Opinion ID: 196628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficient Evidence on Damages

Text: 64 CAPECO also argues that Coastal's evidence on damages was inadequate as a matter of law, and therefore, the jury's verdict on damages must be reversed. In particular, CAPECO argues that, as a new market entrant, Coastal was required to use the yardstick method of estimating damages. 65 With respect to the issue of how accurately damages must be measured, there is a clear distinction between the [relatively high] measure of proof necessary to establish that [a plaintiff] has sustained some damage and the [relatively low] measure of proof necessary to enable the jury to fix the amount. Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 562, 51 S.Ct. 248, 250, 75 L.Ed. 544 (1931). In the antitrust context, the most elementary conceptions of justice and public policy require that the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created. Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, 327 U.S. 251, 256, 66 S.Ct. 574, 576, 90 L.Ed. 652 (1946). Nonetheless, the plaintiff must still produce evidence from which the jury can make a just and reasonable inference. Wells Real Estate, Inc. v. Greater Lowell Board of Realtors, 850 F.2d 803, 816 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 955, 109 S.Ct. 392, 102 L.Ed.2d 381 (1988). 66 Citing Home Placement Service v. The Providence Journal Co., 819 F.2d 1199 (1st Cir.1987), CAPECO argues that Coastal was required to use the yardstick method for calculating lost profits, rather than the before-and-after method. Id. at 1205-06. Under the yardstick approach, the plaintiff attempts to identify a firm similar to the plaintiff in all respects but for the impact of the antitrust violation. Hovenkamp § 17.6b2. By contrast, under the before-and-after method, the court looks at the plaintiff's business before the violation occurred, during the violation period, and after the violation ended, and estimates the amount by which the violation reduced the plaintiff's profits. Id. § 17.6b1. 67 We conclude that whether a yardstick record must be used ultimately requires an appraisal of the reliability of a firm's track record, and the length of that track record is one factor to consider. The plaintiff in Home Placement Service had operated as planned only weeks before the alleged violations began. Home Placement Service can best be read as demonstrating both the type of situation in which a yardstick method is preferable, and the factors that should go into a court's evaluation of the comparability of the yardstick firm or firms with the plaintiff. 15 68 Ultimately, the proper method should be determined by the district court in accord with the facts of the situation. In this case, the district court will have exactly that opportunity, since we must vacate the district court's damages award and remand for further proceedings. The district court charged the jury with an instruction to find an amount for antitrust damages, comprising awards for both price discrimination and monopolization claims. 16 Because we reverse the monopolization verdict, if left to stand, the jury's antitrust damages award would likely constitute an excessive recovery. In coming to its conclusion, the jury may well have weighed harms resulting from conduct that was pleaded with respect to the monopolization offense (e.g. refusal to deal with a customer, lying, etc.) but would have been additional to harms resulting from price discrimination, the claim we uphold. Furthermore, were we to allow the verdict to stand despite our reversal of the monopolization verdict, there would exist the strong likelihood that the jury had granted Coastal a duplicative recovery under monopolization and tort law, for injury caused by the same conduct, such as refusal to deal and lying. The law abhors duplicative recoveries. Dopp v. HTP Corp., 947 F.2d 506, 517 (1st Cir.1991) (vacating damage award for, among other reasons, a strong likelihood that the remedies thus far conferred overlap). Thus, we find that the district court's award rests on an error of law. See Adams v. Zimmerman, 73 F.3d 1164, 1171, (1st Cir.1996) (stating that a district court's award is reviewed for an abuse of discretion unless it relies on an erroneous legal determination). As a result, we must vacate the antitrust damage award of $4.5 million ($1.5 million trebled), and remand for further proceedings.