T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T H E R R I N G B R O A D C A S T I N G , I N C ., DB A We a l th T V, P et i t i on er , v. F E DE R AL C OMMUNI C AT I ON S C OMMI S S I ON ; UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, R esp o n d en t s, BRI G H T H O U SE N ETW O RK S, LLC; C OMC AS T C OR P OR AT I ON ; C OX C O MMU N I C A T I O N S , I N C . ; T I ME W A RN E R C A B L E , I N C ., R esp o n d en t s-In t erv en o rs. N o. 11- 73134 F C C N o. 08- 214 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the F e de r a l C om m uni c a t i ons C om m i s s i on A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 7, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED MA R 14 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H onor abl e L e s l i e E . K oba y a s hi , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** the D i s tr i c tof

H a w a i i , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 2 B ef ore: P A E Z and W A T F O R D , C i rc ui tJudg es , and K O B A Y A S H I, D i stri ct Judg e. ** H e rr i ng B r oa dc a s t i ng, I nc . , w hi c h doe s bus i ne s s a s W e a l thT V , pe t i t i ons f or r e vi e w of

a n or de rby the F e de r a l C om m uni c a t i ons C om m i s s i on ( F C C ) c onc l udi ng tha tT i m e W a rne rC abl e , I nc . , B r i ghtH ous e N e tw orks , L L C , C ox C om m uni c a t i ons , I nc . , a nd C om c a s tC orpor a t i on ( c ol l e c t i ve l y I nt e rve nor s ) di d not vi ol a t e 47 U . S . C . § 536( a ) ( 3) i n de ny i ng c a rr i a ge t o W e a l thT V . T he f our Int erveno rs j oi nt l y ow n a com pany ca l l ed iN D E M A N D , w hi ch for s ever al ye ar s op er at ed a netw ork cal l ed M O JO . W ea l thT V al l eges thatthe Int erveno rs i m pe rm i s s i bl y di s c r i m i na t e d on the ba s i s of a f f i l i a t i on i n f

a vorof M O J O a nd a g a in s t W e a lth T V . T h e F C C c o n c lu d e dth a t th e I n te rv e n o r s d e n ie d c a rr ia g e to W e a l th TV f

o rl e g i t i ma t e , n o n d i s c r i mi n a t o ry b u s i n e s s r e a s o n s a n d th a tW e a l th TV c oul d notpr ove i t s c l a i m by s how i ng di f f e r e nt i a l tr e a tm e ntof

M O J O be c aus e the tw o ne tw orks w e r e nots i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d. 1. T he F C C ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tW e a l thT V a nd M O J O w e r e not s im ila r lys itu a te d is s u p p o rte d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Se e T om m as e t t iv . A s tr ue , 533 F . 3d 1035, 1038 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . F i r s t , the a ge nc y r e a s onabl y r e l i e d on the e xpe rtt e s t i m ony of

M i c ha e l E ga n t o c onc l ude tha tthe tw o ne tw orks di d nots how3

sim il arp ro g ra m m in g . W ea lth T V ar g u es th at th e a g en cy ’s re jectio n o f E g an ’s c onc l us i ons i n al a t e rc a s e unde rm i ne s i t s r e l i a nc e on E ga n he r e . E ve n a s s um i ng tha ti nc ons i s t e nc y w i th al a t e ra ge nc y de c i s i on w oul d unde rm i ne the va l i di ty of the F C C ’ s anal ys i s i n thi s c as e, w e c on cl ud e thatno such i ncon si st encyhas bee n s how n. E ga n hi m s e l f

a c know l e dge d tha the w a s appl y i ng tw o di f f e r e ntm ode s of anal ys i s i n the tw o cas es . T hu s, there w as no thi ng i ncon si st entabou tthe agency f in d in g th e m o d e o f

a n a ly s is E g a n ap p lie d to b e p e r s u a s iv e in th is c a s e a n d n o t in the other. T h e a g e n c y a l s o r e a s o n ab l y r e l i e d o n E g a n ’ s c o n c l u s i o n th a tth e two n e tw o rk s h a d ad if

f e r e n t “lo o ka n d f

e e l.” W e a lth T V p r o v id e s n o au th o r ityto s u g g e s t th a t it is u n r e a s o n ab le to c o n s id e r“lo o ka n d f e e l” a s o n e f

a c to rin de t e rm i ni ng how s i m i l a rtw o t e l e vi s i on ne tw orks a r e . T he out - of - c i r c ui tc a s e on w hi ch W ea l thT V re l i es i s r ea di l y di st i ng ui shabl e bec ause the F C C there “ no w here e v e n v a g u e ly d e s c r ib e d h o w it a g g r e g a te d its f in d in g s in to th e d e c is iv e b a la n c e ,” bu tra ther r el i ed on an “ adm i ni stra t i ve fe el , ” w hi ch the D . C . C i rc ui tfoun d w as

