Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC v. MaxLinear, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:23-cv-04436
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Comcast v. MaxLinear, Judge Hellerstein enlarged the filing deadline one week and required the parties to confer before renewing MaxLinear’s redaction request.
MaxLinear, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; the ruling also affects public access to the documents covered by the proposed redactions.
What happened
Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC v. MaxLinear, Inc. concerns MaxLinear’s request to file partly redacted versions of its opposition to Comcast’s request for a preliminary injunction, deposition excerpts, and a supporting declaration. MaxLinear also sought to file unredacted versions under seal.
MaxLinear said the proposed redactions covered Comcast testimony labeled confidential and limited portions discussing competitively sensitive information, including pricing and other business terms between the parties. It argued that disclosure could harm its competitive position. The letter also stated that the parties would discuss MaxLinear’s and Comcast’s proposed redactions.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein did not decide the sealing request. He enlarged the time to file by one week and ordered the parties to meet and confer during that period, then renew the application.
The detailed version
- Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC v. MaxLinear, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04436
- Alvin Hellerstein
- July 19, 2023
Background
MaxLinear asked for permission to file partly redacted versions of several documents and unredacted versions under seal. The documents included MaxLinear’s opposition to Comcast’s application for a preliminary injunction, excerpts from depositions of Peter Kiriacoulacos, Charlie Herrin, and Jon Cave, and the declaration of William Torgerson.
MaxLinear stated that many proposed redactions were based on Comcast’s designation of witness testimony as “Highly Confidential.” It also sought to redact limited portions of its opposition brief and Torgerson declaration that discussed competitively sensitive information about the parties’ relationship, including pricing terms, perks, and other business terms. MaxLinear argued that the information was confidential, valuable to competitors, and that disclosure could cause financial harm.
The Court’s Action
The court enlarged the time to file by one week. It directed the parties to meet and confer during that period and then renew the application. The court did not grant or deny the sealing request on the merits in the quoted ruling.
Result
The quoted ruling was an interim scheduling and filing directive. It left the redaction and sealing requests for further consideration after the parties’ conference.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.