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

Background

Joint Stock Company “Channel One Russia Worldwide” sued Russian TV Company, Inc., SR Express Consulting Inc. doing business as Techstudio, Servernaya Inc., ESTIDesign, Inc., and their owner, Steven Rudik. The plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 605(a) and 605(e)(4) of the Federal Communications Act.

After discovery, the parties agreed to a summary trial of the Federal Communications Act claims, which the plaintiff agreed would resolve its remaining claims. In amended findings issued on September 22, 2021, the court determined that the defendants violated Section 605(a). The plaintiff’s requests for damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a permanent injunction were then referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.

Magistrate judge’s recommendations

On November 18, 2022, Judge Moses issued a report and recommendation. It recommended awarding the plaintiff $1,149,000 in statutory damages, with attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined after further proceedings, and recommended injunctive relief. No party filed timely objections.

The district court stated that it found no clear error in Judge Moses’s recommendations. “Clear error” review asks whether the record plainly shows a mistake when no timely objection has been made.

Ruling

Judge Schofield ordered that the report and recommendation be adopted in full. The plaintiff was awarded $1,149,000 in damages and the recommended injunctive relief. The plaintiff was also awarded attorneys’ fees and costs, with the amounts to be determined in further proceedings before Judge Moses.

The defendants had filed a letter seeking to delay entry of the money judgment until the plaintiff was no longer subject to sanctions under Executive Order 14024 and related regulations. The court ordered the defendants to file their motion to stay by May 4, 2023, allowed the plaintiff until May 18, 2023, to respond, and allowed the defendants until May 25, 2023, to reply.

The court stayed entry of the money judgment while the anticipated motion to stay was resolved. The permanent injunction took effect immediately and was to issue separately. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion identified as Dkt. No. 340.