Opinion ID: 545572
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Raney Statements

Text: 25 The appellant presented to the trial court the deposition testimony of the Nickelodeon's owner, Mr. Bill Raney, in which Raney stated that during the 1970's there was a split agreement between UA and a previous Santa Cruz exhibitor, Kindair, to allocate films, so that neither party competed against the other in bidding. UA subsequently purchased Kindair's Santa Cruz theatres. The trial court excluded this evidence, stating: Plaintiff has no standing to complain of this previous split which occurred before its entry onto the market and did not produce any antitrust injury to The Movie. The Movie 1 & 2, 681 F.Supp. at 658. 26 The appellant, however, did not offer this evidence in an attempt to recover for antitrust injury resulting from the alleged split between UA and Kindair prior to The Movie's entry into the market. Rather, appellant was attempting to demonstrate previous anti-competitive conduct by defendant UA. Evidence of prior wrongs or acts may be admissible to show proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). See also, Whittaker, 736 F.2d at 1347. 27 At oral argument, appellant argued to the trial court that this testimony should be admitted to give an historical perspective of the anti-competitive atmosphere in the Santa Cruz exhibition market. The defendants objected to the testimony as hearsay, since it was based on statements allegedly made to Raney by Lou Lencioni, a UA employee. However, Lencioni's statements, like Chiarrapotti's, were statements by a party-opponent and, therefore, were not hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. This testimony should have been considered by the trial court in deciding the motions for summary judgment. 28 Furthermore, appellees now argue that the testimony only evidences common legitimate business practices, with no suggestion of any illegal activity. Although Mr. Raney characterized the track system as a split, appellees argue that he used the term in a generic sense, and his choice of words was not meant to bear any legal significance. Nevertheless, the statements were relevant and admissible. Appellee's argument only addresses the weight to be given to them, which is a task for the jury. 29