Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" v. Russian TV Company Inc. et al
| Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" |
| Russian TV Company Inc., Techstudio, Steven Rudik and JOHN DOES 1-10 (names and number of whom are unknown at present) |
| 1:2018cv02318 |
| March 15, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Lorna G. Schofield |
| Cable/Satellite TV |
| 47 U.S.C. ยง 605 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
374
ORDER for 373 Report and Recommendations. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Report is ADOPTED in full. For the reasons stated in the Report, Plaintiff is awarded $450,758 in attorney's fees under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) and no costs. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/29/2024) (tg)
|
|
Filing
372
JUDGMENT. IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" has judgment and does recover of Defendants Russian TV Company, Inc., SR Express Consulting Inc. d/b/a Techstudio, Steven Rudik, Servernaya Inc., and ESTIDesign Inc., the sum of $1,149,000.00 together with attorney's fees and costs to be determined after further proceedings and that Plaintiff Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" has execution therefo r. This Judgment is final and appealable. IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED that enforcement of this Judgment is hereby stayed pending further Order of the Court following either (i) Plaintiff's no longer being subject to sanctions under Executive Order 14024 or (ii) anyone's obtaining a specific license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control authorizing Plaintiff's receipt of funds. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/30/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
368
OPINION & ORDER re: 347 MOTION to Stay Entry of Judgment. filed by SR Express Consulting d/b/a Techstudio, Servernaya Inc., Estidesign Inc., Steven Rudik, Russian TV Company Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to stay entry of money judgment is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. 347. Plaintiff is directed to file a proposed form of judgment consistent with this Order by January 19, 2024, with any object ions by Defendants to be filed by January 26, 2024. When either Plaintiff is no longer subject to sanctions under E.O. 14024 or any party has obtained a specific license from OFAC authorizing Plaintiff's receipt of funds, the parties shall inform the Court. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/12/2024) (mml)
|
|
Filing
366
ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions concerning plaintiff's request for an award of fees and costs. It appears to the Court that plaintiff has not included all of the relevant law firm invoices in its submission. There is no invoice for the period December 1, 2019 through April 30, 2020. Unless plaintiff wishes to exclude work performed during this period from its application, it should submit a supplemental declaration attaching and authenticating the missing i nvoice as promptly as possible. Additionally, the Court would appreciate a summary compilation, preferably in an Excel spreadsheet, showing, for the period covered by each invoice: and further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 12/22/2023) (rro)
|
|
Filing
363
MEMO ENDORSEMENT with respect to 347 Motion to Stay re: 347 MOTION to Stay Entry of Judgment. ENDORSEMENT: By December 6, 2023, the parties shall each file a letter explaining any legal bases for why the Court should not enter judgment and stay execution of such judgment until Plaintiff either is no longer subject to sanctions under Executive Order 14024 or is granted a license by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, to minimize delay in the start of any appellate process. So Ordered.. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/29/2023) (tg)
|
|
Filing
346
PERMANENT INJUNCTION: it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants are permanently enjoined and restrained from broadcasting, rebroadcasting, transmitting, or Distributing the Programming unless (i) the parties to this action in the future otherwise agree in writing, or (ii) Defendants have contracted in writing to do so with a counter party which has been authorized in writing by Plaintiff to transfer or convey to third parties, including Defendants, the right to broadcast, rebroadcast, transmit, or Di stribute the Programming. Defendants shall bear the burden of confirming such written authorization and shallbear the risk of failing to do so. It is further ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcement of this injunction. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/20/2023) (ama)
|
|
Filing
331
ORDER granting in part 327 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part 330 Letter Motion to Seal. The Court has received and reviewed defendants' sealing motion at Dkt. No. 327 and plaintiff's sealing motion at Dkt. No. 330. Defendants& #039; motion is GRANTED IN PART, and plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, as follows: Defendants seek to seal Exhibits E and F to the Hogan Declaration (Dkt. Nos. 328-8 and 328-9), which contain personally identifying information regarding multiple non-party customersof defendant RTV. That information may appropriately be sealed. Defendants also seek to seal Exhibits G and H to the Hogan Declaration (Dkt. Nos. 328-10 and 328-11) to protect "sensitive business information" of nonpart y Kartina. Exhibit G appears to list payments made by defendant Rudik to Kartina, from 2011 to 2017, for access codes. Exhibit H is an email from a Kartina executive concerning its sale of access codes to defendants. These topics have been discuss ed at length in publicly-filed documents in this action. See, e.g., Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Dkt. No. 292) at 3-4, 6, 12. It is not obvious to the Court what, if anything, is sufficiently "sensitive" in Exhibits G and H to justify sealing, and defendants offer no explanation in their letter-application. Plaintiff does not oppose defendants' sealing request, and asks that the Court extend its sealing order to Exhibits 2, 4, and 5 to the Rowley Declarati on (Dkt. Nos. 323-2, 323-4, and 323-5), which consist of annotated versions of documents that defendants previously filed under seal. All three exhibits contain personally identifying information regarding multiple non-party customers of defendant RTV. That information may appropriately be sealed. Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that Dkt. Nos. 323-2, 323-4, 323-5, 328-8, and 328-9 will be maintained under seal at their current viewing level. The remainder of the Hogan Declaration (including all of its exhibits except Exhibits E and F) will be placed in public view. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 1/27/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
