Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP KRIEGER Document 1105 Filed 08/19/20 Page 1 of 8 & LEWIN LLP S00 Fifth Avcnue Ncw York, NY 10110 )Fticplionc: (212) 390-9550 www.1O:111p,com August 19, 2020 By ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Room 2220 New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) ("Maxwell") Dear Judge Preska: We write on behalf of a non-party, John Doe, for two purposes: First, pursuant to the Court's direction in its August 4, 2020 Order, DE 1097 (as amended by DE 1104), we write regarding the proposed disclosure of confidential Maxwell materials requested by Alan Dershowitz - his fourth attempt to acquire Maxwell materials subject to the Protective Order, DE 62 (the "Protective Order"). Second, and relatedly, we write regarding the unsealing process. While non-party participation may well be helpful to the Court regarding unsealing, the Court's protocol and legal precedent dictate that the absence of such participation should not factor negatively into the Court's balancing of considerations — as it is ultimately the responsibility of this Court, and not the parties or even non-parties, to protect non-party privacy interests. i. Mr. Dershowitz's Proposed Disclosure of Confidential Maxwell Materials Nothing material has changed since Mr. Dershowitz's last application to receive materials protected by the Protective Order or otherwise filed under seal in the instant matter. The Court properly denied that application — which constituted Mr. Dershowitz's third attempt to bypass the Protective Order. See DE 1071 (the "Modification-Denial Order"). Frankly, it was not seemingly a close question for this Court. See id. Nor should it have been. Long-standing law proscribes precisely this kind of post hoc modification of a protective order. And the rationale for that precedent — especially the reasonable reliance of non-parties — is cast in stark relief by the circumstances of