Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide"
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-06626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Actava TV v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide," Judge Carter ordered parties to justify sealing requests and file unredacted versions.
The parties in Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" who sought to seal or redact court filings.
What happened
In Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide," the parties asked the court to keep certain filings from public view, but the court said motions at ECF Nos. 366, 374, and 399 gave no reasons for doing so.
The court ordered the parties to provide specific factual reasons explaining why disclosure would cause serious harm by February 8, 2022. It also directed them to file unredacted versions of all documents they wanted to keep sealed by that date.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. issued the order on January 18, 2022. The order addressed the parties’ requests to seal filings and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" · No. 1:18-cv-06626
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
The court considered the parties’ motions to seal—requests to keep filed documents from public access. The opinion identifies motions at ECF Nos. 366, 374, and 399. The court stated that the parties had not provided grounds supporting those requests.
The court explained that, at this stage of the litigation, a party seeking to seal material must make a particular and specific factual showing that disclosure would cause an injury serious enough to justify protection. It also cited the principle that documents used to support or oppose summary judgment generally should not remain sealed without the strongest reasons.
Order
The parties were ordered to provide justification for their respective motions to seal by February 8, 2022. The court also directed the parties to file unredacted versions of all documents they sought to seal by that date, including documents identified in the opinion as ECF Nos. 384-2, 384-3, 384-4, 383-1, 382-2, and 382-3.
This was a procedural order concerning sealed and redacted filings. The opinion did not rule on the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.