DOJ-OGR-00002496.jpg

Idas@sT2O-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 30 of 33 29 1 through in the order that we have been doing, move on to the 2 next Does, for example. And if a party, like Professor 3 Dershowitz, has made clear that they do not object, then 4 certainly we understand those should be unsealed. But for many 5 of these nonparties we know for a fact that they did not 6 actually receive the notice, despit veryone's best efforts to 7 get them notice. 8 So I would say that, unfortunately, we still need to 9 continue to redact them until we take up those particular Does 10 in the future and your Honor has an opportunity to do the 11 particularized review that the protocol promised would happen 12 with respect to nonparties, whether or not they objected. 13 THE COURT: Ms. McCawley. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. [ think it's 15 analogous to this situation where we have got a party who is 16 Saying they are not objecting. They have the notice. They 17 received it. They did not object. And the burden on the Court 18 and the parties to go through this process -—- 19 THE COURT: You broke up a little bit. Would you go 20 back. Somebody has another device on. 21 Ms. McCawley, would you go back to the burden on the 22 Court and the parties, please. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. The burden on the 24 Court and the parties is extensive with respect to this 25 grouping of individuals who have not objected. So it seems to SOUTHERN D STR CT REPORT (212) 805-0300 ERS, P.C.** DOJ-OGR-00002496