WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al., v. DISH Network L.L.C.
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-07169
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In WarnerMedia Network Sales v. DISH Network, Judge Subramanian found sealing warranted for confidential information in DISH’s filing.
DISH Network L.L.C.’s confidential carriage-agreement terms, financial information, and business strategy were protected from public disclosure in the identified portions of its sur-reply; public access to those portions was limited.
What happened
WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al. v. DISH Network L.L.C. concerns DISH’s request to seal parts of its sur-reply opposing the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
DISH sought to redact information about its carriage agreements, financial information, and business strategy. DISH 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 found that sealing was warranted and ordered the motion terminated. Judge Arun Subramanian’s order concerned only the confidentiality of the identified material, not the merits of the preliminary-injunction dispute.
The detailed version
- WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al., v. DISH Network L.L.C. · No. 1:25-cv-07169
- Subramanian
- Nov. 7, 2025
Background
DISH filed a letter-motion asking the court for permission to redact and file under seal portions of its sur-reply supporting its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The requested redactions concerned the terms of DISH’s carriage agreements, sensitive financial information, and confidential business strategy.
Parties’ Positions
DISH argued that the material was confidential and commercially sensitive. It said that revealing the terms of its carriage agreements could hinder its ability to negotiate future licensing agreements with other distribution partners and place it at a competitive disadvantage. DISH also stated that the sur-reply was filed in both redacted and highlighted forms. The plaintiffs consented to sealing material covered by the protective order.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the principles governing public access to judicial documents, including whether sealing is necessary to protect higher interests and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. The court found that the memorandum contained proprietary financial and business strategy information and the terms of DISH’s licensing agreements. It concluded that the confidentiality of those agreements and the risk of competitive harm supported sealing. The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ filings connected to the preliminary-injunction motion had similarly been sealed because they included contracts, negotiation and business-strategy materials, and sensitive financial information.
Ruling
The court found that sealing was warranted, ordered the motion terminated, and entered the order. The ruling addressed the filing of a redacted version of DISH’s sur-reply; it did not decide the underlying preliminary-injunction motion. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order on November 7, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.