Judge Agrees to Cumulus’ Request to Shield Third-Party Witnesses in Nielsen Suit
As Cumulus Media’s suit against Nielsen for monopolistic practices moves through the United States District Court Southern District of New York, Cumulus wins its bid to have third-party declarants’ names and places of employment redacted for fear of retaliation by Nielsen via
rate increases. Cumulus argued, “Nielsen, a monopolist engaging in anticompetitive behavior, holds all of the power during contract negotiations, resulting in an unequal bargaining dynamic that is ripe for retaliation. For example, Nielsen can and has raised its rates significantly during negotiations. 
If identifying information is revealed to Nielsen’s businesspeople, Nielsen can retaliate with additional rate increases, resulting in manifest injustice to these third parties actively involved or who will be involved in negotiations with Nielsen.” After denying Cumulus’ request on December 4, Cumulus filed a supplemental brief and on December 15 Judge Jeannette Vargas agreed with Cumulus, writing, “Cumulus has established that sufficient countervailing factors – in particular, the privacy interests of these non-party declarants, the lack of bearing these narrowly tailored redactions have on the merits of this action, and the non-party declarants’ susceptibility to economic retaliation – outweigh the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents.”
responded to former Sacramento Kings player DeMarcus Cousins’ social media post asking him what he thought of Black Lives Matter and Napear responded, “ALL LIVES MATTER… EVERY SINGLE ONE.” Bonneville fired him citing a clause in his contract that holds him responsible for anything that “might discredit the goodwill, good name or reputation” of the company. In allowing the wrongful termination suit to go forward, Judge Drozd wrote that Napear “has stated a plausible cause for retaliation” under California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102, stating further that “the court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a ‘rule, regulation, or policy’ under (section) 1101 by alleging … defendant used his termination ‘as an example to all other employees of the Company as an implicit warning that anyone that dared to speak out publicly and criticize the politics of the Black Lives Matter movement would be summarily terminated.’”