Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 35 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1of5 COHEN & GRESSER LLP Mark S. Cohen +1 (212) 957-7600 [email protected] Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 [email protected] July 29, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse AO Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter to reply to the government’s response letter and submission regarding the proposed protective order in the above-captioned case, dated July 28, 2020 (“Government’s Response” or “Gov’t Resp.”) (Dkt. 33). The parties have met and conferred, resolving nearly all the issues relating to the proposed protective order. The parties agree that there are two areas of dispute as to which we require guidance from the Court. As noted in our opening letter and below, we respectfully submit that the arguments made by the government are unavailing, and that the defense’s proposed protective order, attached as Exhibit A to our initial submission (Dkt. 29), should be entered by the Court. 1. Referencing Individuals Who Have Publicly Identified Themselves The starting point for evaluating the scope of a proposed protective order is whether there are valid privacy interests at issue. It is the government’s burden to establish “good cause” that disclosure will cause “a clearly defined and serious injury.” United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 211 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The Court should also ensure that the proposed restriction is “no broader than is necessary” to protect that interest, and must consider the impact that the restriction may have “on a defendant’s due process right to prepare and present a full defense at trial.” United States v. Lindh, 198 F. Supp. 2d 739, 742 (E.D. Va. 2002). Throughout its letter, the government inver