DOJ-OGR-00019197.jpg

that was justified by substantial interest of promoting security and preventing terrorism). B. telephone conference allows a large number (up to 500) ot 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 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, parties, and court staff to COVID-19. Importantly, the court finds 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-person hearing which only a limited number of people can attend. Further, via telephone, even individuals who would have otherwise been prohibited from entering the courthouse — for example, people who have tested positive for COVID-19 — now have access (even though virtual) to the proceedings. See Standing Order 20-9 (Mar. 20, 2020) (prohibiting certain individuals from entering the courthouse, including people diagnosed with or exposed to someone diagnosed with COVID-19). Providing the public access to this proceeding via telephone is the least restrictive means of protecting the DOJ-OGR-00019197