Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, et al. v. MaxLinear, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:23-cv-04436
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Comcast v. MaxLinear, Judge Hellerstein received a request to seal confidential materials; the provided text does not show a court ruling.
Comcast, MaxLinear, and potentially Broadcom, because the request concerns public access to documents containing alleged confidential business or commercial information.
What happened
In Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, et al. v. MaxLinear, Inc., Comcast asked the court to seal several documents and deposition excerpts connected to a joint letter about MaxLinear’s document requests.
Comcast said the materials contained confidential information about its network strategy, vendor relationships, and negotiations. Comcast argued that public disclosure could harm its competitive position. MaxLinear did not oppose Comcast’s request. Some materials were sealed temporarily because they may contain Broadcom’s confidential information, giving Broadcom an opportunity to seek permanent sealing.
The provided text is a lawyer’s request, not a court ruling, so it does not show what Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein decided. It states that MaxLinear planned to file a redacted version publicly and an unredacted version under seal.
The detailed version
- Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, et al. v. MaxLinear, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04436
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Sept. 30, 2025
Document and requested action
The provided text is a September 29, 2025 letter from counsel for Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Comcast asks the court to accept a redacted version of a joint letter concerning MaxLinear’s Requests for Production No. 21 and to file specified exhibits and an unredacted version of the joint letter under seal.
Materials at issue
The request covers Comcast documents identified by production numbers, a document containing Comcast confidential information, excerpts from the depositions of Richard Prodan and Niki Pantelias, and related portions of the joint letter. The letter states that the Pantelias deposition excerpts and related exhibits may contain Broadcom’s confidential information. Those materials were being filed under seal temporarily to allow Broadcom to seek permanent sealing if it wished to do so.
Arguments and party positions
Comcast relies on the rule that sealing must be essential to protect an important interest and narrowly tailored to that interest. It argues that the documents contain confidential business information about Comcast’s network-development and maintenance strategy, vendor relationships, and negotiations. According to Comcast, disclosure could give competitors valuable information, create a competitive disadvantage, and harm Comcast or its vendors in future negotiations. The letter states that MaxLinear did not oppose Comcast’s application.
The letter also states that MaxLinear intended to file a redacted version of the joint letter on the public docket and another version, with the referenced exhibits, under seal. It does not state Broadcom’s position; it says only that Broadcom would have an opportunity to apply for permanent sealing.
Disposition
The provided text does not include an order or other statement showing that the court granted, denied, or otherwise decided the sealing request. Accordingly, no court disposition can be identified from this text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.