319
ORDER RE DAMAGES BRIEFING:For the reasons discussed during today's telephonic conference, the Court will make a recommendation regarding damages to the district judge based upon the existing evidentiary record. The parties may argue the damag es issues, based upon that record, on the following schedule: Plaintiff's opening brief: December 17, 2021. Defendants' responding brief: January 7, 2022. Plaintiff's reply brief: January 14, 2022. Principal briefs are limited to te n pages. The reply brief is limited to five pages. The Court does not require any additional briefing regarding the language of the proposed permanent injunction. ( Motions due by 12/17/2021., Responses due by 1/7/2022, Replies due by 1/14/2022.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 11/22/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
318
ORDER SCHEDULING TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE: Judge Moses will conduct a telephonic conference on November 22, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The parties are directed to dial in using the phone number (888) 557-8511 and the access code 7746387. ( Telephone Conference set for 11/22/2021 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 11/16/2021) (ate)
|
|
Filing
304
ORDER: The district judge has referred this action to me for a report and recommendation on statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. For the reasons discussed during today's telephonic conference, I will not finalize the schedule or procedures for that phase of the case until the district judge has resolved the pending motion (Dkt. No. 299) for reconsideration of portions of her September 22, 2021 Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Dkt. No. 292) and for clari fication of my reference. The parties are directed to contact chambers within one week after the reconsideration/clarification motion is decided to schedule a conference. At that time I will give the parties a briefing schedule and - unless the di strict judge has already resolved the question - will determine whether they will be permitted to submit additional evidence for the purpose of litigating the statutory damages issue. Plaintiff's application for attorneys' fees and costs, which will require evidence, will be due after statutory damages are determined. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 10/12/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
302
MEMO ENDORSED ORDER with respect to 299 Motion for Reconsideration re 299 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 292 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law . filed by Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide". ENDORSEMENT: Defendants shall file a response by October 15, 2021. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/7/2021) (vfr) Modified on 10/8/2021 (vfr).
|
|
Filing
298
ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that parties shall submit any additional comments or suggestions by October 12, 2021. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/6/21) (yv)
|
|
Filing
292
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OFLAW: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants are liable for violating FCA § 605(a). The Court will refer the computation of damages, attorneys' fees and costs to Magistrate Judge Moses by separate order. The Court has determined to grant Plaintiff's requests for a permanent injunction and declaratory relief and will do so in a separate order after receipt of the parties' letters by September 29, 2021.The Clerk of Court is respectf ully directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 243, 251, 261 and 269. Further, as the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at Docket Number 291 has been amended, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to strike Docket Number 291. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/22/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
288
ORDER granting 283 Letter Motion to Seal. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED permission to file its licensing and assignment agreement under seal. Although "[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firml y rooted in our nations history," this right is not absolute, and courts "must balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 11920 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotatio n marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) ("[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case."). Filing the above-referenced documents in redacted form is necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of confidential information related to Plaintiff. The parties are advised that the Cour t retains unfettered discretion whether or not to afford confidential treatment to any Confidential Document or information contained in any Confidential Document submitted to the Court in connection with any motion, application, or proceeding that may result in an order and/or decision by the Court.. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/4/2021) (jca)
|
|
Filing
279
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties and Kartina are GRANTED permission to file exhibits under seal as listed in the appendix at Dkt. No. 277. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Joint Stock Companys request to file its licensing agreeme nt with Kartina at CHANNELONERTV000543-568 under seal is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. By March 1, 2021, Plaintiff shall file a letter indicating whether it renews its request. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/22/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
274
ORDER with respect to 269 LETTER MOTION to Seal and Redact Certain Exhibits Related to Defendants' Summary-Trial Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 261). By February 8, 2021, Plaintiff shall file a response to this letter not to exceed three single spaced pages. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/1/2021) (jca)
|
|
Filing
256
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, by November 19, 2020, the parties shall file a joint letter proposing the manner in which they would like to resolve the case. If the parties do not agree on an approach, each party shall communicate its preferred approach in the letter. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/5/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
255
