Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 7, 2025

WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al., v. DISH Network L.L.C.

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:25-cv-07463
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In WarnerMedia Network Sales v. DISH Network, Judge Subramanian granted DISH’s request to seal portions of its sur-reply opposing a preliminary injunction.

Who this affects

DISH Network L.L.C., the plaintiffs, and the public’s access to the sealed portions of the sur-reply.

What happened

WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al. v. DISH Network L.L.C. concerns DISH’s request to redact and file under seal parts of its sur-reply opposing the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

DISH identified information involving its carriage agreements, financial information, and business strategy as confidential and commercially sensitive. The plaintiffs consented to sealing material covered by a protective order.

The court found that sealing was warranted because disclosure could harm DISH’s competitive position and negotiations. Judge Arun Subramanian granted DISH’s request to file a redacted version of the sur-reply and directed that the motion be terminated.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. et al., v. DISH Network L.L.C. · No. 1:25-cv-07463
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Nov. 7, 2025

Background

DISH Network L.L.C. filed a letter-motion seeking 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.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standards governing public access to judicial documents in the Southern District of New York. It concluded that sealing was justified where disclosure of confidential business information could cause competitive harm and that the requested protection was sufficiently tailored. The court specifically found that disclosure of the carriage-agreement terms could hinder DISH’s ability to negotiate future licensing agreements with other distribution partners. The opinion also noted that documents submitted with the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion and reply had been sealed or contained similar categories of confidential information.

Ruling

The court granted DISH’s request to file a redacted version of the sur-reply and directed that the motion be terminated. Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order on November 7, 2025.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.