DISH -VS- VOOM - A Settlement has been reached!

[jacmyoung]

I will assume discovery requests, deposition schedules, etc. According to the court schedule, depositions will continue all the way through 'till August 21st.

That was my question, what is the point of all of the above when the one party that initiated it had already terminated the entire service?

I recall the goal of the lawsuit initially was to stop E* from removing the VOOM service, but the judge did not grant that preliminary injunction request, rather scheduled future hearings to decide if the VOOM service should be restored to E* or not.

Since there is no longer VOOM service to be restored now, what is the point of the continued hearings?

 

[riffjim4069]

That was my question, what is the point of all of the above when the one party that initiated it had already terminated the entire service?

I recall the goal of the lawsuit initially was to stop E* from removing the VOOM service, but the judge did not grant that preliminary injunction request, rather scheduled future hearings to decide if the VOOM service should be restored to E* or not.

Since there is no longer VOOM service to be restored now, what is the point of the continued hearings?

VOOM petitioned the court for an injunction but the judge ruled they did not meet the legal standard to prevent EchoStar from pulling the plug - no temporary injunction! To be honest, VOOM's arguments when filing the injunction were pretty lame.

VOOM then amended their complaint and requested up to a billion dollars in damages (VOOM's argument) for EchoStar illegally terminating their 15-year affiliation agreement. At this point it's all about money. Even if VOOM were to win a big, their window of opportunity has pretty much been closed.

 

[riffjim4069]

Court Appearance 9 April 2009

Well, it looks like both parties met in court for a compliance hearing the other day. Two things came about from this hearing:

1. One of VOOM's attorney's left the case
2. Stipulation and Proposed Order filed

Ok, the mildly interesting "stuff" in the order:

- The volume of discovery documents have far exceeded the parties expectations
- Each party has deployed large teams of attorney's to gather and review documents
- Plaintiff (VOOM) has produced more than 500,000 pages of documents (Yikes!)
- Defendant (EchoStar) has produced more than 100,000 pages of documents
- Both parties agree a modest discovery extension is needed
- Court ordered the discovery deadlines extended by 120 days

The next complaince conference is scheduled for September 3, 2009. To be honest, I doubt this case will go to court prior to June 2010.

 

[TNGTony]

I always find it amazing how long this process takes!

Thanks for posting an update.

See ya
Tony

 

[Sammy033]

Thats alot of documentation to go through. If there is going to be any kind of jury trial I hope it doesnt come here... or I will have to break something to get out of jury duty.

 

[david_jr]

Anyone know how VOOM is paying its attorneys? Sounds like a lot of billable hours coming up.

 

[Jim5506]

TARP money.

 

[riffjim4069]

I always find it amazing how long this process takes!

Thanks for posting an update.

See ya
Tony

Me too! This case is going to be high-profile next year due to the money involved (possibly a billion dollars). If you believe VOOM's argument, Dish Network could be paying VOOM 10-15 million per month in affiliation fees right now if the agreement were still in effect.

Anyway, time to put this thread back to sleep until September.

 

[riffjim4069]

Thats alot of documentation to go through. If there is going to be any kind of jury trial I hope it doesnt come here... or I will have to break something to get out of jury duty.

Yep, 600,000 pages is a lot of crap to sort through. I suspect this figure may double after all the depositions are taken and expert witness statements are provided to the court...prior to the trial even starting. Yikes!

 

[riffjim4069]

Anyone know how VOOM is paying its attorneys? Sounds like a lot of billable hours coming up.

I am sure Cablevision has deep-pockets for litigation, just like EchoStar.

 

[HDRoberts]

Me too! This case is going to be high-profile next year due to the money involved (possibly a billion dollars). If you believe VOOM's argument, Dish Network could be paying VOOM 10-15 million per month in affiliation fees right now if the agreement were still in effect.

Anyway, time to put this thread back to sleep until September.

That's a big if.

 

[jacmyoung]

Thats alot of documentation to go through. If there is going to be any kind of jury trial I hope it doesnt come here... or I will have to break something to get out of jury duty.

Did VOOM say they intended to seek a jury trial?

Considering the location of the trial and the location of the VOOM business, the plaintiffs might do just that, if they can get some of the VOOMers in the corporate hometown to sit in the jury box Of course to do so the VOOMers will have to pass the test before the E* lawyers.

It can be more fun than any beta testing one would ever get to do

 

[jacmyoung]

Me too! This case is going to be high-profile next year due to the money involved (possibly a billion dollars). If you believe VOOM's argument, Dish Network could be paying VOOM 10-15 million per month in affiliation fees right now if the agreement were still in effect...

Except the judge had reviewed the initial evidence and decided that he could not grant VOOM a preliminary injunction because he did not see a very good likelihood of VOOM succeeding.

Besides I thought VOOM as a service had ended some time ago, so there isn't that "if the agreement were still in effect" to speak of.

Depending on how many VOOM subs were under Cablevision, can one argue that Cablevision must also pay VOOM 10-15 million per month for discontinuing VOOM? Just to poke a little fun of course.

 

[riffjim4069]

Did VOOM say they intended to seek a jury trial?

Considering the location of the trial and the location of the VOOM business, the plaintiffs might do just that, if they can get some of the VOOMers in the corporate hometown to sit in the jury box Of course to do so the VOOMers will have to pass the test before the E* lawyers.

