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, Magistrate Judge Moses granted the request to keep DISH’s answer under seal.
DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., whose unredacted answer was kept under seal; the public receives access only to the redacted version.
What happened
In DISH Network L.L.C. v. Asia TV USA Ltd., the plaintiffs asked to file their answer to the defendants’ amended counterclaims under seal and to publicly file a redacted version. The request concerned confidential television-programming license terms and fees.
The plaintiffs said disclosure could cause competitive harm and noted that the court had previously allowed similar information to be sealed. They publicly filed a redacted answer and filed the unredacted answer under seal.
Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses granted the application and ordered docket entry 301 to remain under seal at its current viewing level.
The detailed version
- Dish Network L.L.C v. Asia TV USA Ltd. · No. 1:19-cv-00021
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 25, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. asked for permission to file under seal their answer to defendants’ First Amended Counterclaims and to publicly file a redacted copy. The request concerned commercially sensitive information about television-programming license terms and fees under three agreements identified in the application: the Z Living Agreement, the Zee TV Agreement, and the Multi-Channels Agreement.
Reason for the Request
Plaintiffs stated that public disclosure would cause significant competitive harm. They also stated that the same information had previously been allowed to remain sealed in earlier filings. The application said plaintiffs had publicly filed a redacted answer and had filed an unredacted copy under seal, with proposed redactions highlighted.
Ruling
The court granted the application. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses ordered docket entry 301 to remain under seal at its current viewing level. The opinion does not state that the court ruled on the underlying counterclaims or the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.