`
`Austin • Century City • Dallas • Houston • Los Angeles • Newport Beach • New York • San Francisco • Silicon Valley • Washington, DC
`Beijing • Brussels • Hong Kong • London • Seoul • Shanghai • Singapore • Tokyo
`Daniel M. Petrocelli
`D: +1 310 246 6850
`dpetrocelli@omm.com
` T: +1 310 553 6700
`F: +1 310 246 6779
`omm.com
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`1999 Avenue of the Stars
`8ᵗʰ Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
`October 23, 2025
`VIA ECF
`The Honorable Arun Subramanian
`United States District Judge
`Southern District of New York
`Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
`500 Pearl Street
`New York, NY 10007
`
`Re: Defendant’s Letter (ECF 79, Follow-Up on October 22, 2025 Hearing)
`
`Dear Judge Subramanian:
`I write on Plaintiffs’ behalf to briefly respond to Defendant’s letter today notifying the
`Court of a change to the time parameters of its Weekend Pass offering.
`For clarity and the reasons addressed in our papers and in argument yesterday in
`support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendant’s decision to make this change
`(see Defendant’s Yeater Declaration, ¶ 16, Figure 1, ECF 60, for the percentage of Weekend
`Passes sold by Defendant) does not undercut any of Plaintiffs’ positions that Defendant’s sale of
`Passes is unauthorized and constitutes a breach of the OTT License, including the implied
`covenant of good faith and fair dealing, warranting issuance of a preliminary injunction; it only
`confirms them.
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli
`Daniel M. Petrocelli (admitted pro hac vice)
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`cc: Elyse Echtman
` Counsel for Defendant
`Case 1:25-cv-07169-AS Document 80 Filed 10/23/25 Page 1 of 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
