WarnerMedia Network Sales v. DISH Network L.L.C.
WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. (f/k/a Turner Network Sales, Inc.), Discovery Communications, LLC, Scripps Networks, LLC, The Travel Channel, L.L.C., Television Food Network, G.P., and Cooking Channel, LLC 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 the programmers’ request to seal sensitive business information in their opposition memorandum.
The plaintiffs and DISH Network L.L.C. are affected because specified portions of the plaintiffs’ opposition memorandum may be filed under seal, limiting public access to the identified confidential business and financial information.
What happened
WarnerMedia Network Sales and the other programmers asked the court to protect confidential information in their opposition to DISH Network’s motion to strike. The requested protection covered affiliation-agreement terms, nonpublic financial information, and information designated confidential under the protective order.
The programmers requested permission to file a redacted public version and an unredacted version under seal. DISH consented to the request.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 78. The ruling concerns only the handling of confidential information and does not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- WarnerMedia Network Sales v. DISH Network L.L.C. · No. 1:25-cv-07463
- Subramanian
- Oct. 31, 2025
Request
The plaintiffs, collectively called the “Programmers,” asked for permission to redact and seal portions of their memorandum opposing DISH Network L.L.C.’s motion to strike. They sought to protect the terms of affiliation agreements with DISH, nonpublic financial and commercially sensitive information, and information previously designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order.
Parties’ Positions
The Programmers argued that good cause supported sealing the material because public disclosure could cause competitive harm and reveal sensitive contract and financial information. They requested permission to file a redacted version of the opposition memorandum publicly and an unredacted version under seal. The letter states that the parties met and conferred and that DISH consented to the request.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 78. The supplied text does not include a separate written explanation from the court beyond the “GRANTED” ruling and the directive to terminate the motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.