Opinion ID: 555114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Indemnity Agreements

Text: 72 Nor-West also unsuccessfully sought to introduce evidence of two indemnity agreements between Continental and the City. These agreements provided that Continental would indemnify the City from liability arising out of the City's franchising procedure and its failure to award more than one cable franchise. The district court excluded such evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 411. On appeal, Nor-West attacks the district court's ruling on the merits, and argues that the indemnity agreements are relevant to standing, for two reasons. 73 First, Nor-West argues that because the agreements were negotiated before December 5, 1983 (the date on which Nor-West first requested a second franchise), their existence is probative as to whether Nor-West in fact intended to seek a second franchise and the credibility of City officials' testimony that they had no idea, until the receipt of the December 5 letter, that Nor-West was claiming to seek a second franchise, Reply Brief for Appellant at 18. However, at least one other company besides Nor-West and Continental competed for an exclusive franchise. Thus, defendants' execution of the indemnity agreements does not prove that defendants believed that Nor-West planned to seek a competitive franchise, let alone that Nor-West actually intended to do so. 74 Second, Nor-West argues that the indemnity agreements prove that the City's expert witnesses were biased, because they were in fact, testifying for Continental and not for [the] City, as the jury was led to believe. Reply Brief for Appellant at 18. As the City was the major defendant in this action, it is obvious that the City's expert witnesses would have been equally biased no matter which defendant was paying them. 75 We therefore hold that the district court's evidentiary rulings were unrelated to the issue of standing, and accordingly decline to address those rulings on the merits.