ORDER: granting 253 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The application is GRANTED. The pre-motion conference is hereby adjourned from October 29, 2020, at 10:30 A.M. to November 5, 2020, at 10:30 A.M. The parties shall call (888)363-4749 and us e Access Code 558-3333. The time of the conference is approximate, but the parties shall be ready to proceed at that time. SO ORDERED. Pre-Motion Conference set for 11/5/2020 at 10:30 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/19/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
252
ORDER: WHEREAS, on October 6, 2020, an order was issued scheduling a pre-motion conference on October 22, 2020, at 10:30 A.M. (Dkt. No. 250). Due to a conflict in the Court's schedule, it is hereby ORDERED that, the pre-motion conference is a djourned from October 22, 2020, at 10:30 A.M. to October 29, 2020, at 10:30 A.M. The parties shall call (888) 262-4749 and use Access Code 558-3333. The time of the conference is approximate but the parties shall be ready to proceed at that time. ( Telephone Conference set for 10/29/2020 at 10:30 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/15/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
242
ORDER: Discovery having closed on August 21, 2020 (Dkt. No. 238), the deadline to file summary judgment motions is September 21, 2020. ( Motions due by 9/21/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 8/24/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
236
ORDER: It hereby ORDERED that Judge Moses will hold a telephonic discovery conference on August 6, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. At that time, the parties shall call 888-557-8511 and enter the access code 7746387. Due to the confidential nature of the unde rlying medical information, the Court will separately email a security code to counsel prior to the conference. It is the Court's intention to resolve this dispute at the August 6 conference, based on the letters submitted, together with any argument presented at the conference, unless a party shows good cause why more formal briefing is required. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Telephone Conference set for 8/6/2020 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 7/31/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
234
ORDER: Pursuant to this Court's July 28 Order granting in part plaintiff's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 232), the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to file Ms. Panfilova's July 27 email to chambers, and the attached records, under seal (ex parte). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 7/30/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
232
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 230 Letter Motion to Seal. Plaintiff's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 230) is GRANTED IN PART. Ms. Panfilova's medical records (Dkt. No. 231-1) shall remain under seal (ex parte). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the letter-motion at Dkt. No. 230 and unseal the body of plaintiff's letter (Dkt. No. 231). Exhibit A to that letter (Dkt. No. 231-1) shall remain under seal. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 7/28/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
229
ORDER: The Court has received and reviewed defendants' letter-motion dated July 22, 2020, seeking an order compelling Ms. Panfilova's attendance at her deposition "on the earliest practicable date." (Dkt. No. 228.) Plaintiff� 39;s responding letter is due by July 27, 2020. On July 8, 2020, this Court extended the deadline to complete Ms. Panfilova's deposition for the second time to July 31, 2020, and advised the parties that no further extensions would be gran ted. (Dkt. No. 227.) If plaintiff contends that Ms. Panfilova is unable to testify within that deadline for medical reasons, plaintiff shall submit properly authenticated medical records (accompanied by a certified translation if not in English) e videncing the relevant medical condition(s), the reasons they prohibit the witness from sitting for a (remote) deposition this month, and the prognosis for her ability to testify in the future. ( Responses due by 7/27/2020) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 7/23/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
223
ORDER re: 220 Letter: For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that the "category 1" emails be promptly produced to defendants, who may not use the information contained therein to shut down or disable Akbar Khan's accoun t. If any of the documents attached to the "category 2" emails have not yet been produced, they must now be promptly provided to defendants. The emails themselves, however, need not be produced. It is further ORDERED that the parties cooper ate in good faith to complete the deposition of Olga Panfilova no later than June 1, 2020, at which point all discovery will be concluded. In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is further ORDERED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3) and (b)(4), that the Panfilova deposition may be taken via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means, and may be recorded by any reliable audio or audiovisual means. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 5/1/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
221
ORDER: The Court has received and reviewed the parties' joint letter dated February 11, 2020 (Dkt. No. 220), describing their outstanding dispute regarding plaintiff's privilege claims. It is hereby ORDERED that defendants shall promptly identify 3 exemplars from each of the two disputed categories as to which plaintiff has made a claim of privilege (see Joint Ltr. at 2) for in camera review. No later than February 19, 2020, plaintiff shall submit these exemplars, along with the corresponding portions of its privilege log, to chambers by courier or hand delivery. By the same date, each side may file a letter-brief, on the public docket, explaining why it believes the documents are or are not privileged. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 2/12/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
105
OPINION AND ORDER re: 51 CROSS MOTION to Amend/Correct 2 Complaint filed by Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide", 44 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Steven Rudik, Techstudio, Russian TV Co mpany Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts IV, V, VI and X against Russian TV is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count VII and Count VIII of the Complaint is DENIED. Defendants' motion to dismis s Defendants Rudik and Techstudio is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 51 and 44. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/21/2019) (cf)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
