Opinion ID: 414451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 45 As the factual summary above suggests, there is little in this case that the parties agree upon. AT & T contends that a portion of the jury's verdict and two of its factual findings must be set aside because they were made belatedly and as a result of coercion. Second, AT & T argues that under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine the jury was precluded from finding that certain practices relied on to support both the initial and the belated verdict were anticompetitive or predatory. Third, AT & T maintains that there was insufficient evidence to support any of the jury's factual findings and the entire verdict must therefore be set aside. Fourth, again in an evidentiary vein, AT & T claims that various rulings by the trial court judge on the admissibility of evidence so prejudiced its defense that it is entitled to a new trial. AT & T's fifth argument flanks the merits, so to speak, and attacks the jury's damage awards. Finally, AT & T argues that the entire case should have been dismissed as a sanction for Litton's discovery misconduct. Litton argues that this misconduct was an excusable oversight and that the district court's sanction--denial of any attorneys' fees--was impermissibly severe.