Dish Network L.L.C v. Asia TV USA Ltd.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-00021
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dish Network v. Asia TV, Judge Moses granted plaintiffs’ request to seal their answer and publicly file redacted copies.
DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. may keep the specified answer under seal while filing redacted copies publicly; the defendants and the public docket are affected by the limited access to the unredacted filing.
What happened
In Dish Network L.L.C. v. Asia TV USA Ltd., the plaintiffs asked to keep their answer to the defendants’ counterclaims under seal while filing a redacted version publicly.
The plaintiffs said the redacted material contained highly confidential television-programming license terms and fees. They argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm, and noted that the court had allowed the same information to be redacted from an earlier filing.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the request. The plaintiffs may file the answer under seal and corresponding redacted copies on the public docket.
The detailed version
- Dish Network L.L.C v. Asia TV USA Ltd. · No. 1:19-cv-00021
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 14, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. asked for permission to file their answer to the defendants’ counterclaims under seal and to file a redacted version publicly. The answer was dated August 21, 2020.
Parties’ Position
Plaintiffs sought to redact information about television-programming license terms and fees. They described the information as highly confidential and commercially sensitive, and argued that public disclosure could cause significant competitive harm by affecting their ability to negotiate favorable terms. Plaintiffs also stated that the information was identical to information the court had previously allowed them to redact from an answer to earlier counterclaims.
Ruling
Judge Barbara Moses granted the request. The order permits plaintiffs to file their answer under seal and to file corresponding redacted copies publicly. The order did not decide the underlying counterclaims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.