Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 13, 2022

Dish Network L.L.C v. Asia TV USA Ltd.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:19-cv-00021
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In DISH Network v. Asia TV, Judge Moses granted plaintiffs’ application to redact confidential licensing terms from a court-filed stipulation.

Who this affects

DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., whose confidential licensing information was permitted to be redacted, as well as the parties and the public who would otherwise access the court-filed stipulation.

What happened

In DISH Network L.L.C. v. Asia TV USA Ltd., DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. asked to redact information from a stipulation and proposed order about withdrawing money held by the court.

The requested redactions covered confidential television-programming license terms, including payment terms under agreements with the defendants. The plaintiffs said disclosure could harm their ability to compete and negotiate, and noted that the court had approved the same redactions in an earlier filing.

The court granted the sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in the plaintiffs’ letter. Judge Barbara Moses signed the order on July 13, 2022.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dish Network L.L.C v. Asia TV USA Ltd. · No. 1:19-cv-00021
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
July 13, 2022

Background

DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. moved for permission to redact information from the parties’ stipulation and proposed order concerning withdrawal of funds deposited with the court. The plaintiffs submitted a proposed redacted version and an unredacted version showing the proposed redactions.

Requested Redactions

The information concerned commercially sensitive television-programming license terms, particularly payment terms in the plaintiffs’ agreements with the defendants. The plaintiffs argued that public disclosure could cause competitive harm and weaken their position in future negotiations. They also stated that the information was identical to information the court had previously allowed them to redact in another filing, identified as Doc. 443.

Ruling

The court granted the sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in the plaintiffs’ letter. The order therefore permitted the requested redactions. The order was signed by Barbara Moses, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 13, 2022.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.