Donovan v. Digital Equipment Corp.
Decision Date | 13 December 1994 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 93-97-JD. |
Citation | 883 F. Supp. 775 |
Parties | Francis H. DONOVAN v. DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORP. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Francis G. Murphy, Jr., Nixon, Hall & Hess, Manchester, NH, for Francis H. Donovan.
David C. Casey, Peckman, Lobel, Casey, Prince & Tye, Boston, MA, Steven M. Gordon, Shaheen, Cappiello, Stein & Gordon, Concord, NH, for Digital Equipment Corp.
The plaintiff, Francis Donovan, brings this action against defendant Digital Equipment Corporation ("Digital") to recover losses related to the termination of his employment with Windsor Communications International ("Windsor"). The plaintiff alleges that Digital is liable under federal antitrust law, state antitrust law, state consumer protection law and common law tort. The court's jurisdiction is based on federal question as provided by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 (West 1993) and diversity of citizenship as provided by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (West 1993).
Before the court is Digital's motion for summary judgment on all four claims (document no. 13).
The parties have stipulated to an agreed statement of facts for purposes of this motion. Facts to Which Parties Have Stipulated ("Statement").
The plaintiff worked for Digital as a public relations manager for eleven years. Statement at ¶ 3. In spring 1992, the plaintiff accepted an early retirement package from the defendant and, in so doing, signed a retirement contract ("agreement"). Id. at 4. In exchange for a lump-sum payment and other benefits, the plaintiff agreed to certain limitations related to his ability to work for a competitor of the defendant. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 14-15. The relevant language provides:
Agreement at ¶¶ 14, 15. The agreement also states:
13. This document includes all of the agreements of the parties relative to Employee's termination, and supersedes any prior agreements or representations between the parties as to subjects covered. Employee specifically agrees that nothing in this Agreement modifies Employee's obligations and responsibilities under any prior Employee Agreement ... previously executed by Employee, including without limitation, any non-competition, protection of confidential information of Digital or others, and employee obligation clauses except as specifically referred to herein.
Id. at ¶ 13. Digital maintains a set of purchasing policies and procedures ("purchasing policy"). See Statement at ¶ 20. Purchasing policy section 2.01 provides in relevant part:
Purchasing Policy at § 2.01.
After leaving Digital, the plaintiff immediately began work as director of public relations for Windsor, a vendor to Digital. Statement at ¶¶ 6-9.1 The bulk of Windsor's revenues came from performing public relations projects for Digital and, according to Windsor's written offer of employment ("offer"), one of the plaintiff's responsibilities would be the "identification of PR opportunities within Digital...." Id. at ¶ 9; Offer at 1. Prior to his final day at Digital the plaintiff discussed his intention to join Windsor with Digital's director of public relations and other public relations managers. Statement at ¶ 6. The plaintiff "asked for their support, which he received." Id. at ¶ 7.
Quantic Communications ("Quantic") competed with Windsor for Digital contracts. Statement at ¶ 11. Quantic was founded by former Digital employees in 1991 with the support of Digital, which wanted to subcontract out much of its marketing and communications work. Id. at ¶ 12. Digital provided extensive financing to Quantic and executed a contract to purchase approximately thirty million dollars in services from the company during the following three years. Id. at ¶ 13. Digital also guaranteed a three year, $2.4 million bank loan on Quantic's behalf. Id. at ¶ 14.
In late July 1992, Digital received a requisition for a $7,900 public relations project to be performed by Donovan at Windsor. Statement at ¶ 19. The purchasing department rejected the requisition on the grounds that Donovan was barred from working on Digital projects under section 2.01 of the purchasing policy. Id. at ¶ 20.
Digital informed Windsor that it could seek an exception to the purchasing policy which, if granted, would allow the plaintiff to work on Digital projects as a Windsor employee. Statement at ¶ 24. Digital had granted exceptions to the policy in the past. Id. at ¶ 27. However, Windsor elected not to seek the exception and instead decided to preserve its relationship with Digital by terminating the plaintiff. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26. Aside from his inability to work on Digital projects, Windsor management was satisfied with the plaintiff's work performance during his two months of employment, June and July 1992. Id. at ¶ 18.
