EFTA00072622.pdf
PDF Source (No Download)
Extracted Text (OCR)
From: Christian EverdeII <
I
>
To:
Cc: "Mark S. Cohen" <MIIIMI>,
Jeff Pagliuca
'Laura Menningee
Subject: Protective Order
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:10:33 +0000
Attachments: 2020.07.16_GM_protective_order for_discovery_(AJN)__Del_edits.docx;
2020.07.16_GM_protective_order for_discovery_(AJN)__Del_edits.pdf
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.png; image005.jpg
Laura Menninger tried sending the below message to you earlier this evening on behalf of defense counsel, but it seems
that it has not been delivered yet due to technical problems. I am forwarding it on to you myself. Please confirm receipt.
Thanks,
Chris
Counsel:
Attached please find our proposed Protective Order, with a redline and a clean copy.
As a prefatory note, it is equally in our client's interest as much as in yours to have this matter tried before a jury of
impartial peers. We have no desire to try this case in the press. Unfortunately, however, some of your prospective
witnesses and their counsel have repeatedly and persistently violated Local Rule 23.1 and ethics standards pertaining to
pretrial publicity. Defense witnesses should be afforded the same protections from harassment and intimidation as are
government witnesses. Government witnesses should be on the same footing as both the Defendant and defense
witnesses in terms of access to and use of discovery.
Regarding public filings, because each document filed in this case redacted or under seal will be subject to a press request
to unseal it, we need to ensure at the outset that we only mark things as confidential that the Court (and Second Circuit)
will view as such when making an unsealing determination, so we included a definition of "Confidential" consistent with
the case law. See, e.g., Brown v. Maxwell.
A few notes to explain specific changes.
1. We have clarified treatment of non-confidential discovery materials from confidential discovery materials. We
have modified the access restrictions for non-confidential materials because we did not believe them necessary or
appropriate.
2. We have fine-tuned the definition of what constitutes "Confidential" consistent with prior decisions in the Second
Circuit and common law privacy rights of individuals. This language has been adopted by magistrates in this Circuit
for civil cases.
3. We have removed the category of "Highly Confidential." If there is a category of documents that think warrants
separate treatment, we should discuss what types of evidence you believe should fall into such category or and
EFTA00072622
why they merit separate treatment from "confidential information." We cannot imagine, for example, that
discovery contains child pornography, which counsel will not possess in any event.
4. With respect to our client's access to the Discovery and Confidential information, your proposal would not allow
any means for her to review any Confidential information because you required she review it in the presence of
counsel and we are not allowed in-person visits with her. We propose that, consistent with numerous other federal
pretrial detainees, the Government shall make available a laptop containing all of the Discovery (including any
Confidential Information) for her to review while in custody. She would have regular access to the laptop
consistent with MDC regulations.
5. We deleted language regarding designation of Confidential documents simply by virtue of their contents or a cover
letter. For tracking and clarity, each document or item you believe should be designated Confidential should be
marked as such, because cover letters or other indexes may be separated from their contents.
6. We allow for the party's designation to be controlling but we believe (consistent with the law) that a party who
disputes the designation can seek relief from the Court.
Please let us know if our proposal is agreeable to you and we can file it with the Court as unopposed.
-Laura
Laura A. Menninger
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
www.hmflaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
Christian Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
I view bio
www.cohengresser.com
New York I Seoul I Paris I Washington DC I London
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended to be reviewed initially by only
the individual named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any
review. dissemination or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error. please immediately notify
the sender by telephone and permanently delete this e-mail. Thank you.
PRIVACY: A complete copy of our privacy policy can be viewed .i! SI
slAvww.cohenaresser.com/privacL-policy
EFTA00072623
EFTA00072624
Document Preview
PDF source document
This document was extracted from a PDF. No image preview is available. The OCR text is shown on the left.
This document was extracted from a PDF. No image preview is available. The OCR text is shown on the left.
Document Details
| Filename | EFTA00072622.pdf |
| File Size | 149.4 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 85.0% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 5,693 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-11T10:25:30.038332 |