From: Christian EverdeII < I > To: Cc: "Mark S. Cohen" <MIIIMI>, Jeff Pagliuca 'Laura Menningee Subject: Protective Order Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:10:33 +0000 Attachments: 2020.07.16_GM_protective_order for_discovery_(AJN)__Del_edits.docx; 2020.07.16_GM_protective_order for_discovery_(AJN)__Del_edits.pdf Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.png; image005.jpg Laura Menninger tried sending the below message to you earlier this evening on behalf of defense counsel, but it seems that it has not been delivered yet due to technical problems. I am forwarding it on to you myself. Please confirm receipt. Thanks, Chris Counsel: Attached please find our proposed Protective Order, with a redline and a clean copy. As a prefatory note, it is equally in our client's interest as much as in yours to have this matter tried before a jury of impartial peers. We have no desire to try this case in the press. Unfortunately, however, some of your prospective witnesses and their counsel have repeatedly and persistently violated Local Rule 23.1 and ethics standards pertaining to pretrial publicity. Defense witnesses should be afforded the same protections from harassment and intimidation as are government witnesses. Government witnesses should be on the same footing as both the Defendant and defense witnesses in terms of access to and use of discovery. Regarding public filings, because each document filed in this case redacted or under seal will be subject to a press request to unseal it, we need to ensure at the outset that we only mark things as confidential that the Court (and Second Circuit) will view as such when making an unsealing determination, so we included a definition of "Confidential" consistent with the case law. See, e.g., Brown v. Maxwell. A few notes to explain specific changes. 1. We have clarified treatment of non-confidential discovery materials from confidential discovery materials. We have modified the access restrictions for non-confidenti