DOJ-OGR-00001524.jpg

Casesé:2(@2Orr0eGG032IJN) Damument@ AietO/GR2 RegpezsatB3 that was justified by substantial interest of promoting security and preventing terrorism). B. Second, the court finds that this partial closure of court proceedings is narrowly tailored to protect public health and safety and is less restrictive than the court’s current in-court hearing protocols. Allowing the public to access these proceedings through telephone conference allows a large number (up to 500) ot members of the public to access the proceedings while, at the same time, protecting the health of all involved by limiting the potential exposure of the public COVID-19. Importantly, the court find , parties, and court staff to s that, in light of the court’s current restrictions on the number of people permitted in the courtroom, providing public telephonic access is less restrictive than holding an in-p limited number of people can att erson hearing which only a end. Further, via telephone, otherwise been prohibited from even individuals who would hav entering the courthouse — for ex ample, people who have tested access (even though virtual) to positive for COVID-19 — now hav the proceedings. See Standing O (prohibiting certain individuals rder 20-9 (Mar. 20, 2020) from entering the courthouse, including people diagnosed with with COVID-19). Providing the p via telephone is the least restr or exposed to someone diagnosed ublic access to this proceeding ictive means of protecting the DOJ-OGR-00001524