Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Colorado newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (April 29, 2020, 7:31 PM EDT) -- A Denver sports network's antitrust case against Comcast is clear to pick back up after a more than monthlong coronavirus-related pause, as a Colorado federal magistrate said Wednesday the COVID-19 restrictions that prompted the stay are about to be rolled back.
"It is apparent that the restrictions engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic will be lifted in stages commencing soon," U.S. District Judge Michael E. Hegarty said in his decision, which lifted the discovery stay he installed in Altitude Sports & Entertainment's lawsuit in mid-March.
Comcast had vied to stall discovery for another six weeks, insisting that the original reasons for the discovery stay — largely the public health crisis and related workplace shutdowns caused by the novel coronavirus — are still in full force.
However, Altitude had argued the ongoing pandemic won't get in the way of the two sides exchanging certain documents and information, and Judge Hegarty agreed.
"I find plaintiff's suggestion to be modest and supported by the needs of the litigation," he said Wednesday. "Therefore, the steps that plaintiff requests are adopted, and the parties may proceed."
Altitude, which holds the rights to broadcast Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche games, sued Comcast in November alleging the cable giant is illegally trying to run the regional network out of business in a campaign to wrest control of Denver's sports programming market.
Comcast had carried Altitude's network without incident for more than a decade, according to the complaint, but suddenly came to the negotiating table last year with terms that Altitude called "entirely unreasonable and unworkable for Altitude given the costs it pays to rights holders and its production costs."
After Altitude refused the new deal — as the network said accepting Comcast's latest terms would've sunk its business — Comcast blacked out Altitude's programming, the suit said. The rate cuts Comcast offered don't make any economic sense unless the cable giant is looking to eliminate Altitude as a competitor, according to the complaint.
Comcast moved to dismiss Altitude's claims in February, arguing the litigation is a "transparent play for negotiating leverage" after the two sides clashed on the terms of a "routine commercial disagreement."
The court is still mulling the motion. Judge Hegarty said he expected the court to rule on Comcast's dismissal bid in "a very timely fashion" when he imposed the temporary stay March 16, but didn't offer any additional time frame in Wednesday's order.
The case is now set to move forward starting Thursday, after which Comcast has until May 31 to respond to several of Altitude's fact-finding requests.
Counsel and representatives for Comcast and Altitude did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday afternoon.
Altitude is represented by William A. Isaacson, Amy J. Mauser, Robert M. Cooper, Martha L. Goodman and Sean Rodriguez of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Kevin D. Evans of Evans Law PLLC.
Comcast is represented by Kathryn A. Reilly and Ryan W. Cooke of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP and Arthur J. Burke, David B. Toscano, Christopher Lynch and John M. Briggs of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.
The case is Altitude Sports & Entertainment LLC v. Comcast Corp. et al., case number 1:19-cv-03253, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
--Additional reporting by Christopher Cole, Ryan Boysen and Matthew Perlman. Editing by Abbie Sarfo.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
