Federal Communications Commission DA 17-730
1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Tribune Media Company
(Transferor)
and
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
(Transferee)
Consolidated Applications for Consent to 
Transfer Control 
)
)
)     
)      MB Docket No. 17-179
)
)
)     
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Adopted:  August 3, 2017 Released:  August 3, 2017
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
1. On July 12, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. (DISH), American Cable Association (ACA), and 
Public Knowledge (collectively Movants) filed a Motion for Additional Information and Documents and 
Extension of Time (Motion) in the above-docketed matter.
1
  On July 19, 2017, Sinclair Broadcast Group, 
Inc. (Sinclair) and Tribune Media Company (Tribune, collectively Applicants) filed a Joint Opposition to 
the Motion (Opposition).  The Movants filed a Reply to the Opposition (Reply) on July 25, 2017.  For the 
reasons stated below, we dismiss the Motion as set forth below, and deny in all other respects.
2. Background.  On July 6, 2017, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comment 
on the joint applications (Applications) of Tribune and Sinclair for Commission consent to the transfer of 
control of Tribune to Sinclair.
2
  The Public Notice established August 7, 2017, as the date for filing 
comments and petitions to deny; August 22, 2017, as the deadline for filing responses to comments and 
oppositions to petitions to deny; and August 29, 2017, as the deadline for filing replies to responses and 
oppositions to petitions to deny.
3
  
3. The Motion.  The Movants request that the Commission require the Applicants to furnish 
additional documents they claim are necessary for the Commission and the public to assess whether the 
                                                     
1
Comments in support of the Motion were filed separately by NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association on July 14, 
2017; Common Cause on July 17, 2017; AWE - A Wealth of Entertainment, Cinémoi, MAVTV Motorsports 
Network, One America News Network, and RIDE on July 20, 2017; and Newsmax Media on July 21, 2017.  No 
new facts were presented or issues raised in these additional comments.
2
The Public Notice also established the proceeding as permit-but-disclose for ex parte purposes. Media Bureau 
Establishes Pleading Cycle for Applications to Transfer Control of Tribune Media Company to Sinclair Broadcast 
Group, Inc. and Permit-but-Disclose Ex Parte Status for the Proceeding, Public Notice, MB Docket No. 17-179, 
DA 17-647 (MB July 6, 2017) (Public Notice).
3
Id. at 1.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-730
2
proposed transaction is in the public interest.
4
  Specifically, the Movants contend that the Applicants have 
failed to provide information that: (1) quantifies the public interest benefits that would be provided by the 
proposed transaction; (2) demonstrates how the combined entity would cure any violations of the 
Commission’s television ownership rules, or (3) addresses retransmission consent issues raised by the 
transaction.
5
  Movants request that the Commission require the Applicants to produce twelve categories of 
material, most of it highly confidential and much of it involving third parties, including documents related 
to:  public interest claims; historic and future expenditure plans by both companies; programming plans 
by both companies; Sinclair’s programming data; station sharing agreements; and retransmission consent 
negotiations and agreements.
6
  
4. Movants “ask that the deadline for Comments and Petitions to Deny be set no earlier than 30 
days following the public’s access, subject to appropriate protections, to the confidential information 
already filed or made available to the Commission by the Applicants but not yet made available to 
interested parties….Petitioners also ask that Replies to Oppositions or Comments in this proceeding be 
due no earlier than 30 days following participating parties’ access to Applicants’ completed responses to 
the requests for additional information set forth above.”
7
Alternatively, Movants assert that in tandem 
with requesting the information that they specify in their Motion, the Commission should “reconsider its 
requirement that commenters raise issues in their initial comments or within fifteen days of discovering 
them.”
8
  
5. Applicants’ Opposition.  In their Opposition, the Applicants argue that the Movants’ request 
for additional information and documents is contrary to the Commission’s well-established procedures for 
developing the record when reviewing transactions.
9
  As described by the Applicants, after the staff has 
reviewed an application and determined that it is acceptable for filing, it establishes a pleading cycle 
during which third parties may file petitions to deny or comments and the applicants may respond.
10
  
Applicants note that based upon the staff’s own evaluation of the applications and the record, it may issue 
written requests for additional information and documents which it concludes are necessary for its review, 
including proprietary or confidential information which may be covered by a protective order.
11
  The 
                                                     