The plaintiff himself contacted Digital personnel to inform them that he was terminated because of the purchasing policy. Statement at ¶ 23. The plaintiff unsuccessfully sought an exception to the purchasing policy on his own behalf. Id. at ¶ 25.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's conduct relative to the purchasing policy violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and the New Hampshire antitrust act, N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("RSA") § 356 et seq., in that the defendant combined with Quantic and/or with Windsor to allocate or divide markets to the plaintiff's detriment. Complaint at ¶¶ 48-55. The plaintiff further asserts that the defendant's use of the purchasing policy to bar him from working on Digital projects violated the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, RSA § 358-A et seq. Id. at ¶ 44. The plaintiff further asserts that the defendant's conduct constitutes a tortious interference with his contractual relationship with Windsor. Id. at ¶¶ 38-40.
In its motion for summary judgment defendant asserts that the plaintiff lacks standing to maintain the antitrust claims and, in the alternative, has failed to state a cognizable antitrust claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") at 1. The defendant further asserts that the plaintiff cannot proceed with a claim under the consumer protection act because disputes arising out of an employment relationship are beyond the scope of the act. Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Memorandum in Support of Motion") at 15. The defendant also argues that the plaintiff cannot proceed with a common law tort claim because he has failed to demonstrate that Digital improperly interfered with his relationship with a third party. Motion at 1.
The role of summary judgment is "to pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings and assay the parties' proof in order to determine whether trial is actually required." Snow v. Harnischfeger Corp., 12 F.3d 1154, 1157 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 56, 130 L.Ed.2d 15 (1994) (quoting Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Medicine, 976 F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1845, 123 L.Ed.2d 470 (1993)). The court may only grant a motion for summary judgment where the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Quintero de Quintero v. Aponte-Roque, 974 F.2d 226, 227-28 (1st Cir.1992). The court must view the entire record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "`indulging all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.'" Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir.1991) (quoting Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 985, 112 S.Ct. 2965, 119 L.Ed.2d 586 (1992)). However, once the defendant has submitted a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff "may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of their pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Micron Tech. Inc.
...for state courts to consult federal precedent as "persuasive or guiding authority." Id. at *10-11 ; see also Donovan v. Digital Equip. Corp. , 883 F. Supp. 775, 785 (D.N.H. 1994). Further, Defendants have cited to no authority that supports the application of AGC to New Hampshire law. Accor......
-
Nashef v. Aadco Med., Inc.
...a private remedy for an employer or employee for issues arising out of the employment relationship. See, e.g., Donovan v. Digital Equip. Corp., 883 F.Supp. 775, 786 (D.N.H.1994) (holding that the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act “does not provide a private remedy for ‘disputes arising ......
-
Lago & Sons Dairy, Inc. v. HP Hood, Inc.
...§ 4 remedy.'" Sullivan, supra, 25 F.3d at 46 (quoting McCready, 457 U.S. at 472, 102 S.Ct. at 2545); see also Donovan v. Digital Equip. Corp., 883 F.Supp. 775, 781-82 (D.N.H.1994). b. The Applicability of the Sullivan Factors to Lago's Treble Damages Lago perceives there to be some injustic......
-
In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig.
...the courts may be guided by interpretations of the United States' antitrust laws." (emphases supplied)); Donovan v. Digital Equip. Corp., 883 F. Supp. 775, 785 (D.N.H. 1994) (New Hampshire harmonization statute's "language is permissive and, thus, the court is entitled to diverge from feder......
-
New Hampshire. Practice Text
...ANN. §§ 358-A:1-:13. 6. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). 7. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 356:14. 8. Id . § 358A:13. 9. Donovan v. Digital Equip. Corp., 883 F. Supp. 775, 785 (D.N.H. 1994) (summarily rejecting the argument that federal principles of antitrust injury should be relaxed under the state statute ......