“ com pl et el y opaqu e t o j ud i ci al re vi ew . ” Ce n t. Fla . En te rs . , I n c . v . FCC , 598 F . 2d 37 , 50 (D . C . C i r. 19 78 ). H er e, by contra st , the F C C ’ s overa l l anal ys i s w as c a r e f ul l y r e a s one d a nd noti ntui t i on- ba s e d.4

F i n a l l y , th e F C C r e a s o n ab l y c o n c l u d e d , b a s e d o n We a l th T V’ s o wn m a rk e tin g m a te r ia ls , th a t W e a lth T V ta r g e te d ab r o a d e rau d ie n c e th a n M O J O d id . T h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u p p o rt W e a lth T V ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th o s e m a rk e tin g m a te r ia ls w er e des cr i bi ng W ea l thT V ’ s a ctual audi ence and w er e m i sc on strued by the F C C as desc ri bi ng i t s t ar getaudi ence . 2. W e a l thT V a r gue s tha tthe a ge nc y e rr e d by notappl y i ng the bur de nshi ft i ng fr am ew ork u se d i n em pl oym entdi sc ri m i nat i on ca se s. H ow ever , even u n d e rth e e m p lo y m e n t d is c r im in a tio n f r a m e w o rk , W e a lth T V ’s c la im w o u ld s till h in g e o n w h e th e rth e tw o n e tw o rk s w e r e s im ila r ly s itu a te d . See H aw n v. E xe c. Je t M gm t. , Inc. , 615 F . 3d 1151, 1156 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . M or e ove r , bur de n s hi f t i ng w ou l d n othave m ade adi ff er ence here because the F C C re as on abl y det erm i ned th a t , r e g a r d l e s s o f

wh i c h p a rty b o r e th e b u r d e n s o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d p r o o f

, th e two netw orks w er e notsi m i l ar l y s i tuat ed. F i nal l y, al tho ug h W ea l thT V al l ud es t o o ther r e a s o n s w h y ab u r d e n - s h if tin g ap p r o a c h w o u ld h a v e h e lp e d its c a s e , it p o in ts to n o th i n g co n cret e th ati tw o u l d h av e d o n e d i fferen t l y i n p resen t i n g i t s case. T h u s, the F C C di d n oterr i n d ec l i ni ng t o d ec i de w hether abu rden-s hi ft i ng fr am ew ork shou l d h ave been used i n thi s c as e. 3. W ea l thT V ar gu es thatthe agency made tw o i ncorrec tevi dent i ary rul i ngs . W e c onc l ude tha t , e ve n a s s um i ng e i the re vi de nt i a ry rul i ng w a s e rr or , a ny5

s u c h e rr o rw o u ld h a v e b e e n h a rm le s s . See 5 U .S .C . § 7 0 6 ; Mol i na v . A s tr ue , 674 F . 3d 11 04 , 11 15 (9th C i r. 20 12 ). 4. W e f

i nd W ea l thT V ’ s r em ai ni ng ar gu m ent s unp er suas i ve. T he re cord contra di ct s W ea l thT V ’ s c on t ent i on s thatthe agency i m prop er l y r equi re d W ea l thT V t o p rove di sc ri m i nat i on w i th d i re ctevi dence, and thatthe agency ove r l ooke d e vi de nc e tha tthe tw o ne tw orks t a r ge t e d the s a m e pr os pe c t i ve advert i se rs . W ea l thT V ’ s argum entthatthe agency e rr ed i n rel yi ng on the fa ctthat W ea l thT V l aunched aft erM O JO ’ s pre dece ss or netw orks i s i m prop er l y pre m i se d o n a l at er ag en cy d eci si o n i n v o l v i n g v ery d i fferen tfact s. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.