Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP BSF Document 1029 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 2 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Email: [email protected] February 5, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Judge Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-ev-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska: Plaintiff writes in response to several positions that Defendant advances in her February 4, 2020 letter. Dkt. 1028. First, this Court has determined that it will review in the first instance those motions that were decided by Judge Sweet. Both parties submitted lists of decided motions to this Court, but Defendant's list excluded two of those decided motions. See Dkt. 1026 at 1-2. Defendant now attempts to argue that, because this Court adopted the "form" of her list at the conference on January 16, 2020, the Court ruled on the merits of the list and excluded the two motions that Plaintiff contends were decided by Judge Sweet. But the record is clear that Judge Sweet "decided" both of these motions. Dkts. 468 & 567. As to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and For an Adverse Inference Instruction, Dkt. 468, the Court held a hearing on November 10, 2016, and, after considering the parties' arguments, held: "The motion to compel additional data is denied at this time." Sealed November 10, 2016 Hearing Transcript at 40:7—8. The fact that the motion was decided without prejudice has no bearing on whether it was "decided" or whether Jude Sweet performed his "judicial function" or exercised his "judicial power" when v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). ruling. See As to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude In Toto Certain Deposition Designated by Plaintiff for Use at Trial, Dkt. 567, the April 5, 2017 minute entry for the hearing on that motion specifically says "ECF No. 567 Partially resolved." And Defendant herself po