Since my google news algorithm knows me, I get news about the ESPN-Fox-WBD sports bundle, which is apparently now called Raptor.

When the joint venture hit the news, Fubo immediately cried foul, since THEY're not allowed to offer a sports-only bundle, making antitrust noises. Dish and DirecTV have joined in support of Fubo's case.

the part that's relevant to the ACC drama?

According to TheDesk.Net, Dish Network’s Video Services vice president Gary Schanman also provided a written declaration in support of Fubo, though it was sealed by a federal court at Fubo’s request. The outlet noted that the declaration contained “material information” about Dish’s programming deals with Fox and Disney.

Much like ESPN not wanting Fox or CBS or the Big 12 to know the details of their ACC contract, Dish doesn't want Comcast or Charter or PAramount Global to know the details of the Fox-Dish and Disney-Dish contracts. (Although obviously Fubo and Fox and Disney and WBD and maybe DirecTV are going to see those details. I think? Maybe not, maybe the courts have ways to "Chinese wall" that information?)

https://www.thewrap.com/directv-dish-fub...streaming/

EDIT: Me, I really don't understand why, if Disney-Fox-WBD are pulling the trigger on selling the sports channels as a mini-bundle, why they wouldn't allow the distributors to sell the sports channels as a mini-bundle. Why even pay the server costs if you can offload those costs onto Fubo / DirecTV / Comcast / Charter?

confidential ≠ trade secret

To say a contract is 'confidential' is one thing. Parties sign NDAs and whatnot. To say a contract represents a 'trade secret' is another thing. How much 'trade secrets' are involved in any contract is a matter of how statutes and case law define the term.

This distinction has emerged in the Florida State versus ACC case because: (1) the ACC and its media partner (ESPN) are eager to keep the texts of relevant agreements under wraps; (2) Florida has wide-open transparency laws; (3) Florida law provides for protection of 'confidentiality' in business agreements, but this protection comes with an expiration date; (4) the ACC is past the expiration date for claiming this kind of protection.

The only legal option left to the ACC now is (5) to try to claim protection of this information under Florida's 'trade secret' statutes. That's a harder sell in court, as the term 'trade secret' typically involves a patent or a technological innovation that a party's competitors do not have. Still, it's not a totally screwball argument. The ACC can point to some precedents. We'll see how far the argument gets.

So far discovery is proceeding in FL. The most likely outcome there is that the court will be provided with copies of relevant agreements, while redacted versions of the documents are released to the public. (Per statements in hearings so far, that's all the schools are seeking anyway.)

(04-14-2024 12:09 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The most likely outcome there is that the court will be provided with copies of relevant agreements, while redacted versions of the documents are released to the public. (Per statements in hearings so far, that's all the schools are seeking anyway.)

I would find this a very awkward outcome. I'm sure there is probably some precedent that I don't know about or care to look up. But Florida State is a public university. I can see your proposed resolution making sense for litigation entirely between private entities (Disney, Fox, ESPN, Dish, Fubo, etc...). However along with those 'transparency' laws is the fundamental idea that all dealings with a taxpayer-funded public institution should also be public, with natural considerations for national security and privacy concerns. If anything, it's that idea that has inspired those laws.

It's hard for me to reason that a patchwork of business deals between FSU and some sports conference and some mega conglomerates gets that same sort of consideration. But I can readily (perhaps cynically) see lawyers and judges twisting the spirit of those laws around to make it happen.

(04-14-2024 03:10 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-14-2024 12:09 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The most likely outcome there is that the court will be provided with copies of relevant agreements, while redacted versions of the documents are released to the public. (Per statements in hearings so far, that's all the schools are seeking anyway.)

I would find this a very awkward outcome. I'm sure there is probably some precedent that I don't know about or care to look up. But Florida State is a public university. I can see your proposed resolution making sense for litigation entirely between private entities (Disney, Fox, ESPN, Dish, Fubo, etc...). However along with those 'transparency' laws is the fundamental idea that all dealings with a taxpayer-funded public institution should also be public, with natural considerations for national security and privacy concerns. If anything, it's that idea that has inspired those laws.

It's hard for me to reason that a patchwork of business deals between FSU and some sports conference and some mega conglomerates gets that same sort of consideration. But I can readily (perhaps cynically) see lawyers and judges twisting the spirit of those laws around to make it happen.

My understanding of Florida State's request is based on the description given by the university's lawyer in the recent North Carolina hearing.

