BEHREND et al v. COMCAST CORPORATION

Filing 476

ORDER THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED IN PAT AND DENIED IN PART, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN R. PADOVA ON 4/12/12. 4/12/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CAROLINE BEHREND, et al.

:
:
:
:
:

v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 03-6604

ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of April 2012, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 441), all responses and documents filed in connection thereto,
oral argument heard by the Court on January 24, 2012, and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.

Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks judgment in Defendants’
favor on
a.

Count I of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, to the extent that it asserts
a Sherman Act section 1 per se liability claim;

b.

those portions of Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint
asserting that Comcast’s (1) clustering conduct, (2) its conduct blocking
RCN’s access to cable infrastructure installation contractors, and (3) its
conduct in licensing CSN Philadelphia to RCN, constituted acts of
monopolization or attempted monopolization under Sherman Act section 2.

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on these
claims.
2.

The Motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks judgment in Defendants’ favor on

a.

Count I of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, to the extent that it asserts
a Sherman Act section 1rule of reason claim;

b.

those portions of Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint
asserting

that Comcast’s targeted discounts constituted acts of

monopolization or attempted monopolization under Sherman Act section 2.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ John R. Padova

John R. Padova, J.