WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al., v. DISH Network L.L.C.
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-07463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In WarnerMedia v. DISH, Judge Subramanian granted DISH’s motion to seal confidential business materials filed with its opposition to a preliminary injunction.
DISH Network L.L.C., the plaintiffs, and public access to the specified court filings.
What happened
In WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al. v. DISH Network L.L.C., DISH asked to redact and seal parts of its opposition to the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, supporting declarations, and an exhibit.
DISH said the materials contained confidential contract terms, financial and subscriber information, marketing data, negotiations, and business strategies. The plaintiffs consented to sealing material covered by the protective order.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted DISH’s request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 33.
The detailed version
- WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al., v. DISH Network L.L.C. · No. 1:25-cv-07463
- Subramanian
- Oct. 17, 2025
Background
DISH Network L.L.C. filed a letter-motion seeking permission to redact and file under seal specified portions of its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, supporting declarations, and Exhibit 5 to one declaration. Exhibit 5 was an excerpt of a 2024 carriage agreement between DISH and certain plaintiffs’ affiliates.
DISH identified the material as including terms and negotiations of carriage agreements, financial and subscriber information, marketing data, and confidential business strategy. DISH argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm and interfere with future licensing negotiations. The plaintiffs consented to sealing material subject to the protective order.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the letter-motion. The order permitted DISH to file redacted versions of its memorandum and specified declarations, while filing the unredacted versions and Exhibit 5 under seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 33. The order did not decide the underlying request for a preliminary injunction.
Disposition
The sealing motion was granted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.