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 L.L.C., Judge Subramanian ordered proposed redactions before deciding whether to seal hearing transcripts.
WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. and the other plaintiffs, DISH Network L.L.C., and the public’s access to the hearing transcripts.
What happened
WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. and other plaintiffs, together with DISH Network L.L.C., jointly asked the court to seal transcripts from an October 31, 2025 conference and a November 5, 2025 hearing in WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al. v. DISH Network L.L.C. The hearing concerned the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
The parties said the transcripts discussed confidential licensing agreements, contract terms and negotiations, DISH’s Sling Pass sales, and DISH’s internal processes. They argued that disclosure could harm their competitive positions and make future licensing negotiations more difficult.
Judge Arun Subramanian directed the parties to submit proposed redacted versions of the transcripts within three business days and said the court would then decide whether sealing was warranted. The opinion excerpt does not show a final ruling granting or denying the request to seal.
The detailed version
- WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al. v. DISH Network L.L.C. · No. 1:25-cv-07463
- Subramanian
- Nov. 7, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs and DISH Network L.L.C. jointly filed a letter-motion seeking to seal portions of transcripts from an October 31, 2025 in-person conference and a November 5, 2025 hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court had provisionally sealed the transcripts by oral order at the end of each proceeding while awaiting the parties’ written request.
Parties’ Position
The parties represented that the transcripts contained commercially sensitive and confidential information covered by the case’s protective order. The subjects included detailed terms of current and prior licensing agreements, contract language, negotiations, DISH’s Sling Pass sales, and certain internal processes. They argued that disclosure could place the parties at a competitive disadvantage and interfere with future licensing negotiations. The parties cited decisions allowing courts to keep confidential business information under seal in appropriate circumstances.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian directed the parties to submit versions of the transcripts with proposed redactions within three business days of the order. The court stated that it would then determine whether sealing was warranted and instructed that the redactions should be sparing. The excerpt does not state that the court finally granted or denied the letter-motion to seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.