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

Opinion

Elyse VD. Ecnitman +212 378-7881 direct MEMU ENDUROCU oteptoe eechtman@steptoe.com 1114 Avenue of the Americas _— New York, NY 10036-7703 USDC SDNY 22553 a [Pocus | ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 5/17/2022

May 12, 2022 By ECF Hon. Barbara Moses, U.S.M.J. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Room 740 New York, NY 10007 Re: Dish Network L.L.C., et al. v. Asia TV USA Ltd., et al., No. 19 Civ. 21 (VSB) (BCM) Letter Motion for Leave to Redact Confidential Information from Transcript Dear Judge Moses: On behalf of Plaintiffs DISH Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. (“Plaintiffs”), we submit this letter motion for leave to redact certain information from the transcript of the hearing held before this Court on April 7, 2022. Enclosed are (1) a copy of the proposed redacted transcript and (11) a copy of the unredacted transcript with the proposed redactions marked. Defendants consent to the requested redactions. The information Plaintiffs seek to redact includes highly confidential, commercially sensitive information relating to their television programming license terms, including terms relating to advertising minutes under their agreements with Defendants, 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, it would “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 competitive standing”); Ovonic Battery Co., Inc. v. Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd., 2014 WL

Hon. Barbara Moses, U.S.M.J. May 12, 2022 Page 2

2758756, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2014) (permitting redaction of “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”). This information is also identical, or materially similar, to the information the Court has permitted Plaintiffs to redact in their prior filings. See Docs. 70, 143, 228, 270, 298, 314, 327, 339, 366, 377, 379, 383, 416, 441, 447. In accordance with Rule 3.e of the Court’s Individual Practices, we respectfully submit that the requested redactions are narrowly tailored to protect against harmful disclosure of the parties’ commercially sensitive, proprietary information. We appreciate the Court’s consideration of this redaction request. Respectfully submitted, STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP /s/ Elyse D. Echtman Elyse D. Echtman

Enclosures cc: All counsel of record, via ECF GRANTED IN PART. The proposed redactions at 20:20, 20:25, 21:4-5, and 23:4 are approved as to the Court. At 20:21, the first word in the line may be redacted. Similarly, at 21:2, the first word in the be redacted. At 21:15, the first two words proposed for redaction may be redacted. All remaining proposed are disallowed. Plaintiffs are directed to submit a redacted transcript for the Court's review no later than 2022, via email. The original transcript at Dkt. No. 498 shall remain sealed and the redacted transcript, once by the Court, will be publicly filed. SOQ ORDERED.

MOSES States Magistrate Judge 2022