Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1523
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Applications of 
Comcast Corp. and 
Time Warner Cable Inc.
For Consent To Assign or Transfer Control of
Licenses and Authorizations
and
AT&T, Inc. and 
DIRECTV
For Consent To Assign or Transfer Control of
Licenses and Authorizations
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 14-57
MB Docket No. 14-90
ORDER
Adopted:  October 22, 2014 Released: October 22, 2014
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
1. On October 7, 2014, the Media Bureau issued an Order modifying the Joint Protective 
Orders in these proceedings.
1
  We required potential Reviewing Parties to re-sign the Acknowledgments 
required under the Joint Protective Orders and provided third parties a procedure by which they could 
object to certain individuals being permitted to review confidential information.
2
  
2. Pursuant the Modified Joint Protective Orders, various individuals executed 
Acknowledgments and filed them with the Commission.  Between October 15, 2014 and October 20, 
2014, various third parties (the “Content Companies”) filed objections against every individual who 
sought to review Highly Confidential Information, including Video Programming Confidential 
Information,
3
under the Modified Joint Protective Orders.
4
  For example, on October 15, 2014, the 
                                                     
1
See Applications of Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc. for Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of 
Licenses and Authorizations, Order, DA 14-1463 (Media Bur. Oct. 7, 2014). 
2
Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.
3
Video Programming Confidential Information is defined in the Modified Joint Protective Orders as an agreement 
or any part thereof for distribution of any video programming (including broadcast programming) carried by an 
Applicant’s (i) MVPD service and/or (ii) OVD service; a detailed description of one or more provisions of such an 
agreement, including, but not limited to, price terms; and information relating to the negotiation of such an 
agreement.
4
The Content Companies include: CBS Corp. Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, Time 
Warner Inc., Twenty First Century Fox, Inc., Univision Communications Inc., and Viacom Inc.  Discovery 
Communications LLC and TV One, LLC also signed the objections filed October 15, 2014, and Discovery 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1523
2
Content Companies filed an objection to eight individuals.
5
  The Content Companies “reiterate[d] their 
objection to permitting any individual to access their highly confidential carriage agreements” with the 
Applicants, an objection we rejected when we adopted the Modified Joint Protective Orders.  Of the eight 
individuals, they provided specific objections to only two.
6
  On October 15, 2014, the Content Companies 
also filed objections in Docket 14-90 with respect to 62 individuals, all of whom are outside counsel or 
outside experts for AT&T, one of the Applicants.
7
  The Content Companies provided specific objections 
to none of the individuals, but stated that their objections “rest on their longstanding objection to 
permitting any individual to access their highly confidential carriage agreements.”  On October 16, 2014, 
the Content Companies filed objections to 108 individuals in Docket 14-57, again “rest[ing] on their 
longstanding objection to permitting any individual to access their highly confidential carriage 
agreements.”
8
  The Content Companies provided specific objections to only 14 of the 108 individuals.  
With regard to most of the 14, the Content Companies argued not that the individuals were engaged in 
substantive contract negotiations or substantive business decisions of their clients, but that by advising 
and advocating for their clients on general content distribution and retransmission consent matters, these 
attorneys necessarily must consult with their clients and colleagues concerning Competitive Decision 
Making matters, and therefore should be barred under the terms of the Modified Joint Protective Order.  
They also argued that other individuals, employees of the Greenlining Institute, a public policy non-profit 
organization, did not qualify as Outside Counsel or Outside Consultants.
9
  On October 20, 2014, the 
Content Companies filed another set of objections in Docket 14-57, this time to 22 individuals, again 
“rest[ing] on their longstanding objection to permitting any individual to access their highly confidential 
carriage agreements.”
10
  The Content Companies provided specific objections to only four individuals, all
employees of non-commercial entities, including an attorney with the California Public Utility 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Communications LLC filed separate objections to many of the individuals objected to by the Content Companies in 
their later filings.
5
Objection to Request for Access to Highly Confidential Information and Video Programming Confidential 
Information, Docket No. 14-57, filed by Mace Rosenstein, Covington & Burling, Counsel for the Content 
Companies (Oct. 15, 2014).  The identical Objection was filed in Docket No. 14-90. 
6
The Content Companies alleged that one individual was involved in competitive decision-making, and objected to 
the other on the ground he was not an Outside Counsel or Outside Consultant, as those terms are used in the 
Modified Joint Protective Orders.  
7
Objection to Request for Access to Highly Confidential Information and Video Programming Confidential 
Information, Docket No. 14-90, filed by Mace Rosenstein, Covington & Burling, Counsel for the Content 
Companies (Oct. 16, 2014).  
8
Objection to Request for Access to Highly Confidential Information and Video Programming Confidential 
Information, Docket No. 14-57, filed by Mace Rosenstein, Covington & Burling, Counsel for the Content 
Companies (Oct. 16, 2014).  Discovery Communications LLC, by their counsel, Mace Rosenstein, Covington & 
Burling, filed a similar objection with respect to 106 individuals.  The Content Companies also filed an objection in 
Docket 14-90 with respect to the employees of the Greenlining Institute, and with respect to two additional outside 
counsel for AT&T.
9
We note that the Modified Joint Protective Order, paragraph 2, provides that “The term “Outside Counsel of 
Record” includes any attorney representing a non-commercial Participant in this proceeding, provided that such 
attorney is not involved in Competitive Decision-Making,” and The term “Outside Consultant” includes any 
consultant or expert employed by a non-commercial Participant in this proceeding, provided that such consultant or 
expert is not involved in Competitive Decision-Making.”
10
Objection to Request for Access to Highly Confidential Information and Video Programming Confidential 
Information, Docket No. 14-57, filed by Mace Rosenstein, Covington & Burling, Counsel for the Content 
Companies (Oct. 20, 2014).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1523
3
Commission.  In Docket 14-90, the Content Companies objected to 14 individuals, providing no specific 
objections to any of them.
11
3. On October 20, 2014, a number of commenters filed a motion for an extension of time to 
file replies in Docket 14-57.
12
  Among other points, they argue that certain third-party programmers “do 
not want any of the interested parties’ outside counsel or experts to view [their programming contracts],”
and have “set out to nullify” the Modified Joint Protective Order by filing multiple objections to requests 
for access.  These commenters argue that the programming information is of particular importance in 
evaluating the applications at issue, and that “these issues cannot be joined, and that analysis cannot be 
conducted, without reasonable access by both the FCC and outside counsel and experts not involved in 
competitive decision-making.”
4. We agree with these commenters that their current inability to review Highly 
Confidential Information that has been submitted in these dockets significantly hampers their ability to 
meaningfully comment and participate in these proceedings, in both Docket 14-57 and Docket 14-90.  
Accordingly, we are suspending the pleading cycles and stopping our 180-day informal time clock in both 
dockets.  After we rule on the objections, we will issue a Public Notice setting forth new pleading cycles 
that will provide sufficient time for commenters to review the relevant materials and prepare their 
comments.  This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the Commission’s 
Rules.
13
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William T. Lake
Chief, Media Bureau
                                                     
11
Objection to Request for Access to Highly Confidential Information and Video Programming Confidential 
Information, Docket No. 14-90, filed by Mace Rosenstein, Covington & Burling, Counsel for the Content 
Companies (Oct. 20, 2014).
12
Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Replies, filed by Dish Network Corp., COMPTEL, Monumental 
Sports and Entertainment, RCN, Grande Communications, Inc., Choice Cable TV of Puerto Rico, and Writers Guild 
of America, West, Inc. (Oct. 20, 2014). 
13
47 C.F.R. § 0.283.