Nexstar Media Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-06860
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nexstar Media v. Comcast, Judge Koeltl granted Nexstar’s request to permanently and temporarily seal confidential material in its reply brief.
Nexstar Media Inc., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and Mission Broadcasting, Inc.; the ruling concerns public access to specified portions of Nexstar’s reply memorandum and related confidential business information.
What happened
Nexstar Media Inc. asked the court for permission to file parts of its reply brief under seal in its dispute with Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. The requested redactions concerned confidential business information, including communications about a retransmission consent agreement and negotiations between the parties.
Nexstar sought permanent sealing for material discussing the agreement’s commercially sensitive terms. It sought temporary sealing for other information that had previously been sealed and that Mission Broadcasting, Inc. might ask the court to protect in a forthcoming filing. Comcast and Mission did not oppose the letter-motion.
The court granted the application. Judge Koeltl therefore allowed Nexstar to file a public version of the reply with proposed redactions and an unredacted version under seal, covering the material described in the application.
The detailed version
- Nexstar Media Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-06860
- John Koeltl
- Aug. 12, 2022
Background
Nexstar, the plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant, asked for leave to file portions of its reply memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss Comcast’s counterclaim under seal. Comcast was the defendant, counterclaim-plaintiff, and third-party plaintiff. Mission Broadcasting, Inc. was a third-party defendant.
Requested Sealing
Nexstar sought permanent sealing of material discussing correspondence between Nexstar and Comcast about a retransmission consent agreement and confidential negotiations concerning that agreement. Nexstar stated that the agreement contained price rates and other terms whose disclosure could harm the parties competitively. The letter also stated that the court had previously permanently sealed related correspondence and references to it.
Nexstar separately sought temporary sealing for other information that the court had previously sealed at Mission’s request. Nexstar said Mission planned to file a reply supporting its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint and might seek confidential treatment for the same information. Nexstar proposed redactions for material it was not affirmatively asking to have permanently sealed and stated that a party seeking confidential treatment would need to file a letter-motion within three days.
Ruling
The court’s order states, “APPLICATION GRANTED — SO ORDERED.” The court therefore granted Nexstar’s application to file the identified material under permanent and temporary seal. The filing arrangement described in the application included a public version of Nexstar’s reply with proposed redactions and an unredacted version filed under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.