Neutral As of: December 10, 2013 5:16 PM EST

Comcast Cable Communs., Inc. v. FCC

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit September 4, 2013, Filed No. 12-1337 Reporter: 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18565 ington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Petitioner v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents; The Tennis Channel, Inc., Intervenor Prior History: [*1] FCC-10-204. Comcast Cable Communs., LLC v. FCC, 717 F.3d 982, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10639 (D.C. Cir., 2013) Counsel: For Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Petitioner: Lynn R. Charytan, Comcast Corporation, Washington, DC; Miguel A. Estrada, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC. For Federal Communications Commission, Respondent: Laurel R. Bergold, Attorney, James M. Carr, Esquire, Counsel, Peter Karanjia, Jacob M. Lewis, Associate General Counsel, C. Grey Pash, Jr., Counsel, Richard Kiser Welch, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, (FCC) Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC. For United States of America, Respondent: Catherine G. OSullivan, Attorney, Robert J. Wiggers, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Antitrust Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC. For The Tennis Channel, Inc., Intervenor for Respondent: Robert Allen Long, Jr., Esquire, Mark William Mosier, Esquire, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC; Stephen Anthony Weiswasser, Senior Counsel, CovFor National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Amicus Curiae for Petitioner: Diane B. Burstein, Rick Charles Chessen, Neal Morse Goldberg, Michael Stuart Schooler, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Washington, DC; H. Bartow Farr, III, [*2] Law Office of H. Bartlow Farr, Washington, DC. For Bloomberg L.P., Amicus Curiae for Respondent: Markham Cho Erickson, Esquire, Attorney, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC. Judges: BEFORE: Garland, Chief Judge; Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Brown, Griffith, Kavanaugh, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges; Edwards and Williams, Senior Circuit Judges. Opinion ORDER Upon consideration of intervenors petition for rehearing en banc, the response thereto, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied. Per Curiam