- 38 -
Donnelly under that analysis.
We are unwilling to rely on Mr. Donnelly's selected alloca-
tion analysis because the District Court did not use that analy-
sis (or any of Mr. Donnelly's other analyses) in determining the
amount of damages that it awarded to the plaintiffs in the Farm-
ers lawsuit.29 Instead, we shall rely on the District Court's
order, opinions, and judgments in the Farmers lawsuit and on
certain evidence presented at the damages hearing on which the
District Court expressly relied in awarding damages to the
plaintiffs. Cf. Thomson v. Commissioner, 406 F.2d 1006, 1010
(9th Cir. 1969), affg. T.C. Memo. 1965-237; Niles v. United
States, 520 F. Supp. 808, 813 (N.D. Cal. 1981), affd. 710 F.2d
1391 (9th Cir. 1983).
We turn first to the lost profits damages component of the
proceeds of the Farmers lawsuit. In determining the respective
portions of the lost profits damages awarded to DCI and to the
Diamonds as the owners of ETS, we have examined the entire record
in this case and have focused on the following: (1) The District
Court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for sanctions and
the District Court's opinions and judgments awarding damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and interest to the plaintiffs;
29 We note that Mr. Donnelly's selected allocation analysis was
(1) based on data different than those relied on by the District
Court, (2) applied a methodology different than that applied by
the District Court, and (3) focused on profits lost by ETS for
years that were not the same years for which lost profits damages
were awarded by the District Court.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011