Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D.D.C.: Internet TV provider not entitled to conduct discovery prior to filing of amended complaint in C-SPAN distribution dispute, (Jul 24, 2013)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

Following its decision last month to dismiss an action brought by Sky Angel U.S., LLC, asserting antitrust claims against National Cable Satellite Corporation for terminating Sky Angel's right to distribute the C-SPAN television networks, the federal district court in Washington, D.C. today denied Sky Angel's motion for limited discovery prior to the filing of an amended complaint and prior to a “meet and confer” conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. National Cable Satellite Corp., July 24, 2013, Contreras, R.).

Sky Angel, which delivers television content to its FAVE-TV subscribers using the subscribers’ high-speed Internet service, was granted leave to amend its complaint against National Cable Satellite over the distribution rights. In advance of its filing the amended complaint, Sky Angel proposed to take up to six depositions related to “identifying the means by which C-SPAN’s Board of Directors authorized C-SPAN to block Sky Angel from carrying its programming, the identity of the actors involved, and the identity of any individual(s) interceding on behalf of any third parties to alter C-SPAN’s formal business arrangement with Sky Angel.”

In denying the motion, the court rejected Sky Angel's attempts to characterize the discovery requests as limited only to matters of identity of individual actors. Sky Angel had requested discovery related to the means by which C-SPAN’s board decided to terminate their affiliation or IPTV agreement. The plaintiff was seeking pre-complaint discovery in order to identify the underlying conduct that gave rise to a cause of action.

The court declined at this stage to depart from the normal order of discovery in order to indulge Sky Angel’s theory “that C-SPAN’s sudden termination of the IPTV Agreement could only have come about as a result of foul play.”

Moreover, pre-complaint discovery was unnecessary, according to the court. Sky Angel had stated that it would amend its complaint even without the requested discovery based on information already in its possession.

Sky Angel’s amended complaint is now due on August 5, 2013.

The case is Civil Action No. 12-1834 (RC).

Attorneys: Jonathan Laurence Rubin for Sky Angel U.S., LLC. Bruce Douglas Sokler (Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC) for National Cable Satellite Corp.

Companies: Sky Angel U.S., LLC; National Cable Satellite Corp.

Cases: Antitrust DistrictofColumbiaNews