr., Washington, D.C., Dierdre A. Burgman, Steven M. Bierman, Thomas DeRosa, Robert Hirth, New York City, Craig King, Washington, D.C., John J. Langhauser, New York City, G. Ridgley Loux, Washington, D.C., Martha Solinger, Kenneth Thomas, Scott Univer, Alan M. Unger, Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, New York City, Howard J. Trienens, Jim G. Kilpatric, Richard C. Schramm, William J. Jones, New York City, Peter C. Breitstone, Kathleen F. Carroll, New York City, Deborah S. Droller, Washington, D.C., Norman E. Gamble, A. Jared Silverman, J. David Stoner, Roger J. Siebel, New York City, American Telephone & Telegraph, Wiley A. Branton, Thomas J. Hearity, Kravetz & Hearity, Washington, D.C., for American Telephone & Telegraph, et al.
This action was originally filed on March 27, 1978,1 and was brought by Southern Pacific Communications Company and Transportation Microwave Corporation SPCC against the American Telephone and Telegraph Company AT & T and the Bell System operating companies.2 The complaint was predicated upon Sections 13 and 24 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2) and alleged that the Bell System had monopolized and conspired and attempted to monopolize a relevant market in telecommunications service and had conspired to restrain trade in the market. The plaintiffs withdrew their Section 1 claim at status call on September 2, 1981 (Tr. 7-8), and the case was submitted to the Court for trial on the merits, sitting without a jury, on the charge that AT & T had monopoly power and had misused that power through conduct alleged to violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act. For the alleged violations, the plaintiffs seek $230.2 million,4(a) for damages, which is trebled to $690.6 million pursuant to Section 45 of the Clayton Act. (15 U.S.C. § 15). After waiver by both parties of jury demands, trial commenced on May 10, 1982.6 SPCC completed its presentation of evidence, including the testimony of 24 witnesses and approximately 1,400 exhibits, on June 14, 1982. The trial consumed thirty-three trial days for both sides, including opening and closing arguments.
Defendants filed a motion for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on June 8, 1982, and filed supplementation and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 12, 1982. Plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition on June 15, 1982, after which the Court heard oral argument on defendants' motion. On June 21, 1982, the Court announced its decision to defer ruling on defendants' motion until it had heard all of the evidence.
Defendants began presenting their evidence, which included testimony of 1477 witnesses and introduction of over 7,900 exhibits on June 23, 1982, and concluded their case on July 2, 1982, after only eight trial days. Plaintiffs presented their evidence in rebuttal on July 9 and 12, 1982, through the testimony of nine witnesses. On July 13, 1982, plaintiffs introduced 326 rebuttal exhibits and defendants introduced 23 surrebuttal exhibits. Both parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 15, 1982, and reply findings on July 17, 1982. The Court heard oral argument on July 19, 1982.
The following memorandum opinion shall constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, as mandated by Rule 52(a) of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TOTAL TELECOM. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
...is required only when the FCC so directs it; and courts have so interpreted Section 201(a). See e.g., So. Pac. Comm. Co. v. AT & T, 556 F.Supp. 825, 975 (D.D.C.1983), aff'd, 740 F.2d 980 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1005, 105 S.Ct. 1359, 84 L.Ed.2d 380 (1985); Woodlands Tel. Corp.......
-
In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig.
...but-for-world assumes little competition in a ‘supposedly much more attractive environment.’ " Id. (quoting S. Pac. Commc'ns Co. v. AT&T Co. , 556 F. Supp. 825, 1077-78 (D.D.C. 1982) ). Assuming this is correct, Defendants have not pointed to concrete evidence that competition to Authentico......
-
Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
...him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15(a) (1982).2 Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. AT & T, 556 F.Supp. 825 (D.D.C.1982) (as amended Jan. 10, 1983) (hereinafter cited as Mem.Op.).3 This case principally involves three types of pr......
-
U.S. Football League v. National Football League
...744 F.2d 917 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1211, 105 S.Ct. 1181, 84 L.Ed.2d 329 (1985), and Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. AT & T Co., 556 F.Supp. 825, 913 (D.D.C.1982) (rejecting testimony of plaintiff's expert Owen, in part because of role as government economist favoring ......
-
Table of Cases
...2011), 138 Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 471 U.S. 48 (1985), 350 Southern Pac. Commc’ns Co. v. AT&T, 556 F. Supp. 825 (1982), 282 Southern Pac. Commc’ns Co. v. AT&T, 740 F.2d 980 (D.C. Cir. 1984), 81, 127, 128, 129, 135, 140, 146, 382 Southwest Tel. & Tel. ......
-
Quantifying Damages
...on survey of customers); Park v. El Paso Bd. of Realtors, 764 F.2d 1053, 1066-68 (5th Cir. 1985); Southern Pac. Commc’ns Co. v. AT&T, 556 F. Supp. 825, 1073-90 (D.D.C. 1983), aff’d , 740 F.2d 980 (D.C. Cir. 1984). 47. See, e.g. , Southern Pac. Commc’ns , 556 F. Supp. at 1092-93 (stating tha......
-
Table of Cases
...(6th Cir. 1983), 27 Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litig., In re , 739 F.3d 262, 284 (6th Cir. 2014), 9 Southern Pac. Commc’ns Co. v. AT&T, 556 F. Supp. 825 (D.D.C. 1983), aff’d , 740 F.2d 980 (D.C. Cir. 1984), 98, 99 Southwestern Sheet Metal Works v. Semco Mfg., 788 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1986),......
-
Mergers
...of Video Programming, Sixteenth Annual Report, 30 FCC Rcd. 3253, 3256-59 ¶¶ 2-11 (2015)). 223. See Southern Pac. Commc’ns Co. v. AT&T, 556 F. Supp. 825 (1982) (rejecting claim of barriers to entry based on $100-$200 million required to put up satellites necessary for telecommunications netw......