Facts
- Jonathan Brown was found guilty of attempted second-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and obstruction of justice by a jury on August 25, 2022 [lines="19-21"].
- The trial court sentenced Brown to a total of fifty years, twenty years, and forty years imprisonment for the respective convictions, with all sentences running concurrently [lines="23-29"].
- On October 21, 2022, the trial court adjudicated Brown as a third-felony offender, vacated his prior sentence for attempted murder, and imposed a new sentence of seventy years imprisonment [lines="30-35"].
- Brown's appeals regarding convictions and sentences were affirmed, but one sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing [lines="37-39"].
- Brown filed an application for post-conviction relief on July 12, 2024, raising issues of false testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel [lines="46-52"].
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying Brown's application for post-conviction relief based on the State's alleged elicitation of false testimony in violation of Napue v. Illinois [lines="48"].
- Whether Brown's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were properly deemed procedurally barred and lacked merit [lines="55-66"].
- Whether Brown received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial [lines="121-122"].
Holdings
- The trial court did not err in denying relief on the basis of a Napue violation as the claims were procedurally barred [lines="62-64"].
- The court upheld the denial of Brown's prosecutorial misconduct claims, affirming the trial court’s reasoning [lines="66-68"].
- The court concluded that Brown did not provide sufficient evidence to prove ineffective assistance of counsel [lines="119-120"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1
KIRKLAND &; ELLIS LLP
AND AFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS
Atif Khawaja, P.C. To Call Writer Directty: +12124464749 atif.khawaja@kirkland.com
601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 United States
+1 2124464800 www.kirkland.com
Facsimile: +12124464900
November 27, 2024
VIA CM/ECF
Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Room 1050 New York, NY 10007
Re: Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, et al. v. MaxLinear, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04436-AKH
Dear Judge Hellerstein: We represent Defendant MaxLinear, Inc. ("MaxLinear") in connection with the abovecaptioned action. We write regarding the letter-motion filed by Plaintiffs Comcast Cable Communications Management and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (collectively, "Comcast") pursuant to Rule 4.B of Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice requesting permission to file certain materials under seal (the "Letter-Motion") (ECF No. 160). Concurrently with the Letter-Motion, Comcast filed its Memorandum of Law in Support of Comcast's Motion to Dismiss MaxLinear's Counterclaims (the "Motion to Dismiss") (ECF No. 162) and related Declaration of Dana M. Seshens in Support of Comcast's Motion to Dismiss MaxLinear's Counterclaims (the "Declaration") (ECF No. 163), attaching certain exhibits referenced in the Motion. The Letter-Motion requested the Court's permission to file under seal and redact certain portions of the Motion to Dismiss as well as Exhibit 8 to the Declaration.
Consistent with the Letter-Motion, MaxLinear now respectfully requests that the Court order that the information redacted from Comcast's Motion to Dismiss and Exhibit 8 to the Declaration remain permanently under seal. The redacted information contains a presentation that MaxLinear gave to Comcast in December 2020, reflects MaxLinear's trade-secret information, and forms, in part, the basis for MaxLinear's counterclaims and defenses in this case. It should be protected from disclosure.
Although there is a presumptive right of public access to judicial documents, that right is "not absolute." Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51, 59 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Nixon v. Warner
*2
KIRKLAND &; ELLIS LLP
Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein
November 27, 2024
Page 2
Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). In evaluating whether to grant a sealing request, the court must evaluate several factors: (1) whether the document qualifies as a judicial document; (2) the weight of the presumption of public access; and (3) whether any countervailing factors or higher values outweigh the right of public access to the judicial document. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). "Courts in this Circuit regularly seal information that might disclose trade secrets or confidential business information." Iacovacci v. Brevet Holdings, LLC, 2022 WL 101907, at 2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2022); see also Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2021 WL 1222122, at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) ("Courts commonly find that documents that contain trade secrets, confidential research and development information, ... and the like satisfy the sealing standard." (citation omitted)); Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 184 F.R.D. 504, 506 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) ("Documents falling into categories commonly sealed are those containing trade secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue information, pricing information, and the like."). In such cases, "safeguarding trade secrets can overcome the presumption of [public] access [to court documents]." Hesse v. Sungard Sys. Int'l, 2013 WL 174403, at 2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2013); see also Richards v. Kallish, 2023 WL 6276684, at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2023) ("The protection of trade secrets is value that may be sufficient to defeat the First Amendment presumption of public access."). That is why courts have ordered the sealing of documents that "facially contain trade secrets" even over another party's objection. Id.
Here, MaxLinear seeks to maintain under seal technical disclosures, descriptions, and detailed schematics that either comprise or come from the very materials it has identified as the asserted trade secrets in this case. Specifically, MaxLinear seeks to protect from disclosure (1) a presentation that it gave to Comcast in December 2020 regarding FDX amplifier technology and that was presented under an active non-disclosure agreement between MaxLinear and Comcast; and (2) a technical layout and schematic of MaxLinear's FDX amplifier design taken from that confidential December 2020 presentation and inserted by Comcast into its motion (collectively, the "Trade-Secret Information"). The Trade-Secret Information refers to confidential and proprietary technical designs for an FDX amplifier. The presentation includes detailed diagrams and descriptions of such technology, as well as related performance testing. The redacted information in the Motion to Dismiss similarly describes and reproduces aspects of MaxLinear's confidential FDX amplifier design or otherwise references information that, when read in the context of the remainder of Comcast's motion, threatens to provide insight into the substance of the Trade-Secret Information and MaxLinear's confidential FDX amplifier design. These technical designs, descriptions, and data are textbook trade-secret information and more than satisfy the standard for sealing, particularly at this preliminary stage.
For these reasons, MaxLinear respectfully requests that the Court order that the TradeSecret Information in Comcast's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 162) and Exhibit 8 to the Declaration (ECF No. 163) remain permanently under seal.
*3
KIRKLAND &;.ELLIS LLP
Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein November 27, 2024 Page 3
Respectfully submitted, or Atif Khawaja, P.C. Atif Khawaja, P.C. Cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)