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

Heading: Were the District Court's Findings Clearly Erroneous?

Text: 26 Nor-West next argues that the district court's findings were clearly erroneous as to whether Nor-West is or was financially able to build a competitive cable system, intends to build a competitive system, and is or was technically able to do so. 27
28 Nor-West argues that it is (and was in 1983) capable of financing a competitive cable system and that the district court's holding to the contrary was clearly erroneous. Nor-West notes that its partners had a combined net worth of $76 million, including $10 million in cash. Although some of Nor-West's partners have dropped out, Nor-West's net worth is still $31 million, and one of Nor-West's partners testified he could obtain a loan commitment if Nor-West were given a [competitive] franchise. Brief of Appellant at 19. Nor-West also notes that banks in other cities have been willing to finance cable systems and that it could build a system even more cheaply if the City allowed it to build a smaller system than that mandated by the City's RFP. 29 On the other hand, the City notes that Nor-West's original financing commitment lapsed in 1983 and that Nor-West has not yet obtained a financing commitment for a competitive cable system. The City's expert testified that Nor-West would not have obtained a loan commitment even if Nor-West had a connection with a major cable company or if the partnership had substantial personal assets, Brief of Appellee City of St. Paul at 12 n. 21 (City Brief). The City also relies on the testimony of Henry Harris, whose cable company (Metrovision) had originally contracted to operate a cable system for Nor-West. Harris testified that he would not be interested in operating a competitive cable system in St. Paul because such a project would be as doomed to failure no matter how good a management you threw at me and likened the operation of a competitive system to being lead pilot in a Kamikaze plane. Id. at 13. Finally, numerous experts testified that there was insufficient demand for cable television in St. Paul to sustain more than one operator, id. at 13, and that Nor-West would have lost money. Id. at 14. In response, Nor-West's experts testified that it could compete with Continental head-to-head. 30 Based upon our review of the evidence, we find that even if Nor-West had been able to obtain a bank loan to finance a competitive cable system, reasonable people could disagree as to whether it would have been able to operate a competitive system profitably. Accordingly, we hold that the district court's finding that Nor-West was never financially able to compete with Continental was not clearly erroneous. 31
32 Nor-West also contests the jury's findings that it never intended to build a second cable system in St. Paul. Nor-West contends that its expenditure of over $1.5 million in this litigation proves that it intended to build a competitive cable system, Brief of Appellant at 35 n. 106. On the other hand, the City notes that the Nor-West partners did not investigate the possibility of building a competitive system until the present litigation began, and that the partners were unable to articulate what Nor-West was ready, willing and able to build. Brief for Appellee City of St. Paul at 11. 33 Reasonable people could disagree as to the credibility of Nor-West's partners' testimony that they intended to build a competitive cable system. Accordingly, we hold that the district court's finding that Nor-West never intended to design, construct, and operate a cable television system in St. Paul, Nor-West I, slip op. at 7, was not clearly erroneous. See Harte-Hanks, 109 S.Ct. at 2696 (even in first amendment cases, credibility determinations are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard). We therefore need not address the question of whether Nor-West had the technical capacity to build a competitive cable system in St. Paul. 34