When a previous group of music labels sued Charter Communications in U.S. District Court in Denver, the court "mistakenly granted confidential treatment to too many documents [and this court] does not intend to make the same mistakes in this case," U.S. District Judge Brooke Jackson said Friday (docket 1:21-cv-02020). Jackson denied an unopposed Charter motion to restrict access to a pair of declarations and three exhibits but approved restricting access to one exhibit. Charter is fighting claims it played a contributory role in music piracy by its broadband subscribers (see 2108120002). "The Court does its business in the public eye unless there is good cause to restrict access, namely, a specific and convincing indication that public access to the document would likely cause undo [sic] harm to a party," Jackson said. "That the disputing parties agree to confidential treatment of much of what they file is not dispositive."

The U.S. government argues its free speech matters more than citizens’ free speech, said Louisiana and Missouri Thursday at the U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana. “The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this argument,” said the states, citing 2017’s Matal v. Tam. The Biden administration urged the court last week not to grant expedited discovery on seeking a preliminary injunction in case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM, where the two states claim the administration colluded with social media platforms to censor and suppress truthful information (see 2207050042). Courts often grant expedited discovery in cases challenging a government action’s constitutionality, responded the states. “The Government cites no authority to the contrary.”

Streaming video pirate site Israel.TV must pay Israeli video content companies $7.65 million in statutory damages plus legal fees and costs, per a default judgment order Wednesday (docket 1:21-cv-11024) in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The order said Israel.TV never responded or otherwise appeared in the suit. The order said if the plaintiffs find any newly created domains operated by the defendant, the order's permanent injunction will be amended to include them. Before seeking relief from content delivery network services provider Cloudflare, the plaintiffs will try to get relief for the identified domains from hosting providers and domain name registries, but after that Cloudflare will cease providing video streaming and content delivery services to those domains, the judgment said. Cloudflare is fighting a contempt charge being sought by the plaintiffs for its alleged role in piracy by its Israel.TV customer (see 2206170029).

DirecTV and people suing it for its telemarketing practices disagree about class certification being sought by the plaintiffs in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) complaint. The plaintiffs told the U.S. District Court in Wheeling, West Virginia, their case is almost identical to litigation brought against Dish Network, with that suit's class action status certified by a unanimous 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, last week in a reply in support of their class certification motion (docket 5:17-cv-00179). It said issues like "class ascertainability and standing" can be established using the same expert testimony that went through that 4th Circuit decision. DirecTV in its opposition to the class certification motion said the Wheeling court lacks jurisdiction over claims brought by non-West Virginia class members and shouldn't certify a class that includes them. It said the plaintiffs haven't shown that common issues predominate, and determining whether particular calls violated TCPA would require individualized inquiries.

It wouldn’t promote judicial economy to bifurcate Ohio’s lawsuit claiming Google is a common carrier, the company said Friday at the Ohio Common Pleas Court in Delaware County (case 21 CV H 06 0274). The court ruled May 24 that Ohio “stated a cognizable claim” that Google could be a common carrier, though it disagreed the company is a public utility (see 2205260057). The court asked Google June 13 to respond to Ohio’s request to bifurcate the case. That would be inefficient, Google said in opposition. “The discovery, briefing, and possible trial of factual disputes necessary to resolve Ohio's claim that Google Search is a common carrier will require examination of the same evidence and law that must be examined to resolve Ohio's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief in the second count of its Complaint.”

The Biden administration urged a court Friday not to grant expedited discovery to Missouri and Louisiana in their suit claiming the administration colluded with social media platforms to censor and suppress truthful information (see 2205050056). In its response at the U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana (case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM), the administration said it plans to file a motion to dismiss. Don't allow states to take discovery before defendants can respond to the complaint, it said. "The Court must first address whether it has jurisdiction before this matter may proceed at all. … Expedited discovery is rare, and is authorized only when a party shows that it has a pressing need.” States “make little effort to show that they will suffer irreparable harm (or in fact any harm) absent expedited discovery.” It would go against federal civil procedure rules to require the U.S. defendants "to respond to an unspecified number of interrogatories and document requests, and potentially prepare for depositions, on a compressed timeline,” it said. Missouri and Louisiana seek a "a sweeping preliminary injunction that would have the perverse effect of suppressing public officials’ speech on matters of public concern,” and multiple courts including the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed similar claims “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” the administration said. “Although social media companies have been taking action against what they have deemed to be misinformation for years -- since before this Administration began,” plaintiffs here and in other cases insist “that the actions they were subject to were attributable … to certain comments made by Government officials about the harms of misinformation.” But courts “uniformly dismissed those challenges, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their allegations did not show that the challenged actions were caused by any Government actor rather than the independent judgments of social media companies.”

U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven in Tampa rejected summary judgment motions by Bright House Networks and music labels suing it (see 2205180022), in a pair of docket 8:19-cv-710 orders last week. Scriven disagreed with the music labels, saying a variety of issues preclude summary judgment, including whether the digital files that Bright House broadband subscribers distributed are infringing copies of the plaintiffs' copyrighted works and whether Bright House had knowledge of alleged infringement. In denying Bright House's summary judgment motion, the judge said such factual disputes "preclude resolution on summary judgment," adding the case will go to trial for a jury to decide.

MindGeek and its adult video hosting site Pornhub materially contributed to the child sexual abuse materials on the site, and that makes it a content creator not entitled to Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections, plaintiffs told the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles Monday. In their opposition (docket 2:21-cv-04920) to MindGeek's motion to dismiss their suit (see 2205240029), the plaintiffs -- all of whom allegedly were juvenile subjects of sex trafficking and abuse videos hosted on the site -- said the MindGeek defendants knowingly benefited from their participation by soliciting, curating, modifying and reuploading illegal content. Counsel for the defendants didn't comment.

The state of Florida and tech groups have agreed to request a stay in the industry’s lawsuit against Florida’s social media law and for the Supreme Court to review a 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case, NetChoice said Friday (see 2206170033). NetChoice cited the Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate an injunction against a similar law in Texas as foreshadowing of a ruling on the merits in Florida. That led to an agreement among NetChoice, the Computer and Communications Industry Association and Florida to request the stay, the association said: Florida will “file a petition for cert with the Supreme Court. And rather than oppose the petition, we will support the State’s request and likely file our own request, asking the Court to also review the transparency requirements.” The petition is due in the late summer, and the court can act on it when it chooses, NetChoice said. The court’s injunction will remain in place.

The U.S. District Court in Tallahassee won’t rule on Florida’s social media law until the Supreme Court reviews, Judge Robert Hinkle ruled Wednesday in docket 4:21cv220 (see 2206170033). Court proceedings are stayed until the deadline to file with the Supreme Court passes without a filing or until the high court issues a decision, Hinkle said.