gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1194.0_6.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1194 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 2  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1194 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 2 The Honorable Loretta A. Preska January 27, 2021 Page 2 her objection to unsealing, and the Court rejected it. ECF No. 1149 at 2-5. Defendant has provided no reason to revisit those arguments. Third, Defendant’s note that certain testimony should be kept sealed so that she can challenge its admissibility at her criminal trial is not only speculative, but has also already been addressed by this Court. Jan. 19, 2021, Hr’g Tr. at 5:23-6:5 (“The public’s First Amendment right to access these documents is not outweighed by the prospective inadmissibility of certain of them in some later proceeding. In any case, the Court takes comfort in the fact that Ms. Maxwell recognizes that she has the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and evidence at her disposal when the appropriate time comes to fight this fight down the road.”). The Court’s reasoning was clear and its ruling was well within its discretion, and it should decline Defendant’s invitation to revisit. Simply put, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. Her latest attempt fails to satisfy the standard for reconsideration in that it is not based on new or overlooked information; rather, it is based on information already known to the Court. Moreover, there is no clear error or manifest injustice that warrants reconsideration of the Court’s ruling. Defendant’s request should be denied. Sincerely, /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)