Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00146.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 32 IV. THE REVELATION OF THE EXCULPATORY DOCUMENTS TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ In or about May 2016, Professor Dershowitz was named as a witness in this case by both plaintiff and defendant. /d. § 29. Thereafter, he was contacted by defense counsel Ms. Laura Menninger, in anticipation of his possible future testimony. Jd. § 30. After Professor Dershowitz agreed to abide by the terms of the stipulated Protective Order in this case (the “Protective Order”), Ms. Menninger sent Professor Dershowitz the Requested Documents to review pursuant to a provision permitting documents produced confidentially in discovery to be shown to potential witnesses. See id. Jj 30, 32; Ex. L. Professor Dershowitz was previously unaware that the Requested Documents existed. Id. J 40-41. ARGUMENT I. PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 24(B) “On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1), provided the proposed intervenor “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact,” id. R. 24(b)(1)(B). The decision to permit intervention under Rule 24(b) is discretionary, U.S.P.S. v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188, 191 (2d Cir. 1978), though the Court “must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). “Additional relevant factors include the nature and extent of the intervenors’ interests, the degree to which those interests are adequately represented by other parties, and whether parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to the full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented.” Diversified Grp., Inc. v. Daugerdas, 217 F.R.D. 152, 157 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Tt is well-settled that intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) is the proper procedure for a third party to seek to modify a protective order in a private suit.” Jd. (collecting authorities). 11