Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, et al. v. MaxLinear, Inc.

Nature of the filing

This document is a joint letter to Judge Alvin Hellerstein about a discovery dispute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). It presents MaxLinear’s request for testimony from a designated Comcast corporate representative and Comcast’s opposition. The provided text does not include a judicial ruling or disposition of the request.

Dispute about Topic No. 57

MaxLinear sought to compel Comcast to provide 30(b)(6) testimony about “Comcast’s alleged damages, including the cause, source, and amount of those damages.” MaxLinear argued that the information was relevant to Comcast’s damages claims and could not be fully understood from the documents produced. It specifically pointed to disputes about attorney-fee claims connected with patent litigation in California, costs allegedly covered by a contractual indemnification provision, the reasonableness of those costs, and Comcast’s efforts to reduce its damages.

MaxLinear said Comcast initially failed to produce documents concerning damages, later produced cumulative totals, and eventually provided itemized invoices after further requests. MaxLinear maintained that corporate testimony was still necessary to understand the factual basis for the claimed damages and asked the court to require testimony on Topic No. 57, including testimony about documents Comcast had produced.

Comcast’s position

Comcast said it had provided extensive damages discovery through documents and answers to interrogatories. According to Comcast, this discovery addressed its damages theory, how MaxLinear’s alleged misconduct caused harm, and the current calculation of damages. Comcast stated that its claimed damages then consisted of attorney fees from certain California patent lawsuits that it alleged violated a contractual covenant not to sue.

Comcast argued that Topic No. 57 improperly sought its conclusions, opinions, legal theories, and expert subjects rather than facts suitable for a corporate representative’s testimony. It said the reasonableness of the attorney fees was an issue for expert discovery, and that MaxLinear had already received written explanations, disclosures, admissions-related responses, and invoices, including itemized invoices. Comcast therefore requested that the court deny MaxLinear’s request to compel testimony.

Status and disposition

The document ends with the parties’ competing requests: MaxLinear asks the court to compel testimony, while Comcast asks the court to deny that request. Although the letter is addressed to Judge Alvin Hellerstein and identifies the case docket number, the provided text does not state what the court decided.