- 60 -
In evaluating what NITCO's reasonable business needs were
during the years in issue, we have been faced with a lack of
forthrightness on petitioners' part. For instance, Mr. Mussman
testified that, during 1987 through 1989, NITCO planned to
replace its Alcatel switches, because the French manufacturer had
decided to abandon the U.S. market and stop conducting future
research and development efforts with respect to upgrading the
switches. He claimed that NITCO learned of the French
manufacturer's decision shortly after NITCO had purchased and
installed its Alcatel switches. Yet, when questioned by
respondent's counsel on cross-examination about NITCO's contrary
representations concerning the switches to the IURC's engineering
staff in late 1990, Mr. Mussman maintained that the statements in
the August 1990 letter issued to NITCO by Alcatel's U.S.
representative were untrue. Mr. Mussman, however, offered no
convincing explanation why, if NITCO knew the statements made
were untrue, NITCO then had provided a copy of the letter to the
IURC's staff.13
On the record presented, it is questionable whether during
13In another instance, Mr. Mussman testified that
architectural plans of new principal office facilities for NITCO
were drawn up in 1989. On cross-examination, however, he claimed
that the plans were not provided to respondent during pretrial
discovery, because the plans were his personal property and did
not belong to NITCO. He further offered no convincing
explanation with respect to why petitioners had failed to produce
the alleged plans and information concerning the alleged
architect who drew them in response to respondent's pretrial
discovery requests.
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011