gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1234.0.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1234 Filed 11/12/21 Page 1 of 2 November 12, 2021 By ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Room 2220 New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: We write respectfully on behalf of non-party John Doe to request the Court clarify the Order entered on November 8, 2021 (the “Order”). See DE 1233. The Order establishes a briefing schedule for the parties and The Miami Herald (the “Herald”) to respond to the objections to the unsealing of certain docket entries by a specified group of non-party Doe objectors. Specifically, the Order outlines the dates by which: (1) the parties must file their opening briefs in response to the objections of these particular non-party Does; (2) the Herald may file a responsive brief; and (3) the parties may submit reply briefs. See id. at 1–2. The Order, however, does not indicate a date by which the objecting non-party Does themselves may respond to the parties’ briefs, even though the unsealing protocol itself specifically provides that objecting non-parties may file a reply in support of their objections within seven days of service of the parties’ briefing. See DE 1108 ¶ 2(d) (“Within 7 days of service of any Non-Party Objection and accompanying memorandum, if any, the Original Parties may file an opposition stating the reasons why any Sealed Item should be unsealed. The opposition shall be served on the objecting Non-Party. The objecting Non-Party may file a reply in support of its objection within 7 days of service of the Original Parties’ opposition.”). Additionally, as noted above, the Order for the first time provides the Herald with an opportunity to participate in the unsealing process. See DE 1233, at 1. However, the protocol does not explicitly contemplate a filing by the press or provide objecting non-party Does with an opportunity to respond to such a submission. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Court clarify its Order to: (i) make plain that objecting non-party Does may file a reply in response to the parties’ briefs, and (ii) provide objecting non-party Does with an opportunity to respond to the Herald’s submission to the Court. Specifically, we request that the Court provide objecting non-party Does with seven days – following service on the objecting non-party Does of the parties’ and the Herald’s submissions – to file a response to any such submissions. In that vein, we further request that the parties  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1234 Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 2 November 12, 2021 Page 2 of 2 provide the objecting non-party Does with copies of the parties’ own briefs and the Herald’s filings as soon the parties receive them. Respectfully Submitted, KRIEGER KIM & LEWIN LLP By: _________________________ Nicholas J. Lewin Paul M. Krieger cc (by ECF): Maxwell Counsel of Record (15 Civ. 7433 (LAP))