Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 2, 2025

FuboTV Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:24-cv-01363
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In FuboTV v. Disney, Judge Garnett granted Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery’s request to seal limited transcript portions containing confidential contract terms.

Who this affects

Fox Corporation, Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., fuboTV Inc., fuboTV Media Inc., and the public seeking access to the hearing transcript.

What happened

In FuboTV Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery asked the court to keep limited portions of a December 13, 2024 hearing transcript sealed and redacted. The plaintiffs took no position on the request.

The requested redactions covered confidential business information, including sensitive contract terms. The court found that disclosure could harm the parties’ competitive interests and that the proposed redactions were limited enough to preserve appropriate public access.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the request and ordered the proposed redactions to be applied to the public transcript.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
FuboTV Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company · No. 1:24-cv-01363
Judge
Garnett
Date
Jan. 2, 2025

Background

Defendants Fox Corporation and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. asked the court to keep limited portions of the transcript from a December 13, 2024 hearing under seal and in redacted form. Plaintiffs fuboTV Inc. and fuboTV Media Inc. took no position on the requested redactions.

The requested portions contained confidential business information, including confidential terms from competitively sensitive contracts. The defendants argued that disclosure could give competitors insight into the parties’ contracting practices and negotiating strategies, harming their competitive standing.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the principle that public access to judicial documents must be balanced against legitimate privacy and business interests. It found that the transcript portions contained highly commercially sensitive and confidential information. The court also found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect the parties’ business interests while preserving appropriate public access to the transcript.

Ruling

The court granted the request. It ordered the redactions identified in Exhibit A, as confirmed by counsel for Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, and directed that the redactions be applied to the transcript by the Southern District of New York Court Reporters. Judge Margaret M. Garnett signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.