Dish Network L.L.C v. Asia TV USA Ltd.

Opinion

USDC SDNY Ee Dpocuwest orrick | ELECTRONICALLY FILED September 11, 2020 Doc NOTA) |_—COrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP BY ECF | DATE FILED: 09/14/2020 51 West sand Street a New York, NY 10019-6142 Hon. Barbara Moses +1 212 506 5000 United States Magistrate Judge orrick.com United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse Elyse D. Echtman 500 Pearl Street Mi EM 0 FN D 0) RSED E eechtman@orrick.com New York, NY 10007 D +1 212 506 3753 F +1212506 5151

Re: DISH Network L.L.C., et al. vy. Asia TV USA Ltd., et al., 19-cv-00021-VSB-BCM Dear Judge Moses: We represent plaintiffs DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. (together, “Plaintiffs’”). We submit this letter motion for leave to file Plaintiffs’ Answer to Defendants’ Counterclaims dated August 21, 2020 (“Answer”) under seal and to file a redacted copy on the public docket. In accordance with Rule 3 of the Court’s Individual Practices, Plaintiffs have e-filed a redacted copy of the Answer as an exhibit to this letter motion, and (ii) an unredacted, highlighted copy of the Answer under seal, linked to this motion. Plaintiffs submit there is good cause to grant the relief requested herein. The information Plaintiffs seek to redact is highly confidential, commercially sensitive information relating to their television programming license terms and fees, which, if publicly disclosed, would cause Plaintiffs significant competitive harm. See, e.g., CBS Corp. v. FCC, 785 F.3d 699, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (carriage agreements should not be publicly disclosed because if AT&T’s contracts with Disney were publicly disclosed, “[i]t would therefore be a simple matter for, say, Fox to peruse those documents, figure out what Disney charges for ESPN, and then price its own sports channel accordingly”); Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., 2007 WL 496816, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Feb. 13, 2007) (permitting filing under seal where party was contractually obligated to keep information confidential and disclosure would “dampen [Plaintiff's] ability to negotiate effectively favorable terms” in the future); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2013 WL 3958232, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2013) (granting motion to seal information regarding scope of license because disclosure could “place Rovi in a diminished bargaining position in future negotiations with potential customers and competitors, thereby causing significant harm to Rovi’s competive standing”); Ovonic Battery Co., Inc. v. Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd., 2014 WL 2758756, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2014) (permitting movant to redact portions of filing containing “highly confidential and sensitive financial and other terms of licenses . . . including the scope of SANYO’s and Panasonic’s respective rights to use OBC’s patents in its various battery products, and the royalty payments SANYO is obligated to make to OBC”); Wyeth v. Medtronic, Inc., 2008 WL

11381926, at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2008) (permitting redaction of provisions reflecting “the scope of the parties’ rights,” “royalty provisions,” and “licensing terms’). Moreover, the information Plaintiffs seek to redact from the Answer is identical to the information the Court permitted Plaintiffs to redact from their answer to Defendants’ earlier counterclaims filed in response to Plaintiffs’ first Amended Complaint. See ECF Nos. 150, 151. Indeed, there is no additional information in the attached Answer that Plaintiffs seek to redact. We appreciate the Court’s consideration of this redaction and sealing request.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Elyse D. Echtman Elyse D. Echtman

Attachment cc: Counsel for Defendants

GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file under seal Plaintiffs’ Answer to Defendants’ Counterclaims, dated 21, 2020, and file corresponding redacted copies of their Answer publicly. SO ORDERED. alice Moses, U.S.M_J. 14, 2020