1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 DISH NETWORK LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01019-RFB-BNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 SANTINA FULTON and VENTURA’S 11 NEST LLC,

12 Defendants.

13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Before the Court is Dish Network LLC, Sling TV LLC, and NagraStar LLC’s 16 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for permanent injunction against Defendants Santina Fulton and 17 Ventura’s Nest LLC. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion for permanent 18 injunction. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 Pursuant to the Federal Communications Act (“FCA”),

(e)(3)(B)(i), and 21 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”),

(b)(1), Plaintiffs move for a 22 permanent injunction against Defendants Santina Fulton and Ventura’s Nest LLC. This Court 23 previously entered default judgment against Defendants and awarded Plaintiffs statutory damages 24 of $1,830,000 for Defendants’ violations of

(a), 605(e)(4) and

1201(a)(2) based on their operation of an illicit television streaming service known as VNest TV, 26 whereby Defendants or persons working in concert with them acquire DISH and Sling’s 27 transmissions of television programming by circumventing their security technology and then 28 retransmit that programming without authorization to users of Defendants’ VNest TV service. ECF 1 No. 15. 2 III. LEGAL STANDARD 3 The FCA and DMCA create the possibility of injunctive relieve, granting courts the power 4 to issue an injunction “on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain violations 5 of [the Act].”

(e)(3)(B)(i);

(b)(1). Despite this statutory 6 availability, Plaintiffs’ claim must nonetheless satisfy the equitable requirements for a permanent 7 injunction. “A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction . . . must demonstrate: (1) that it has 8 suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are 9 inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between 10 the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would 11 not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,

, 12 391 (2006). 13 IV. DISCUSSION 14 Having considered Plaintiffs’ motion for permanent injunction and the applicable law, the 15 Court finds that a permanent injunction is appropriate. 16 First, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm because of 17 Defendants’ piracy. Plaintiffs provide evidence that Defendants are continuing to retransmit DISH 18 and Sling programming without authorization. See ECF No. 12 at 6-7, Supplemental Declaration 19 of Bret Eichhorn (describing testing done on a group of channels, which revealed that Defendants 20 are continuing to retransmit several channels from DISH and Sling’s internet communication onto 21 the VNest TV service without authorization, including the Outdoor Channel, History, DUST, and 22 AMC+ channels). Defendants’ conduct harms Plaintiffs’ goodwill and respective business 23 reputations, which depend on delivering DISH and Sling Programming to authorized subscribers 24 in a secure manner. Such actions also result in a loss of revenues and prospective customers. See 25 Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2001) 26 (“[e]vidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill certainly supports a finding 27 of the possibility of irreparable harm.”). 28 Second, remedies available at law, including monetary damages, are inadequate to 1 compensate Plaintiffs as it is difficult to quantify the number of Defendants’ customers that have 2 received DISH and Sling Programming without authorization and would have otherwise properly 3 subscribed through DISH and Sling. 4 Third, the balance of hardships tip sharply in favor of Plaintiffs. On the one hand, Plaintiffs 5 will continue to suffer lost profits and subscribers resulting from Defendants’ conduct. By contrast, 6 Defendants will simply be prevented from engaging in (and profiting from) their unlawful actions. 7 Moreover, Defendants have not opposed the motion for permanent injunction or otherwise 8 appeared in this case. 9 Finally, the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. The public 10 has a strong interest in the enforcement of federal statutes and anti-piracy legislation such as the 11 DMCA and Federal Communications Act. The Court therefore grants Plaintiffs’ requests for a 12 permanent injunction. 13 V. CONCLUSION 14 The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS as follows: 15 1. Defendants, and any officer, agent, servant, employee, or other person acting in active 16 concert or participation with any of them that receives actual notice of this Order, are 17 permanently enjoined from: 18 a. Receiving or assisting others in receiving DISH’s satellite communications of 19 television programming or the content of such communications without 20 authorization from DISH, including through the VNest TV service or any similar 21 internet streaming service; 22 b. Selling or distributing any device or equipment that is intended for receiving or 23 assisting others in receiving DISH’s satellite communications of television 24 programming or the content of such communications, including codes or credits 25 used to access the VNest TV service or any similar internet streaming service; 26 c. Manufacturing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in the 27 VNest TV service, any similar streaming service, or any other technology, product, 28 service, device, component, or part thereof that: i. is primarily designed or produced for circumventing a technological 2 measure employed by DISH or Sling that controls access to copyrighted 3 works; 4 i. has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than 5 circumventing a technological measure employed by DISH or Sling that 6 controls access to copyrighted works; 7 iil. is marketed for purposes of circumventing a technological measure 8 employed by DISH or Sling that controls access to copyrighted works 9 10 DATED: May 28, 2024. ; 1] 12 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-