November 5, 2013
AL JAZEERA AMERICA, LLC, Plaintiff Below Appellant,
AT & T SERVICES, INC., Defendant Below, and Bloomberg L.P., Peg Brickley, Rita Farrell, Randall Chase, Kyle Wagner Compton, and Sharon Bradley, Objectors Below-Appellees.
Submitted: Oct. 30, 2013.
This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.
Court Below— Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, C.A. No. 8823.
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
RANDY J. HOLLAND, Justice.
This 5th day of November 2013, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On October 16, 2013, the plaintiff-appellant, Al Jazeera America, LLC (Al Jazeera), filed a notice of appeal in No. 562, 2013 from an order of the Court of Chancery, dated October 14, 2013. In response to objections filed by various individuals on behalf of media-related organizations to Al Jazeera's filing of a redacted complaint pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 5. 1, the Court of Chancery's October 14th decision ordered Al Jazeera to file a largely unredacted version of its complaint. On October 29, Al Jazeera filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from the same order in No. 600, 2013. The Court of Chancery granted certification of the interlocutory appeal on October 22, 2013.
(2) A rule to show cause was issued in No. 562, 2013 directing Al Jazeera to show cause why that appeal should not be dismissed as interlocutory. Al Jazeera's response contends that the order is appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. In light of the Court of Chancery's subsequent certification of the interlocutory appeal in No. 600, 2013, we find no need to address whether the collateral order doctrine is applicable in this case.
(3) In the exercise of our discretion, we have concluded that the application for interlocutory review meets the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be accepted. In the interests of judicial economy, the appeal in No. 562, 2013 shall be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal in No. 600, 2013 shall be ACCEPTED. The appeal in No. 562, 2013 is hereby DISMISSED.