Broadcasters Want 3rd Circuit to Shoot Down Standing Arguments From QR Challengers
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should deny a motion from anti-media consolidation petitioners in the 2014 quadrennial review case against the FCC's seeking permission to enter supplemental evidence on standing, filed (in Pacer) industry intervenors including NAB, Fox…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
and Sinclair, calling it an "eleventh-hour motion.” Petitioners, which include Prometheus Radio Project and Free Press, “provide no reason (aside from a cursory and erroneous assertion that their standing is self-evident) why they could not have included these facts with their opening briefs, filed almost four months ago,” broadcasters said Monday. A challenge to restoring the UHF discount in the D.C. Circuit brought by many of the same petitioner groups was dismissed for lack of standing after the groups sought late to supplement their standing, broadcasters noted. Though petitioners argued the D.C. Circuit has a local rule allowing supplemental appendices, the QR case is in the 3rd Circuit, and the D.C. rule refers to supplements filed with the opening brief, broadcasters said. Anti-consolidation filers argued they have standing by being the petitioners in previous challenges to QR orders in the 3rd Circuit. “This Court’s prior decisions do not address Petitioners’ standing,” the broadcasters said. “Petitioners could not reasonably have believed that their standing was self-evident, for the simple reason that they are not regulated by the media ownership rules.”