10-11-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[97259/1] 6 The question presented in this proceeding is whether, under the Side Letter, the NSCC and its member cities may choose High Definition television services as a complimentary service? Because the Administrative Law Judge concludes that High Definition television service is not a “complimentary service” under the Side Letter, Comcast is entitled to partial summary disposition. Legal Standards for Summary Disposition Summary disposition is the administrative law equivalent of summary judgment.31 A motion for summary disposition shall be granted when there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.32 The Office of Administrative Hearings follows the summary judgment standards developed in the state district courts when considering motions for summary disposition. The function of the administrative law judge on a motion for summary disposition, like a trial court’s function on a motion for summary judgment, is not to decide issues of fact; but rather to determine whether genuine and important factual disputes exist.33 Summary disposition is only proper when there are no fact issues which require a hearing to resolve.34 Because both parties agree as to the wording of Paragraph A of the Side Letter, and that this paragraph describes Comcast’s obligations to deliver complimentary services, summary disposition is appropriate in this case. The keys facts are not in dispute; the parties simply disagree as to what the law requires in this case. Analysis Because High Definition formatted programs are only available to customers as a separately-priced upgrade to a subscriber’s service, Comcast can, in the phrasing of the Side Letter, “provide Digital Starter or equivalent package of Cable Service and City's choice of Grantee's necessary reception equipment”35 and still not deliver High Definition services. It does so every day. Comcast provides to many Digital Starter subscribers their choice of either a Digital Cable Box or a Digital Adapter with Standard Definition television services. Further, the Administrative Law Judge does not agree that reading the Side Letter in this way renders the City’s choice of reception equipment illusory. If, like other Comcast customers in Minnesota, a municipality wishes to remit the HD Technology Fee, and have its account reflect that it has separately contracted for this service, it may select a Digital Cable Box or a Digital Adapter that is capable of receiving High Definition television signals. Moreover, if a city does not wish to pay for High Definition 31 Pietsch v. Minnesota Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 683 N.W.2d 303, 306 (Minn. 2004); see also Minn. R. 1400.5500(K) (2017). 32 See Sauter v. Sauter, 70 N.W.2d 351, 353 (Minn. 1955); Louwagie v. Witco Chemical Corp., 378 N.W.2d 63, 66 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). 33 See, e.g., DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 70 (Minn. 1997). 34 See Sauter, 70 N.W.2d at 353. 35 Id. at Attach. 6.