WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. 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 the parties’ motion to seal narrowly tailored redactions to hearing transcripts.
WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc., the other plaintiffs, DISH Network L.L.C., and members of the public seeking access to the hearing transcripts.
What happened
WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C. involved a joint request by the plaintiffs and DISH to keep confidential business information out of public versions of transcripts from a conference and a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
The parties said the transcripts contained sensitive licensing terms, internal analyses, and financial and subscriber information. They proposed redactions, arguing that disclosure could cause competitive harm and that the information was not directly at issue in the case.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the joint letter-motion to seal, finding that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored. He directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 96.
The detailed version
- WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C. · No. 1:25-cv-07463
- Subramanian
- Nov. 13, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs—WarnerMedia Network Sales, Inc. (formerly 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—and defendant DISH Network L.L.C. jointly moved to seal portions of transcripts from an October 31, 2025 conference and a November 5, 2025 hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
The parties sought to keep confidential certain licensing-agreement terms and other commercially sensitive information. They submitted proposed redacted versions of the transcripts and unredacted versions showing the proposed redactions.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the general rule that the public has a right to access judicial documents, balanced against interests that can justify confidentiality. The court recognized that protecting business secrets and confidential commercial information can outweigh that public-access interest when the proposed protections are narrowly tailored.
The proposed redactions covered particularly sensitive terms of affiliation agreements, internal analyses, and proprietary financial and subscriber data. The court stated that some of this information was not directly at issue in the case and that it had previously granted motions to seal the same type of confidential commercial information.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the parties’ joint letter-motion to seal. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and appropriately balanced the parties’ need to protect confidential information against the public’s right of access. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 96. This order addressed sealing only; the opinion text does not decide the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.