Altmann

Altmann v. Television Signal Corp.

Good Law
849 F. Supp. 1335·94 Daily Journal DAR 7298·1994 WL 161122·75 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 571·1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5524
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 30, 1994C 94-0071 VRWCalifornia6,251 words

Opinion

Opinion

Caulfield, J.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Television Signal Corporation (“Viacom”) is the monopoly provider of cable television services to approximately 161,000 households in San Francisco. Marx Decl, ¶ 2. The 1988 amendment of the franchise agreement between Viacom and the City of San Francisco provided that Viacom “shall continue to provide an opportunity for public expression by the continuation of ... public access on Channel 25.” Witteman Decl., Exh. 1 at p. 5, § 2(a)(4). Viacom also is required, by federal statute, to provide a specified amount of leased access to its cablecasting system. See 47 U.S.C. § 582 (b)(1).

Plaintiffs produce public and leased access programs for broadcast on Viacom’s system. Plaintiffs Locke, Austin, Inouye, and Kleman are producers of public access programming (“public access plaintiffs”). Locke and Austin produce a public access show called “Wax Lips.” Kleman and Inouye produce a public access program called “Museo Contempo.” Plaintiffs Altmann and Freeman (“leased access plaintiffs”) are producers of a leased access program entitled “Erotica SF.”

Public access plaintiffs allege that Viacom interrupted the transmission of their programs due to the sexual content…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.