WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C.
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-07463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In WarnerMedia Network Sales v. DISH Network, Judge Subramanian granted the plaintiffs’ request to redact and seal commercially sensitive filings related to their preliminary-injunction motion.
The plaintiffs and DISH Network L.L.C., whose specified confidential commercial and financial information will be filed under seal, and members of the public seeking access to the unredacted filings.
What happened
WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C. concerns the plaintiffs’ request to restrict public access to certain filings connected to their motion for a preliminary injunction.
The plaintiffs asked to file redacted public versions and unredacted sealed versions of a reply memorandum and three declarations. They said the materials contained confidential contract terms, non-public financial information, competitive business information, and information designated confidential under the parties’ protective order. DISH consented to the request.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 53. The ruling allows the specified materials to be filed publicly in redacted form and under seal in unredacted form.
The detailed version
- WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C. · No. 1:25-cv-07463
- Subramanian
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs—WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc., Discovery Communications, LLC, Scripps Networks, LLC, The Travel Channel, L.L.C., Television Food Network, G.P., and Cooking Channel, LLC, collectively called the “Programmers”—asked the court for permission to redact and seal materials filed in connection with their motion for a preliminary injunction against DISH Network L.L.C.
Request to Seal
The requested materials were portions of the plaintiffs’ reply memorandum and the reply or rebuttal declarations of Scott Miller, Jill Stemhauser, and Allan Shampine. The plaintiffs stated that the materials included terms of affiliation agreements, non-public financial information, communications with other distributors, competitive and commercially sensitive information, and information designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order.
The plaintiffs argued that there was good cause to restrict access because public disclosure could cause competitive harm. They also stated that the court had previously sealed similar information in this case. DISH consented to the request.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the sealing request. The court’s order allows redacted versions of the identified filings to be placed on the public docket and unredacted versions to be filed under seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 53.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.