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 in part plaintiffs’ request to redact commercially sensitive information from a hearing transcript.
Dish Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., the defendants who consented to the request, and members of the public seeking access to the hearing transcript.
What happened
Dish Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. asked to redact parts of an April 7, 2022 hearing transcript in their case against Asia TV USA Ltd. and other defendants.
The plaintiffs said the proposed redactions covered confidential television-programming license terms, including advertising-minute provisions, and that disclosure could cause competitive harm. The defendants consented to the request.
Judge Moses granted in part the request, allowing some specified redactions but disallowing the rest. The original transcript will remain sealed, and a redacted version will be publicly filed after court review.
The detailed version
- Dish Network L.L.C v. Asia TV USA Ltd. · No. 1:19-cv-00021
- Vernon Broderick
- May 17, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs Dish Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. filed a letter motion asking for permission to redact portions of the transcript of an April 7, 2022 hearing. The requested redactions concerned confidential and commercially sensitive information about the plaintiffs’ television-programming license agreements with defendants, including advertising-minute terms. The plaintiffs argued that public disclosure could cause competitive harm and interfere with future negotiations. Defendants consented to the requested redactions.
Ruling
Judge Barbara Moses granted in part the plaintiffs’ request. The court approved redactions at transcript pages and lines 20:20, 20:25, 21:4–5, and 23:4. The court also permitted the first word at 20:21 and 21:2, and the first two words at 21:15, to be redacted. All remaining proposed redactions were disallowed.
The plaintiffs were directed to submit a redacted transcript for the court’s review by email, but the specific deadline is not legible in the provided text. The original transcript at Docket No. 498 will remain sealed, and the redacted transcript will be publicly filed after the court approves it.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.