Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2021

Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" v. Russian TV Company Inc.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:18-cv-02318
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Joint Stock Company v. Russian TV Company, Judge Schofield allowed the plaintiff to file a licensing agreement under seal to protect confidential information.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, whose licensing and assignment agreement was allowed to be filed under seal; the order also informs all parties that confidentiality is not automatically guaranteed for documents later submitted to the court.

What happened

In Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" v. Russian TV Company Inc., the plaintiff renewed its request to file a licensing and assignment agreement with a non-party under seal.

The court granted permission to file the agreement under seal, stating that a redacted filing was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the plaintiff’s confidential information. The court also explained that public access to court documents is not absolute.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order on March 4, 2021. The court cautioned that it retains discretion over whether to keep confidential information protected when documents are later submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" v. Russian TV Company Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-02318
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Mar. 4, 2021

Background

On March 3, 2021, the plaintiff filed a letter renewing its request to file its licensing and assignment agreement with non-party Kartina under seal.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiff permission to file the agreement under seal. The order states that filing the referenced documents in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential information related to the plaintiff.

The court discussed the common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents. It explained that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against competing considerations. The court also stated that it retains discretion over whether to provide confidential treatment to documents or information submitted in connection with a motion, application, or proceeding that may lead to a court order or decision.

Disposition

The plaintiff’s request to file the licensing and assignment agreement under seal was granted. This order addressed document access and confidentiality; the opinion text does not decide the underlying claims between the parties.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.