It can be more fun than any beta testing one would ever get to do

Perhaps SatelliteGuys very own Sean Moto can work his way onto the jury...

 

[mperdue]

Except the judge had reviewed the initial evidence and decided that he could not grant VOOM a preliminary injunction because he did not see a very good likelihood of VOOM succeeding.

Besides I thought VOOM as a service had ended some time ago, so there isn't that "if the agreement were still in effect" to speak of.

Depending on how many VOOM subs were under Cablevision, can one argue that Cablevision must also pay VOOM 10-15 million per month for discontinuing VOOM? Just to poke a little fun of course.

So many people use this to indicate that VOOM somehow doesn't stand a chance to prevail - this couldn't be farther from the truth. An organization I'm a member of was just involved in a lawsuit against a department of the federal government. At the beginning the judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction because he did not see:

(1) that we had a reasonable likelihood of success based on the merits;
(2) that we would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted;
(3) that the balance of hardships tipped in our favor;
(4) that an injunction would be consistent with the public interest.

All of those must be true to issue a preliminary injunction.

We recently won that lawsuit.


Also, the reason VOOM is gone is because DISH stopped paying them the money they were due based on their contract. DISH has not won this case, not by a long-shot.

Mario

 

[riffjim4069]

So many people use this to indicate that VOOM somehow doesn't stand a chance to prevail - this couldn't be farther from the truth. An organization I'm a member of was just involved in a lawsuit against a department of the federal government. At the beginning the judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction because he did not see:

(1) that we had a reasonable likelihood of success based on the merits;
(2) that we would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted;
(3) that the balance of hardships tipped in our favor;
(4) that an injunction would be consistent with the public interest.

All of those must be true to issue a preliminary injunction.

We recently won that lawsuit.


Also, the reason VOOM is gone is because DISH stopped paying them the money they were due based on their contract. DISH has not won this case, not by a long-shot.

Mario

Mario, thank you for providing valuable insight. As you mentioned, the legal standard required for the issuance of a court-ordered injunction is something completely different, which has been addressed several times in this and the now closed VOOM Goes Boom thread. From what we've seen publically posted this case could go either way. However, I doubt we'lll see VOOM or any anything resembling VOOM (Monsters, WorldSport) anytime soon.

 

[jacmyoung]

Mario, thank you for providing valuable insight. As you mentioned, the legal standard required for the issuance of a court-ordered injunction is something completely different, which has been addressed several times in this and the now closed VOOM Goes Boom thread. From what we've seen publically posted this case could go either way. However, I doubt we'lll see VOOM or any anything resembling VOOM (Monsters, WorldSport) anytime soon.

Of course any lawsuit, once allowed to proceed, can go either way. If it can only go one way, the judge would likely have dismissed the lawsuit, or granted a summary judgement against the defendents.

By Cablevision having 500k pages, and E* having 100k pages, and more pages will pile on, it is certainly not going to be a clear shot case. I thought the dispute was some language in the service contract regarding how much money Cablevision invested in VOOM, why would there be any need for 500k pages? Making things more complicated than it should be? If so the defendents usually get the benefit.

 

[riffjim4069]

Of course any lawsuit, once allowed to proceed, can go either way. If it can only go one way, the judge would likely have dismissed the lawsuit, or granted a summary judgement against the defendents.

By Cablevision having 500k pages, and E* having 100k pages, and more pages will pile on, it is certainly not going to be a clear shot case. I thought the dispute was some language in the service contract regarding how much money Cablevision invested in VOOM, why would there be any need for 500k pages? Making things more complicated than it should be? If so the defendents usually get the benefit.

Absolutely...without having access to the original agreements and artifacts in dispute, there is no telling how this dispute is going to play out in court. All I can say with any certainly is that V* appears to have little reason not to have complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement (it really was in their best interest), and E* had every reason to terminate the agreement because it was going to cost them a fortune in affiliation fees. If VOOM failed to meet their obligations under the affiliation agreement then Dish Network rightfully terminated the contract and Cablevision stakeholders should be out of blood! However, if Dish Network illegally terminated the agreement through repeated attempts (VOOM's argument) to fabricate ficticious violations, then E* should pay damages through the end of the agreement (2018).

Why the 500,000 pages of documents from VOOM? Good question! However, I get the feeling every piece of electronic communication is being presented to support all 100 points VOOM made in their ammended complaint (see the first post in this thread).

 

[mperdue]

If VOOM failed to meet their obligations under the affiliation agreement then Dish Network rightfully terminated the contract and Cablevision stakeholders should be out of blood!

Not necessarily. I'd say there's a real good probability that the contract contained language that addressed a failure to meet the terms and what measures were to be taken to correct that failure. If so, DISH would have been required to allow VOOM to address what they considered to be a shortcoming - failure to allow VOOM to do so would then be a breach of contract on the part of DISH. Without having full access to the contracts there's no way we can decide who was at fault. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Mario

 

[jacmyoung]

...I get the feeling every piece of electronic communication is being presented to support all 100 points VOOM made in their ammended complaint (see the first post in this thread).

Did anyone post E*'s response? E* did manage to have the judge deny VOOM's preliminary injunction request.

VOOM's damages are in part based on the assumption that E*'s HD subs were projected to grow to 11 million, therefore allowing VOOM to turn a profit as early as 2009

Now if true, the judge might be responsible for killing VOOM when he denied the VOOM injunction request