4
Motion at 1.
5
Id. at 3-5. See also 47 U.S.C. §310(d); 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(b)(e).  Movant’s allege that Applicants appear to 
acknowledge that the three pages of the putative public interest benefits of the transaction in the Applications fail to 
meet the burden of proving that the proposed transaction is in the public interest, while Applicants state in the 
Opposition that the Applications “are complete as filed.” Motion at 2-3.  Opposition at 4.
6
Motion at 2-6.  Recognizing the high bar to the disclosure of confidential documents set by the D.C. Circuit in CBS
Corp. v. FCC, 785 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2015), the Movants argue that it is necessary that all the information on 
retransmission consent negotiations should be made available to “interested parties” in the proceeding so that they 
can determine how the proposed transaction affects the Applicants’ market power.  They also argue that there is no 
other source for the information except the same companies who conducted the negotiations in the past. Id. at 6-7.
7
Motion at 8.  Applicants state that on the day of the filing of their Opposition they provided Movants with all of the 
Confidential or Highly Confidential Information already submitted to the Commission pursuant to the terms of
Tribune Media Company and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Consolidated Applications for Consent to Transfer 
Control, Protective Order, DA 17-678 (July 14, 2017) (Protective Order). Opposition at 4.  The material, which is 
not voluminous, consists of the documents Applicants submitted in support of their two requests for failing stations 
waivers. Id.
8
Id. at 2, 9.  See Public Notice at 3 (“Submissions after the pleading cycle has closed that seek to raise new issues 
based on new facts or newly discovered facts should be filed within 15 days after such facts are discovered.  Absent 
such a showing of good cause, any issues not timely raised may be disregarded by the Commission.”).
9
Opposition at 2. 
10
Id.
11
Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-730
3
Applicants point out that, in this case, the Media Bureau issued a Public Notice establishing a timeline for 
petitions and comments and a Protective Order to govern the submission of confidential and highly 
confidential documents.
12
  
6. Applicants argue that in this case Movants seek to dictate the pleading cycle and the 
information requests themselves.
13
  Applicants further contend that Movants may appropriately raise their 
concerns about the Applications in a petition to deny or comments based on the Applications as filed and 
submit replies to any oppositions filed by the Applicants.
14
  Furthermore, the Applicants state that the 
Movants and others will have the opportunity to make ex parte presentations to the Commission after the 
formal pleading cycle has ended.
15
  Finally, Applicants maintain that the Commission’s rules governing 
broadcast transaction reviews do not provide any mechanism for third parties to propound discovery.
16
  
7. Reply.  In their Reply, the Movants concede that the “Commission’s ‘well-established 
procedures’ include the development by Commission staff of ‘written requests for specific additional 
information from the applicants.’”
17
  Movants claim they have no desire to change this procedure and are 
not seeking to engage in third party discovery, but they claim that the information that they specify is 
“necessary for the Commission’s evaluation of the proposed transaction.”
18
  
8. Discussion.  Motion for Additional Information and Documents.  We deny the Movants’ 
request for additional information and documents.  If they believe that the Applications are substantially 
incomplete or that they fundamentally lack the information to establish that the proposed transaction is in 
the public interest, the proper procedure is for Movants to file a petition to deny on those grounds.
19
  
Thus, their Motion for Additional Information and Documents is misplaced.  Further, we find that the 
Movants do not need access to the wide-ranging and highly confidential information Movants request the 
Commission to demand in order to file a petition to deny.
9. If the Applicants amend their Applications or supplement it in response to requests for 
information by Commission staff, Movants and other third parties will be able to file submissions based 
on new or newly discovered facts, as set out in the Public Notice.  In addition to those procedures, 
participants in the proceeding also will be able to present their arguments to the Commission as part of the 
ex parte process.
20
10. We also note that the Media Bureau staff has not yet issued an information request in this 
proceeding.  As both sides concede, it is the staff, not other potential parties to the proceeding, that will 
develop written requests for information that it determines are necessary based on its review of the 
Applications and the record.  That includes any potential proprietary or highly confidential information.  
Despite the extent of information sought in their Motion, Movants appear to understand the role of 
                                                     
