Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide"

Background

The court considered four motions to seal documents filed by the plaintiffs and defendants. The documents concerned the defendants’ motion challenging expert evidence, the plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion, the defendants’ reply, and the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The parties had filed public versions with redactions and relied in part on a protective order allowing certain information to be designated confidential or for attorneys’ eyes only.

The court treated all of the documents as judicial documents because it was relying on them to decide the pending motions. Under the governing standard, judicial documents are subject to a presumption of public access. The party seeking secrecy must provide specific reasons showing that sealing is necessary and narrowly tailored; a confidentiality agreement alone is not enough.

Rulings on the plaintiffs’ documents

The plaintiffs sought continued sealing for sensitive business agreements and negotiations, and for nonpublic financial information and analysis. The court granted requests involving information such as trade secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue information, and pricing information.

The court denied the request to keep William Kerr’s deposition transcript sealed because the plaintiffs provided no specific justification beyond the confidentiality designation. It also denied the request to seal the retainer agreement between Berkeley Research Group and the plaintiffs for the same reason.

For the excerpt from Irina Pliss’s deposition, the court granted the request to redact specific pricing information appearing on pages 67 and 68. It denied sealing for the rest of the excerpt because the plaintiffs did not show specifically how its general content would cause harm if made public.

Rulings on the defendants’ documents

The defendants initially filed the entire settlement agreement under seal. After a hearing, they limited their request to the settlement amount. The court granted that limited request and directed the defendants to refile the agreement with only the settlement amount redacted.

The court denied the requests to seal Mark S. Gottlieb’s rebuttal expert report and the notice concerning an alleged breach of the settlement agreement and release. Neither party provided a justification for keeping those documents sealed.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to seal, ECF Nos. 497, 511, and 520, and the plaintiffs’ motion to seal, ECF No. 506. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the parties to refile their memoranda of law and related exhibits in compliance with the order by March 31, 2023. The clerk was directed to terminate the four sealing motions.