Fox Corp. et al. v. Media Deportes Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V.
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:25-cv-06703
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Fox Corp. v. Media Deportes Mexico, Judge Rakoff received Fox’s request to unseal two documents; the provided text contains no ruling.
Fox Corporation, Fox Media LLC, Fox Sports en Español LLC, Media Deportes Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V., the identified nonparty co-contemnors, and members of the public seeking access to the two filings.
What happened
Fox Corporation, Fox Media LLC, and Fox Sports en Español LLC asked the court in Fox Corp. et al. v. Media Deportes Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V. to unseal two filings.
Fox said the documents were initially sealed only to give Media Deportes Mexico and other nonparties an opportunity to raise confidentiality objections. Fox’s letter said no such objection was made and that one document remained unavailable on the court’s electronic filing system despite an earlier decision denying sealing.
The provided document is Fox’s request, not a court order. It does not state that Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Fox Corp. et al. v. Media Deportes Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V. · No. 1:25-cv-06703
- Jed Rakoff
- Aug. 20, 2026
Document and request
The provided text is a letter from counsel for Fox Corporation, Fox Media LLC, and Fox Sports en Español LLC. Fox asks Judge Jed S. Rakoff to unseal ECF Nos. 10 and 71: Fox’s original application for a temporary restraining order and a supporting declaration.
Arguments described in the letter
Fox states that it initially filed the documents under seal as a precaution, so Media Deportes Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V. and its nonparty co-contemnors could raise any confidentiality concerns. The letter states that Media Deportes Mexico and the co-contemnors did not take a position on unsealing. It identifies Mexico Sports Distribution, LLC as one of the nonparty co-contemnors.
The letter also states that the court previously denied Fox’s motion to seal ECF No. 71, finding that the declaration contained no information sufficient to overcome the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. According to the letter, ECF No. 71 nevertheless remained sealed on the electronic filing system, while only a redacted version, ECF No. 72, was publicly available.
Fox argues that the same reasoning applies to ECF No. 10 and asks the court to order both documents unsealed. These statements describe Fox’s position in its request.
Disposition
The provided text does not include a ruling on Fox’s request. It therefore does not state that Judge Rakoff granted, denied, or otherwise decided the request to unseal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.