DOJ-OGR-00003809.jpg

10 et, i 138 14 15 16 ey 18 a 20 21 aD. 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212-2 Filed 04/16/21 Page 7 of 30 App.-0810 GALMGIUC enforce the confidentiality appropriately. Now, with those preliminary thoughts in mind I am going to deny the motion at this time because I know that there is a statement, some kind of a statement from the mediator in the Florida action. When I get a piece of paper that says the Florida action is dismissed, a court order or whatever, then this motion can be renewed. Also, I want an affidavit from the two lawyers that there is no matter in which they are personally involved, that they are making no claim, there is no claims, there is no litigation in which they are involved. The reason I say that is that I would not grant the application for a pro hac status to a party in this or a related litigation. If I get those affidavits and the statement about the closure of the Florida case in which they are a party, then the application can be renewed and at that point I would be probably inclined, unless something else comes up or unless the defense tells me something that I don't now know, I would grant the application that brings us to the order itself and the meaning of the order. I think active in the litigation is the key phrase. The plaintiff has listed the people that she considers would be appropriate and it's these two gentleman and I think one other person, and that's fine. That is the definition. However, I'm also going to ask the parties to agree upon an order that would expand the confidentiality agreement SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0500 DOJ-OGR-00003809