- 31 -
authenticity, or otherwise to explore the significance of what
was written on the documents, and (3) the documents were so
fragmentary (charge card sales receipts for certain days in
January, February, and March 1990, and partial fuel pump computer
tapes for 2 days in June 1990) that they may not have been
typical of the usual run of petitioner’s diesel fuel operations.
There is not any part of Steve’s testimony, whether or not
stricken under the Court’s ruling, that relates to the fuel pump
computer tapes or anything else occurring in June 1990.
Fourthly, Lundberg testified that her organization did not survey
prices in Merced County during petitioner’s fiscal 1990, but that
typically prices in more rural areas are higher than they are in
more concentrated metro areas. Based on Steve’s comments about
the areas where Lundberg’s surveys were conducted and where
petitioner conducted its diesel fuel sales business, we conclude
that, if Merced County diesel fuel prices were different from the
surveyed diesel fuel prices in the Fresno County area, then it is
more likely than not that the Merced County diesel fuel prices
would be higher than the Fresno County diesel fuel prices that
showed up in the Lundberg survey. Thus, it is more likely than
not that petitioner was helped rather than hurt by the use of a
Fresno County survey rather than a Merced County survey.
Fifthly, at trial respondent’s agent made it plain that she used
the self-service prices from Lundberg’s report, and not the full
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