DOJ-OGR-00006704.jpg

i The Court renee the attached letters via USDC SDN¥ Case 1:20-cH-00330-PAE Document 451 Filed 11/12/4temaiPageDisefcbno longer permits public DOCUMENT access by telephone for in-court criminal ELECTRONICALLY FILED proceedings, including trials. The DOC #: | memorandum can be found here - https:// 11/12/21 __ 1/12/71 I it P nysd.uscourts. gov/covid-19-coronavirus. The sideldertadoresms nn Cr 1 re S Court’s public access orders for all proceedings in the case can be found here - October 29, 2021 https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/usa-vs- ghislaine-maxwell-20-cr-330-ajn-case- : fe tion. The Court h 1 ted By E-mail to NathanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov _| procedure for docketing filngstwith vee proposed redactions and is ruling on the i i istry proposals as expeditiously as possible. See Hon. Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge ee Oe ORDERED: Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 1000 Mh i - Re: US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (AJN), timely opposition to blanket requests to seal ' ' Te... ; og ! 11/12/21 portions of motions in limine, trial exhibits, public access Dear Judge Nathan: On behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity, I have been covering the above-captioned case. This concerns in the first instance the flurry of motions in limine filed earlier this evening, replete with redactions justified by the a conclusory reference to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Government's Justifications for redaction (Docket No. 399, docketed at 10:06 pm on Friday Oct 29) cites Lugosch then says "The Government also seeks sealing of trial exhibits, where are not public.” Inner City Press immediately opposes this. As one example within this motions of limine, the Government has redacted the entirely of its Argument X, even the title and the page number. And as to trial exhibits, see for example Judge Jed S. Rakoff's order in US v. Weigand, 20-cr-188 (JSR) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20536946-rakofforderonmrlicp There, Judge Rakoff ordered the US Attorney's Office to make trial exhibit available to the public at large. While this was done, belatedly, in US v. Parnas, it was refused in the current US v. Cole. It cannot be refused in this case. Also, Inner City Press understands that the listen-only call-in telephone lines available so far in the case, there may be an attempt to discontinue them. The Court should take judicial notice of continue COVID-19 issues, including people's understandable concerns about congregating even in so-called overflow rooms. Be aware that the District for the District of Columbia still allows public phone access to all criminal proceedings, even those held in-person. That should happen here. The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for a short period of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Inner City Press: In-house SDNY: Room 480, 500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 E-mail: Matthew.Lee@innercitypress.com - Tel: 718-716-3540 Regular Mail: Dag Hammarskjold Center, Box 20047, New York, NY 10017 DOJ-OGR-00006704