RCC: D.C. Circuit Should Strike FCC Filing

the Nov. 18 oral argument, RCC sent the court a letter disputing a statement FCC attorney Adam Sorensen made during the session about must-carry rights. Sorensen told the three-judge panel: “There’s really nothing in the statute that would indicate to the commission that Congress had even considered the issue, let alone taken the very significant step of extending must-carry rights to Class A stations.” RCC’s letter after oral argument disputed that statement, pointing to language in a 2004 amendment to the Satellite Home Viewer Act that defined Class A stations as low-power TV stations. The FCC responded Friday, saying the court should disregard RCC’s letter because it wasn’t pertinent, and the company didn’t raise the matter in its briefs. “The fact that Congress defined Class A stations as low-power television stations for purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 does not suggest that Class A stations are equivalent to full power stations in all other contexts,” the FCC said. In a motion filed the same day, RCC said the FCC’s response should be stricken from the record. The FCC’s response “unfairly denied RCC the opportunity to rebut the Commission’s procedural arguments because the Court’s ECF filing system does not allow RCC to file a further response to the Commission’s Letter,” said RCC. “Therefore, RCC is compelled, and unfairly so, to file the instant motion to strike.” RCC’s filings were “entirely appropriate and warranted under the circumstances and certainly not deserving of a rebuke from the party who misstated the law to the Court,” RCC said.