Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1028 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 5 Haddon. HADDON N ti N and Pc Ty Gee 150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 vx 303.832.2628 vvww.hmllaw.com tgeeAhmilawaom February 4, 2020 The Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Defendant Maxwell's Letter Brief re Materials That Should Remain Sealed or Redacted V. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: I am writing in response to plaintiff's counsel's January 30 letter, which concerns three matters: the List of Decided Motions, the Non-Party List, and Ms. Maxwell's proposed Order and Protocol. List of Decided Motions. Plaintiff's only objection to the use of Doc.1007-1 as the List of Decided Motions is her position that two motions, Docs. 468 and 567, improperly were omitted. Plaintiff advanced this same position in Doc. 1006, when she submitted a proposed List of Decided Motions (Doc.1006-1) different from Doc.1007- I . In our submission (Doc. 1007) we established that Judge Sweet never decided the motions, Docs. 468 and 567, and so, we said, we omitted it from our proposed List of Decided Motions. We took the Court's acceptance of Doc.1007-1 at the January 16 hearing as an implicit resolution of the dispute. See Doc.1021, at 10:22-11:6. If we are incorrect, we re-urge our points in Doc. 1007. Judge Sweet did not decide the merits of either motion. Contrary to plaintiff's suggestion, denial of Doc. 468 without prejudice with direction to re-confer is not a ruling on the motion. It merely "remove[d] [it] from the court's docket," Semtek Intl Inc. v. Lockheed Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 (2001), allowing it to be re-asserted later, which plaintiff never did. As to Doc. 567, plaintiff contends that the motion was decided at the hearing before Judge Sweet on April 5, 2017. A close review of that transcript shows that Judge Sweet never decided Doc. 567. See Transcript of April 5,