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

Nature of the Filing

The provided text is a joint letter dated September 29, 2025, submitted by counsel for Comcast and MaxLinear concerning a discovery dispute. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and it does not state how the court resolved the dispute.

Discovery Request

MaxLinear served Request for Production No. 21, which sought documents and communications concerning contentions that Comcast’s FDX Amplifier violated or might violate another party’s intellectual-property rights. In the joint letter, MaxLinear specifically sought communications between Comcast and Broadcom concerning the lawsuit and MaxLinear’s trade-secret counterclaims. The request included communications involving the parties’ counsel.

MaxLinear’s Position

MaxLinear asked the court to compel Comcast to produce the requested communications. MaxLinear asserted that the communications were relevant, non-privileged communications with a third party and were within Comcast’s possession, custody, or control. It argued that Comcast’s agreed electronic-discovery search protocol did not eliminate Comcast’s separate duty to produce relevant and responsive documents under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

MaxLinear also argued that Comcast had previously relied on a possible common-interest privilege but later stated that it was not asserting that privilege over communications between Comcast and Broadcom. MaxLinear further claimed that the communications could show coordination concerning Broadcom’s discovery responses and could bear on the credibility of Broadcom’s testimony about the development of the accused technology.

Comcast’s Position

Comcast asked the court to deny the request. Comcast said it had conducted the searches required by the parties’ agreed electronic-discovery protocol, produced responsive communications identified through those searches, and provided corporate-representative testimony about communications of which it was aware.

Comcast argued that discovery from active litigation counsel is strongly disfavored because it can burden the attorney-client relationship, expose litigation strategy, and turn counsel into a witness. It also argued that MaxLinear had not shown a credible basis for expanding the agreed search protocol after fact discovery had ended. Comcast disputed MaxLinear’s descriptions of Broadcom’s testimony and denied changing its privilege position.

Disposition

The provided text contains no ruling, order, or disposition by Judge Hellerstein. It therefore does not establish whether the request to compel was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.