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 Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, Judge Koeltl granted Comcast’s request to temporarily seal unredacted pleadings.
Comcast, Nexstar, Mission Broadcasting, Inc., and the public’s access to the pleadings.
What happened
In Nexstar Media Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast asked to temporarily seal unredacted versions of its answer, counterclaim, and third-party complaint. The pleadings referred to information previously sealed in the case.
Comcast said it would file public versions with redactions requested by Nexstar. It also notified Nexstar and Mission Broadcasting, Inc. of their opportunity to seek permanent redactions.
Judge John G. Koeltl granted Comcast’s application. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or whether any redactions should become permanent.
The detailed version
- Nexstar Media Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-06860
- John Koeltl
- Aug. 16, 2022
Background
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, the defendant and counterclaim plaintiff, requested permission to file under temporary seal unredacted versions of its Answer and Counterclaim and its Third-Party Complaint against Mission Broadcasting, Inc. The letter stated that the pleadings referred to information previously sealed in connection with Comcast’s motion to stay or dismiss the complaint.
Comcast said it was submitting proposed public versions of the pleadings containing redactions requested by Nexstar Media Inc. It also said that it had notified Nexstar of an obligation to explain any need for permanent redactions and would notify Mission of the same opportunity. Comcast stated that it was not filing the underlying documents supporting its earlier motion, thereby preserving the confidentiality of information not reflected in the pleadings.
Ruling
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the application and ordered it accordingly. The supplied opinion text does not state that the court ruled on permanent redactions or on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.