Redactions are standard procedure. No cynicism necessary.

https://caseguard.com/articles/federal-c...ion-rules/

(04-14-2024 12:09 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  confidential ≠ trade secret

To say a contract is 'confidential' is one thing. Parties sign NDAs and whatnot. To say a contract represents a 'trade secret' is another thing. How much 'trade secrets' are involved in any contract is a matter of how statutes and case law define the term.

This distinction has emerged in the Florida State versus ACC case because: (1) the ACC and its media partner (ESPN) are eager to keep the texts of relevant agreements under wraps; (2) Florida has wide-open transparency laws; (3) Florida law provides for protection of 'confidentiality' in business agreements, but this protection comes with an expiration date; (4) the ACC is past the expiration date for claiming this kind of protection.

The only legal option left to the ACC now is (5) to try to claim protection of this information under Florida's 'trade secret' statutes. That's a harder sell in court, as the term 'trade secret' typically involves a patent or a technological innovation that a party's competitors do not have. Still, it's not a totally screwball argument. The ACC can point to some precedents. We'll see how far the argument gets.

So far discovery is proceeding in FL. The most likely outcome there is that the court will be provided with copies of relevant agreements, while redacted versions of the documents are released to the public. (Per statements in hearings so far, that's all the schools are seeking anyway.)

I'm hoping the documents are not too heavily redacted. I'm all for keeping "trade secrets" or "confidential business dealings" as private as possible, but the terms of the contracts are at the forefront of this battle. Especially with the institutions involved being tax-payer funded, a necessary amount of these "trade secrets" might need to come into public knowledge so the right thing can be done for the parties involved, which, in this case, involves the public as well.

(04-14-2024 01:06 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(04-14-2024 12:09 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  confidential ≠ trade secret

To say a contract is 'confidential' is one thing. Parties sign NDAs and whatnot. To say a contract represents a 'trade secret' is another thing. How much 'trade secrets' are involved in any contract is a matter of how statutes and case law define the term.

This distinction has emerged in the Florida State versus ACC case because: (1) the ACC and its media partner (ESPN) are eager to keep the texts of relevant agreements under wraps; (2) Florida has wide-open transparency laws; (3) Florida law provides for protection of 'confidentiality' in business agreements, but this protection comes with an expiration date; (4) the ACC is past the expiration date for claiming this kind of protection.

The only legal option left to the ACC now is (5) to try to claim protection of this information under Florida's 'trade secret' statutes. That's a harder sell in court, as the term 'trade secret' typically involves a patent or a technological innovation that a party's competitors do not have. Still, it's not a totally screwball argument. The ACC can point to some precedents. We'll see how far the argument gets.

So far discovery is proceeding in FL. The most likely outcome there is that the court will be provided with copies of relevant agreements, while redacted versions of the documents are released to the public. (Per statements in hearings so far, that's all the schools are seeking anyway.)

I'm hoping the documents are not too heavily redacted. I'm all for keeping "trade secrets" or "confidential business dealings" as private as possible, but the terms of the contracts are at the forefront of this battle. Especially with the institutions involved being tax-payer funded, a necessary amount of these "trade secrets" might need to come into public knowledge so the right thing can be done for the parties involved, which, in this case, involves the public as well.

Yes indeed. Details can only be redacted for specific court-approved reasons (usually involving the protection of individuals' right to privacy). The actual ACC contract documents are very much in the forefront of these cases for the reasons you mention. This is why Florida State argued (with public support from Clemson's filing and from UNC trustees) that we need to see what the documents say—not just rely on what ACC and ESPN sources say the documents say.

Look folks, I work in the public sector in Ohio and I oversee the unit responsible for responding to public records requests. Ohio’s laws are modeled off of Florida’s so the idea that a state entity can be party to a contract that the public cannot access is highly irregular. In Ohio you can request any record from any entity for any reason (in fact you need not even express a reason or provide your identity). If a public entity denies your request, for a mere $25 filing fee, you can take your complaint directly to one of two Special Masters, judges who exclusively handle public records requests and lean heavily in favor of transparency, for mandamus action against the entity. Should you demonstrate that you suffered harm from that denial, the refusal can become quite expensive for the agency.

(04-14-2024 12:04 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-14-2024 03:10 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-14-2024 12:09 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The most likely outcome there is that the court will be provided with copies of relevant agreements, while redacted versions of the documents are released to the public. (Per statements in hearings so far, that's all the schools are seeking anyway.)

