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
- 2
In WarnerMedia v. DISH, Judge Subramanian granted plaintiffs’ request to redact and seal commercially sensitive information in their opposition to DISH’s expert-disqualification motion.
The plaintiffs and DISH Network L.L.C. are affected because specified confidential and commercially sensitive information in the plaintiffs’ opposition will be filed under seal rather than publicly disclosed. The ruling also affects public access to those materials.
What happened
WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. and the other plaintiffs asked the court to keep confidential and commercially sensitive information out of the public version of their opposition to DISH Network L.L.C.’s motion to disqualify their expert, Allan Shampine, Ph.D.
The requested material included information DISH had designated confidential or highly confidential under a protective order, as well as information from Dr. Shampine’s rebuttal report. The plaintiffs said public disclosure could cause competitive harm, and DISH agreed to the request.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 100; the order did not decide whether Dr. Shampine should be disqualified.
The detailed version
- WarnerMedia Network Sales v. DISH Network L.L.C. · No. 1:25-cv-07463
- Subramanian
- Nov. 12, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs, collectively identified as “Programmers,” asked the court to approve redactions to, and sealing of, portions of their memorandum opposing DISH’s motion to disqualify Allan Shampine, Ph.D. from serving as the plaintiffs’ expert. The requested material included information DISH had designated “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order, along with confidential information in Dr. Shampine’s rebuttal expert report. The court had previously allowed related information to be filed under seal.
Reasoning
The request relied on the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible, balanced against countervailing interests such as business secrecy and competitive harm. The plaintiffs argued that disclosure could reveal confidential contractual and commercially sensitive information, including information that could give future counterparties insight into how agreements might be negotiated and on what terms. The plaintiffs also stated that they had met and conferred with DISH and that DISH consented to the request.
Ruling
The court granted the request to file a redacted version of the opposition on the public docket and an unredacted version under seal. The court stated “GRANTED,” directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 100, and ordered: “SO ORDERED.” This order addressed filing and sealing of information; it did not rule on the underlying motion to disqualify Dr. Shampine.
Effect
The ruling limits public access to the specified confidential and commercially sensitive information in the plaintiffs’ opposition and related materials. It does not resolve the expert-disqualification dispute or the merits of the parties’ underlying case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.