From To Cc Subject RE US Maxwell conferrals regarding pretrial disclosures redactions to replies Date Thu Apr Attachments Exhibit_L.pdf Inline-Images image001.jpg Per the Courts order today Dkt I intend to file the attached letter on ECF this evening Please let me know if there is anything you would like to discuss by pm if possible Thanks From Sent Tuesday April PM To Cc Subject RE US Maxwell conferrals regarding pretrial disclosures redactions to replies Great I will wait to file the briefs until I see your letter hit the docket From Sent ues ay,April To Cc Subject RE US Maxwell conferrals regarding pretrial disclosures redactions to replies Thanks Im going to file the letter in a few minutes From sent ues a To Cc Subject RE US Maxwell conferrals regarding pretrial disclosures redactions to replies This looks good to me I will go ahead and file Reply Briefs NPA and Severance on the public docket in unredacted form with a slip sheet for Ex A to the NPA brief indicating that it is being filed under seal From Sent To Cc Subject RE US Maxwell conferrals regarding pretrial disclosures redactions to replies As discussed attached is the letter that I plan to file this evening Please let me know if there is anything you would like to discuss From Sent Tuesday April PM To Cc Subject RE US Maxwell conferrals regarding pretrial disclosures redactions to replies Following up oamail we are not seeking any redactions As a general matter the redactions we proposed in our reply briefs are almost entirely because the information was designated as Confidential by the government under the Protective Order Accordingly you are free to justify to the court any redactions you think are necessary Our specific positions on the redactions in each brief are set forth below Please confirm that the proposed course of action with respect to each brief is acceptable Reply Brief The redactions relate to information designated as Confidential by the government under the Protective Order The defense has no objection to removing the redaction on page and filing the brief and Exhibit A on the public record Given that the government takes no position about the redaction on page but does want Exhibit A to remain under seal we propose the following we will file the brief on the docket without redactions but we will file Exhibit A under seal and the government can argue its position to the court in its letter that Exhibit A should remain under seal If the judge does not agree we will file Exhibit A on the docket at that time Reply Brief The redactions in the brief all relate to the names of AUSAs the names of accusers and As to the accusers and the defense has no objection to removing those redactions As to the AUSAs we made those redactions as a courtesy because we did not think it was necessary or appropriate to publicly name the AUSAs The defense takes no position with respect to those redactions As for the exhibits we filed certain exhibits under seal because they were designated as Confidential by the government under the Protective Order The defense has no objection to filing all of the exhibits on the public record although we agree that email addresses and other contact information for third parties should be redacted pursuant to the courts local rules You point out that the court has already adopted the governments proposed redactions to Exhibits and The defense is certainly prepared to follow those redactions But since the government will need to justify the need for other redactions to the court it makes more sense for the government to explain to the court in its letter that it would like to follow the redactions already adopted by the court for Exhibits and Given the disagreement among the parties we will not file the brief or the exhibits on the docket and the government can argue its position to the court in its letter Reply Brief The defense does not believe the redaction on is necessary Given the agreement between the parties we will file the brief unredacted Reply Brief The redactions relate to information designated as Confidential by the government under the Protective Order The defense has no objection to removing the redactions and filing the brief on the public record Given that the government wants to keep the redactions we will not file the brief on the docket and the government can argue its position to the court in its letter Reply Brief The redactions relate to information designated as Confidential by the government under the Protective Order The defense has no objection to removing the redactions and filing the brief and Exhibit A on the public record Given that the government wants to keep the redactions and keep Exhibit A under seal we will not file either document on the docket and the government can argue its position to the court in its letter Please let me know if you would like to discuss Regards From Sent To Cc Subject RE US Maxwell conferrals regarding pretrial disclosures redactions to replies We can confirm for pm EST tomorrow Please use the following dial in number We will write separately regarding the redactions that you propose Thanks From Sent on a To Cc Subject RE US Maxwell conferrals regarding pretrial disclosures redactions to replies We are available to speak tomorrow after pm EST On the issue of redactions on Friday Judge Nathan ordered the parties to docket the April joint letter or to propose redactions by April Dkt We do not believe any redactions are necessary to the letter Assuming you agree will you please docket the letter since you wrote the letter If you would like to discuss please let us know As to the redactions to the undocketed Reply Briefs and certain exhibits you proposed being filed under seal below please find our position for inclusion in a letter If you would like to discuss tomorrow please let us know Reply Brief The Government takes no position on the defendants proposed redaction on page of Reply Brief The defense submitted Exhibit A to Reply Brief under seal and the Government agrees that Exhibit A should remain sealed in order to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties Reply Brief The Government agrees with the defenses proposed redactions to Reply Brief which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of victims and third parties Further the proposed redactions are consistent with the redactions ordered by the Court on March Dkt As to the exhibits to Reply Brief the defense submitted Exhibits and under seal The Government filed Exhibit in connection with its Omnibus Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants Pretrial Motions as Exhibit Exhibit was filed without any redactions and accordingly the Government does not object to the public filing of Exhibit The Government does not object to the public filing of Exhibits and but respectfully submits that the names and email addresses/contact information of third parties should be redacted from Exhibits and to protect the privacy interests of third parties The defense also submitted Exhibits and to Reply Brief under seal The Government filed Exhibits and to its opposition which are respectively redacted versions of Exhibits and See Dkt The Government had set forth proposed redactions to Exhibits and in order to protect the privacy interests of third parties which the Court adopted on March see Dkt Accordingly the Government respectfully submits that the defense should redact Exhibits and to Reply Brief to reflect the redactions approved by the Court and reflected in the publicly filed versions of Exhibits and to the Governments opposition Reply Brief The Government respectfully submits that there is no basis under the applicable standard to redact the language that the defendant proposes redacting in Reply Brief as it refers to language contained in the publicly filed Indictment in this case The information in the Indictment is part of the public record and therefore has a diminished privacy interest Reply Brief The Government agrees with the defenses proposed redactions to Reply Brief which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of third parties The proposed redactions are consistent with the proposed redactions requested by the Government on pages to and of its opposition to the defendants pre trial motions which the Court granted on March Dkt Reply Brief The Government agrees with the defenses proposed redactions to Reply Brief which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of third parties and are consistent with prior redactions in earlier briefing The Government further agrees that Exhibit A to Reply Brief should be filed under seal to protect the personal privacy interests of the third party implicated in the document Thanks From Sent Monda A?ril PM To Subject US Maxwell conferrals regarding pretrial disclosures redactions to replies Counsel I am writing to schedule a time for counsel to formally confer on two issues First we need to confer regarding the pretrial disclosure deadlines as directed in the Courts Friday order Dkt at Although we tentatively discussed some possible deadlines while we were together last week the Courts opinion includes other upcoming deadlines we did not discuss and we may need to adjust our proposals based on her opinion Second we need to confer regarding redactions to the as yet undocketed Replies in support of our Pretrial Motions Dkt We are generally available tomorrow Tuesday for a call Please let me know a time that works from your end and I can circulate a dial in number Thanks
Copy Text
9,643 characters
