The Hold List: Witness Management in the Comcast vs. FilmOn Fight

Introduction

The Comcast vs. FilmOn lawsuit has been a headline‑grabbing saga for more than a year, but the latest development is less about drama and more about strategy: a witness hold filed under Dkt. 28. This preservation order, issued by the Eastern District of Texas in the Sherman Division, lists a handful of witnesses who could be pivotal to the case’s outcome. The hold is a legal tool designed to protect evidence and witnesses, not a prelude to a criminal trial. Understanding its purpose and implications offers insight into how large corporations manage civil litigation risk.

The Legal Landscape

Comcast’s lawsuit against FilmOn, filed in 2023, alleges antitrust violations and claims that FilmOn’s services infringed the Americans with Disabilities Act. On or about 16 June 2026, the court granted Comcast’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion and dismissed the case without prejudice, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction. The dismissal, however, did not erase the underlying claims; it merely allowed the parties to re‑file the case in a forum that has jurisdiction over Comcast (the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or Delaware). In the meantime, the court issued a preservation paper—Dkt. 28—on 30 May 2026, listing witnesses for a hold rather than a joinder.

What Is a Witness Hold?

A witness hold, also known as a legal hold, is a formal notice issued by counsel to preserve all potentially relevant information when litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated. The process suspends routine destruction or alteration of records, ensuring that evidence is not lost or tampered with. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a legal hold can encompass electronic records, paper documents, and even witness testimony. The primary goal is to prevent spoliation and to maintain the integrity of the evidence that may later be produced in discovery or trial.

The Witnesses Named in Dkt. 28

The preservation order lists the following witnesses: Sean Combs, Jonathan Hay, Chastity Jones, Joseph Chora, Anthony Pellicano, Danny Kapon, Aaron Cain McKnight (deceased, Dallas pathway), Mark J. Lieberman (FilmOn counsel on early Sherman papers; deceased, Dallas), and Ryan Baker. Each individual brings a unique connection to the case:

• Sean Combs – The high‑profile music mogul’s involvement is tied to alleged contractual disputes over FilmOn’s streaming content. His testimony could illuminate the broader media ecosystem that FilmOn operates within.
• Jonathan Hay – A former executive at FilmOn, his knowledge of internal decision‑making could reveal whether the company’s business practices contributed to alleged antitrust violations.
• Mark J. Lieberman – FilmOn’s former counsel, whose legal strategy may be central to understanding the company’s defense.
• Aaron Cain McKnight – A Dallas‑based witness whose testimony could shed light on local distribution agreements.
• Other witnesses – Chastity Jones, Joseph Chora, Anthony Pellicano, Danny Kapon, and Ryan Baker – each potentially able to corroborate or challenge claims about the services’ accessibility and compliance with the ADA.

Strategic Uses of the Hold

By issuing a witness hold, Comcast’s counsel aims to achieve several objectives:

• Preserve Evidence – The hold ensures that documents, emails, and other records related to the witnesses remain intact, preventing inadvertent destruction or alteration.
• Prevent Spoliation – If a witness were to destroy or alter evidence, the hold would provide a basis for sanctions or adverse inference rulings.
• Control Witness Availability – The hold can restrict the witnesses’ ability to testify in other litigation, thereby preventing conflicting statements that could undermine Comcast’s case.
• Signal Intent – By publicly naming witnesses, Comcast signals to the court and the opposing side that it is preparing for a robust discovery phase.

These tactics are standard in high‑stakes civil litigation, especially when the parties anticipate a protracted discovery battle. The hold also protects the parties from potential claims that they failed to preserve evidence, which could lead to a dismissal or a ruling against them.

Why This Is Not a Murder Trial

It is easy to misread the headlines and assume that a high‑profile witness like Sean Combs is being called in a criminal context. In reality, the Comcast‑FilmOn case is a civil lawsuit alleging antitrust violations and ADA breaches. The Rule 12(b)(2) dismissal was a procedural ruling on jurisdiction, not a criminal indictment. The witness hold is a civil discovery tool, not a pre‑trial order in a murder case. The distinction matters because the legal standards, potential penalties, and procedural safeguards differ dramatically between civil and criminal proceedings.

Implications for the Parties and Future Litigation

For Comcast, the hold preserves a strategic advantage: it keeps the witnesses’ statements and related documents under its control, potentially allowing the company to shape the narrative in future litigation. For FilmOn, the hold signals that the company must be prepared to produce evidence related to the named witnesses, which could increase the cost and complexity of its defense.

Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, the hold remains relevant for any future suit filed in a forum that has jurisdiction over Comcast. The hold also ensures that if the parties eventually settle, the evidence will still be available for any post‑settlement discovery or compliance review.

Conclusion

The witness hold in Dkt. 28 is a textbook example of how large corporations use civil discovery tools to safeguard evidence and manage witness testimony. While the case’s dismissal without prejudice may seem like a setback, the hold preserves Comcast’s strategic options for future litigation. By focusing on the preservation of witnesses rather than sensational headlines, the parties keep the legal process grounded in procedural safeguards that protect both sides’ interests.

• Comcast
• FilmOn
• witness hold
• Rule 12(b)(2)
• civil litigation
• evidence preservation
• legal tactics
• Sean Combs
• Jonathan Hay
• Mark Lieberman
• Aaron McKnight