I would find this a very awkward outcome. I'm sure there is probably some precedent that I don't know about or care to look up. But Florida State is a public university. I can see your proposed resolution making sense for litigation entirely between private entities (Disney, Fox, ESPN, Dish, Fubo, etc...). However along with those 'transparency' laws is the fundamental idea that all dealings with a taxpayer-funded public institution should also be public, with natural considerations for national security and privacy concerns. If anything, it's that idea that has inspired those laws.

It's hard for me to reason that a patchwork of business deals between FSU and some sports conference and some mega conglomerates gets that same sort of consideration. But I can readily (perhaps cynically) see lawyers and judges twisting the spirit of those laws around to make it happen.

My understanding of Florida State's request is based on the description given by the university's lawyer in the recent North Carolina hearing.

Redactions are standard procedure. No cynicism necessary.

https://caseguard.com/articles/federal-c...ion-rules/

But the link you posted deals explicitly with concerns over privacy. That's a part I don't see being naturally relevant here. The other part being national security - very obviously not relevant. Since neither of these concepts seem to apply here, the only way I can reason that they make it apply here is the lawyers and the judge(s) squeezing that square of peg of should-be-transparent-to-the-public information into the round privacy hole. It can be done. And I suspect that's what will be done (hence your predicted redactions), but I don't believe there is a proper righteous argument that that is what should be done.

If it goes like you say, in my opinion, it will happen because everybody in the right positions agreed that that's how things will transpire. Not because it was actually legally, or spiritually (in the spirit of the extant transparency laws), the right thing to do.

(04-15-2024 06:55 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-14-2024 12:04 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-14-2024 03:10 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-14-2024 12:09 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The most likely outcome there is that the court will be provided with copies of relevant agreements, while redacted versions of the documents are released to the public. (Per statements in hearings so far, that's all the schools are seeking anyway.)

I would find this a very awkward outcome. I'm sure there is probably some precedent that I don't know about or care to look up. But Florida State is a public university. I can see your proposed resolution making sense for litigation entirely between private entities (Disney, Fox, ESPN, Dish, Fubo, etc...). However along with those 'transparency' laws is the fundamental idea that all dealings with a taxpayer-funded public institution should also be public, with natural considerations for national security and privacy concerns. If anything, it's that idea that has inspired those laws.

It's hard for me to reason that a patchwork of business deals between FSU and some sports conference and some mega conglomerates gets that same sort of consideration. But I can readily (perhaps cynically) see lawyers and judges twisting the spirit of those laws around to make it happen.

My understanding of Florida State's request is based on the description given by the university's lawyer in the recent North Carolina hearing.

Redactions are standard procedure. No cynicism necessary.

https://caseguard.com/articles/federal-c...ion-rules/

But the link you posted deals explicitly with concerns over privacy. That's a part I don't see being naturally relevant here. The other part being national security - very obviously not relevant. Since neither of these concepts seem to apply here, the only way I can reason that they make it apply here is the lawyers and the judge(s) squeezing that square of peg of should-be-transparent-to-the-public information into the round privacy hole. It can be done. And I suspect that's what will be done (hence your predicted redactions), but I don't believe there is a proper righteous argument that that is what should be done.

If it goes like you say, in my opinion, it will happen because everybody in the right positions agreed that that's how things will transpire. Not because it was actually legally, or spiritually (in the spirit of the extant transparency laws), the right thing to do.

I just shared that link as a general introduction to the topic for anyone who might find it useful. Many comments here seem to take for granted an all-or-nothing situation regarding court and public disclosure. You'd hardly know that redaction options existed at all.

IIRC the way it was discussed in the recent NC hearing: Once discovery is produced, each litigant requests certain redactions. Each request has to be justified on certain established legal grounds. Each party sees what the other is asking to conceal in public releases, and why. The judge then approves, modifies, or denies each request. If I've got that right, it's pretty typical.

You of course make a valid point: Florida's open-access laws are anything but typical. Lawyers in the state often remark on the sunshine laws being way out on the edge of the bell curve—and an inevitable fact of life if your practice is based there. We will see how that affects things in Florida State University's case. (I suspect the blinds-up, shutters-open disclosure laws in the state are a factor in why this school challenged the ACC first.)

Discovery can range widely, of course. It can include relevant chat messages and emails as well as data records and formal contracts. Florida State has already requested just about everything you can imagine, from Swofford family financial records to Jim Phillips's bowling scores. Privacy concerns can enter the picture in many ways.

The link I shared shows how US federal courts handle redaction. I figured the information might possibly come in handy later. If these ACC disputes go to a circuit court, these are presumably the rules everyone would be working with.