Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

4-21-2005 CBS Broadcasting Inc v. Echostar Comm Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2861

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "CBS Broadcasting Inc v. Echostar Comm Corp" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1327. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1327

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 04-2861

CBS BROADCASTING, INC. v. ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION EchoStar Communications Corporation, EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Satellite Communications Operating Corporation and DirectSat Corporation, Appellants

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA D.C. Misc. No. 02-mc-00402 District Judge: The Honorable Gary L. Lancaster

Argued: April 7, 2005

Before: BARRY, AMBRO, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed:April 21, 2005) Cynthia A. Ricketts, Esq. (Argued) Mark A. Nadeau, Esq.

Mitchell W. Fleischmann, Esq.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey North Central Avenue Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 -AND- David J. Hickton, Esq.

John Sieminski, Esq.

Burns, White & Hickton Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Appellants

Neil K. Roman, Esq. (Argued) Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 -AND- Michael J. Manzo, Esq.

Nancy E. Rostek, Esq.

Klett, Rooney, Lieber & Scherling One Oxford Centre, 40 th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Appellees

OPINION

BARRY, Circuit Judge Echostar Communications Corp. (“Echostar”) appeals from an award of discovery

sanctions by the District Court. Although we have grave doubts as to the propriety of any such sanctions on the record presented, we need not reach that question because Echostar was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard before sanctions were ordered. See Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., 184 F.3d 268, 279 (3d Cir. 1999). We will, therefore, vacate the District Court’s orders of April 17, 2003, May 27, 2004, and May 28, 2004 and remand this matter to the District Court for further proceedings in the event that appellee continues to press its claim for sanctions.