Blu-Ray Disc Association v. Top Media, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-03365
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Blu-Ray Disc Association v. Top Media, Judge Liman required public filing of settlement terms or withdrawal or revision of the requested judgment and injunction.
Blu-Ray Disc Association, Top Media, Inc., and New Century Media Corp., whose settlement-related request was subject to the court’s filing and revision requirements.
What happened
Blu-Ray Disc Association sued Top Media, Inc. and New Century Media Corp.; the parties told the court that they had settled all claims and asked it to enter a final judgment and permanent injunction enforcing their agreement.
Judge Liman said the court would not retain authority to enforce a settlement whose terms remained confidential because the public should know the terms that court resources would be used to enforce. The parties therefore had to make the settlement terms public if they wanted the court to enforce payment under the agreement.
The court ordered the parties, by May 5, 2023, either to file the settlement terms publicly or to withdraw or revise their request. Judge Liman also directed that any revised permanent injunction not be broader than the federal rules allow.
The detailed version
- Blu-Ray Disc Association v. Top Media, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03365
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 21, 2023
Background
Blu-Ray Disc Association and the defendants entered into a settlement agreement that, according to the order, fully resolved the claims in the case. The parties asked the court to enter a proposed final judgment and permanent injunction enforcing the settlement agreement. They had not filed the settlement agreement on the public docket.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that it would not retain jurisdiction—continuing authority over a case—to enforce a settlement agreement whose terms were confidential. The court reasoned that the public had a right to know the terms of an agreement whose enforcement and application would use court resources. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce payment under the agreement, they had to place the settlement terms on the public record.
The court also stated that any proposed permanent injunction in a revised order should not be overbroad. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the court explained that an injunction may bind only the parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and people acting together with those specified persons who receive actual notice.
Order
By May 5, 2023, the parties had to either place the settlement terms on the public record or inform the court that they withdrew their request for the proposed final judgment and permanent injunction as drafted. If they withdrew the request, they could file a proposed stipulation of dismissal or submit a revised order that did not ask the court to enforce payment under the settlement. The order did not state that the court entered the proposed final judgment or permanent injunction. Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on April 21, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.