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
- 2
In WarnerMedia Network Sales v. DISH Network, Judge Subramanian approved DISH’s request to seal commercially sensitive information in its motion papers.
DISH Network L.L.C., the plaintiffs, and the public’s access to the identified court filings.
What happened
WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al. v. DISH Network L.L.C. concerns DISH’s request to seal parts of a memorandum supporting its motion to strike new material in the plaintiffs’ reply or, alternatively, file another reply. Judge Subramanian issued the order.
DISH asked to redact information about its carriage agreements, financial information, and business strategy. It argued that disclosure could harm its ability to negotiate future licensing agreements, and the plaintiffs consented to sealing material covered by a protective order.
The court stated that sealing was warranted and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 68. Judge Arun Subramanian did not provide a separate explanation beyond the order and the sealing request’s stated grounds.
The detailed version
- WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al. v. DISH Network L.L.C. · No. 1:25-cv-07463
- Subramanian
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
DISH Network L.L.C. submitted a letter-motion seeking permission to redact and file under seal portions of a memorandum supporting its motion to strike new material submitted with the plaintiffs’ reply. In the alternative, DISH sought permission to file another reply. The motion was filed in connection with the case identified in the opinion as WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al. v. DISH Network L.L.C.
Sealing request
DISH identified the material it wanted to protect as information concerning the terms of its carriage agreements, sensitive financial information, and confidential business strategy. DISH argued that the information was commercially sensitive and that disclosure of the carriage-agreement terms could impair its ability to negotiate future licensing agreements with other distribution partners. The plaintiffs consented to sealing material subject to a protective order.
The letter cited the principle that sealing must be necessary to protect an important interest and narrowly tailored to that purpose. It also cited decisions recognizing that confidential pricing, negotiation, financial, and business-strategy information may warrant protection from disclosure when release could cause competitive harm.
Court’s action
The order states, “Considering these principles, sealing is warranted.” It then directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 68 and states, “SO ORDERED.” The opinion does not separately use the word “granted” in the judge’s order, although the order follows DISH’s request to seal portions of the memorandum. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order on October 28, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.