12
Id.
13
Id. at 2-3.
14
Id. at 3.
15
Id.
16
Id. at 5. Applicants point to Movants’ request to have the deadline for reply comments extended until after the 
Applicants respond to their suggested requests for information, but before these issues have been raised in a petition 
to deny or comments, as support for their argument that Movants are attempting to create their own method for such 
discovery. Id.
17
Reply at 1.
18
Id.
19
47 U.S.C. § 310(a),(d)(1). We find that the standing issue raised by Applicants is premature and should be 
considered in the context of petitions to deny.
20
See In the Matter of AT&T and DirectTV, 29 FCC Rcd 10318, 10320 (MB 2014).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-730
4
Commission staff when they assert in their Reply that they are not trying to usurp the normal 
investigatory process and state that the Commission is not “waiting for litigants to choose the information 
it will consider.”
21
  Therefore, finding no basis presented for the Motion for Additional Documents and 
Information, we dismiss it.
22
11. Motion for Extension of Time.  We also deny the motion for extension of time. Section 
1.46(a) of the Commission’s Rules states that “[i]t is the policy of the Commission that motions for 
extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.”
23
  Movants have failed to establish any basis for 
granting the extension they seek. Although movants ask that the Commission extend the petition to deny 
deadline to at least 30 days following the public’s access,
24
to the confidential material already filed or 
made available to the Commission by the Applicants,
25
Movants and any other party who sought access 
to such confidential information could have requested it promptly after the Applications were put on 
public notice.
26
  This would have given them most, if not all, of the full 30-day petition-to-deny period to 
review the limited amount of confidential information that was filed.  They were not required to wait for 
the issuance of the Protective Order to make a request.  In any event, Movants received the information, 
which was not voluminous, on the same day that the Opposition was filed.
27
   Movants have not 
demonstrated why it would be unduly burdensome for them to consider this information prior to the 
petition to deny date. Having denied Movants’ Motion for Additional Information and Documents, their 
request for an extension of time to file replies to oppositions and replies to comments until the material 
requested in that part of the Motion has been provided is denied as moot.  Thus, we find that under the 
circumstances presented here, Movants’ requested extension of the pleading cycle is not justified.
12. We also deny, without prejudice, Movants’ request that the Commission should “reconsider 
its requirement that commenters raise issues in their initial comments or within fifteen days of 
discovering them” as premature.  If Movants request an extension of time following Applicants’ filing of 
an opposition to a petition to deny or reply to comments or Applicants’ response to an information 
request, such a request will be appropriately considered at that time.  
                                                     
21
Reply at 3.
22
Because we find no basis for this part of the Motion and dismiss it, we do not reach the parties’ arguments 
regarding the applicability of CBS Corp. v. FCC, 785 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2015), to the documents or types of 
documents sought by Movants. 
23
47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a).
24
Motion at 8.  Elsewhere the Movants state that they seek the extension until “no earlier than 30 days following 
participating parties’ access,” but do not define “participating parties.”  Prior to the filing of petitions to deny and 
comments, the meaning of “participating parties” in a docketed transaction proceeding is unclear. Id. at 2.
25
Id. at 8.  Applicants state that on the day of the filing of their Opposition they provided Movants with all of the 
Confidential or Highly Confidential Information already submitted to the Commission pursuant to the terms of the
Protective Order. Opposition at 4.
26
As noted above, supra at fn. 7, the confidential material that has already been filed in the case is related to the 
Applicants’ requests for two continuing failing station waivers.  The material constitutes Attachments V and VII to 
the Comprehensive Exhibit.  In the unredacted version of the Applications as filed, each Exhibit says that it is 
“Submitted under a Request for Confidentiality.”  Those requests were filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.  
Immediately after the filing of the Applications, Movants could have requested access to the information pursuant to 
47 C.F.R. § 0.461, which they did not do.  They also could have approached the Applicants about access to the 
information and there is no evidence in the record that they did so.    
27
Opposition at 4.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-730
5
13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the Motion for Additional Information and 
Documents and Extension of Time filed on July 12, 2017, by DISH Network L.L.C., American Cable 
Association, and Public Knowledge in the above captioned matter is hereby DISMISSED in part and 
DENIED in part.  This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s Rules.
28
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Michelle M. Carey
Chief
Media Bureau
                                                     
28
47 C.F.R. § 0.283.