Southern Pac. Com. Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., Civ. A. No. 78-0545.
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | CHARLES R. RICHEY |
| Citation | 556 F. Supp. 825 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 78-0545. |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1983 |
556 F. Supp. 825
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 78-0545.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
December 21, 1982.
As Amended January 10, 1983.
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 850
PARTIES 852
BACKGROUND 854
NATURE OF THE ISSUES 866
STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING A VIOLATION OF
SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT 870
MONOPOLY POWER AND RELEVANT MARKET 871
RELEVANT MARKET 871
DEFENDANTS' MARKET POWER 877
INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE 888
THE PRICING CLAIMS 914
TELPAK 914
HI/LO & MPL 916
DESCRIPTION OF HI/LO AND MPL RATES 917
HI/LO 918
MPL 918
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PREDATORY
PRICING CLAIMS 918
EVIDENCE CONCERNING WHETHER AT&T'S
RATES WERE BELOW COST 927
EVIDENCE CONCERNING WHETHER AT&T "PRICED
WITHOUT REGARD TO COSTS" 933
PLAINTIFFS' ADDITIONAL CLAIMS WITH RESPECT
TO TELPAK 946
SPCC'S CLAIMS REGARDING THE STRUCTURE OF
TELPAK 947
SPCC'S CLAIMS REGARDING MAINTENANCE OF
TELPAK DURING THE 1970'S 953
SPCC'S CLAIMS REGARDING JOINT TELPAK 956
556 F. Supp. 850PLAINTIFFS' ADDITIONAL CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO HI/LO 957 THE CHARGE OF MISREPRESENTATION 957 THE CHARGE THAT HI/LO UNDERCUT PLAINTIFFS' RATE 963 THE CHARGE THAT AT&T DID NOT PROFIT-MAXIMIZE 964 THE CHARGE THAT AT&T "PREANNOUNCED" HI/LO 965 LACK OF INJURY IN FACT 967 THE INTERCONNECTION CLAIMS 972 THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD FOR INTERCONNECTION CLAIMS 972 DENIAL OF ACCESS TO INTERCITY FACILITIES 978 PIECE-OUT 979 INTERCITY FACILITY LEASING 985 DENIALS OF FX AND CCSA INTERCONNECTION 985 INTERSTATE FX AND CCSA 985 INTRASTATE FX 998 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PROVISION OF LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES 1000 "COERCION" AND "DURESS" 1001 FILING OF STATE TARIFFS 1008 RATES FOR LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES 1012 LOCAL DISTRIBUTION AREAS 1016 INTERCONNECTION REQUIREMENTS 1017 JOINT END-TO-END TESTING 1020 PRACTICES, PROCEDURES, AND PERFORMANCE 1021 NON-COOPERATION 1026 ORDERING PROCEDURES 1035 INSTALLATION AND REPAIR 1039 INSTALLATION 1040 REPAIR 1047 OTHER CLAIMS 1052 RELIANCE UPON FCC DECISIONS ON PRICING AND INTERCONNECTION CLAIMS 1054 FACT OF INJURY 1058 THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PROVING FACT OF INJURY 1058 EVIDENCE RELATING TO ALLEGED LOSS OF REVENUE 1059 EVIDENCE RELATING TO ALLEGED LOSS OF CUSTOMERS 1062 EVIDENCE RELATING TO ALLEGED INCREASES IN COSTS 1065 OTHER CAUSES OF SPCC'S LOSSES 1066 AMOUNT OF DAMAGES 1073 SPCC'S DAMAGE EVIDENCE 1075 SUFFICIENCY OF THE "BUT-FOR" DAMAGE MODEL 1076 MARKET SHARE ASSUMPTIONS 1078 DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS 1079 PRICE ASSUMPTIONS 1080 ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE PLAN OF THE "BUT-FOR" COMPANY 1083 OTHER ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE "BUT-FOR" COMPANY 1085 DISCOUNT RATE ASSUMPTIONS 1087 ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE "DAMAGED" PRIVATE LINE BUSINESS 1087 PIECE-OUT CLAIM 1089 SEGREGATION OF DAMAGES 1090 THE SUFFICIENCY OF SPCC'S ALTERNATE MEASURES OF DAMAGES 1093 CONCLUSION 1095
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
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
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
The following memorandum opinion shall constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, as mandated by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
PARTIES
Southern Pacific Communications Company
Southern Pacific Communications Company (SPCC), a plaintiff in this case, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Company (Agreed Fact 8-3-002). The Southern Pacific Company is a large and highly diversified holding company. In addition to ownership of Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTCo) and SPCC, Southern Pacific Company has extended interests in real estate, natural resources, and leasing (Agreed Fact 8-3-020; Furth, PX6-0001 at 3-7). In 1980, Southern Pacific Company had assets of $5.3 billion and total revenues of $2.8 billion.
SPTCo owns and operates one of the nation's largest intercity private microwave systems (Agreed Fact 7-1-009). Construction of this private microwave system began following the FCC's Above 8907(a) decision in 1959. (Furth, PX6-0001 at 11). When the entire system was completed in 1969, it consisted of approximately 650,000 voice circuit miles and 7,664 route miles from Portland through Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, to Illinois (id.).
SPCC was formed in January, 1970, to provide communication services to business, industry, government and educational entities over a domestic network between such locations as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorized (Furth, PX6-0001 at 12-13). SPCC's initial plan involved using the existing microwave sites of SPTCo where feasible (id. at 13). Portions of SPCC's microwave system initially were constructed upon the towers, facilities, and right-of-way of the SPTCo private microwave system (Agreed Fact 7-1-009).
On February 9, 1970, SPCC filed its initial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jung v. Association of American Medical Colleges, No. CIV.A.02-0873 PLF.
...Tobacco shield plaintiffs' claims from dismissal. See Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 556 F.Supp. 825, 888 (D.D.C.1982) ("[N]othing in Continental Ore requires a conclusion that a defendant that has not engaged in an unlawful conspiracy, and has co......
-
TOTAL TELECOM. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., Civ. A. No. 95-2273.
...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.......
-
County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., No. 87-CV-646 (JBW).
...adversaries before administrative agencies, is applicable. See, e.g., Southern Pac. Communications Co. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 556 F.Supp. 825, 881 (D.D.C.1982), 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). No damages may be ......
-
In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig., MDL 2817
...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 Authenticom for "other c......
-
Jung v. Association of American Medical Colleges, No. CIV.A.02-0873 PLF.
...Tobacco shield plaintiffs' claims from dismissal. See Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 556 F.Supp. 825, 888 (D.D.C.1982) ("[N]othing in Continental Ore requires a conclusion that a defendant that has not engaged in an unlawful conspiracy, and has co......
-
TOTAL TELECOM. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., Civ. A. No. 95-2273.
...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.......
-
County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., No. 87-CV-646 (JBW).
...adversaries before administrative agencies, is applicable. See, e.g., Southern Pac. Communications Co. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 556 F.Supp. 825, 881 (D.D.C.1982), 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). No damages may be ......
-
In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig., MDL 2817
...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 Authenticom for "other c......
-
Measuring Damage to a Firm's Profitability: Ex Ante or Ex Post?
..."but for" scenario to conform to the plaintiff'sactual business plans. See, e.g., Southern Pac. Comm. Co. v. AmericanTel. & Tel.ce.,556 F. Supp. 825, 1084-85 (D.D.C 1982), aftd on othergrounds, 740 F.2d 980 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1005(1985). Where the plaintiff's actual pl......