Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP T w Document 1185 Filed 01/05/21 Todd&Weld LLP Page 1 of 1 Howard M. E-mail: [email protected] January 5, 2021 VIA ECF Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: v. Dershowitz, Case No.: 19-cv-03377-LAP v. Maxwell, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-LAP Your Honor: iir Professor Dershowitz has reviewed the submission made by non-party John Doe, ECF No. 1182 in v. Maxwell, in which Mr. Doe takes issue with the agreed-upon Protective Order entered by the Court as ECF No. 227 v. Dershowitz. Specifically, Mr. Doe asserts that the Protective Order permits the parties in v. Dershowitz to file sealed material from v. Maxwell to the public docket in Dershowitz without prior judicial approval. Professor Dershowitz reiterates and incorporates by reference his prior objections to John Doe's repeated attempts to assert himself into these proceedings, particular) m. where it appears that Mr. Doe never provided any discovery in reliance on the Protective Order in v. Maxwell and therefore has no rights under the same. See August 24, 2020 Letter from Ansari and in v. Dershowitz, ECF No. 171. Regardless, Mr. Doe's interpretation of the recently-entered Protective Order in Dershowitz is incorrect. The Court will recall that has, for the sake of efficiency, re-produced in the Dershowitz case her document productions from the Maxwell case with whatever confidentialit designations were originally applied in the Maxwell case. Recognizing that some documents which designated as confidential in Maxwell may not appropriate! be desi nated as confidential in Dershowitz, the Protective Order provides a procedure whereby will consider removing such inappropriate designations upon request. The Protective Order does not purport to confer authority on either party to publicly file any sealed documents from the Maxwell case without first seeking leave of Court. Mr. Doe's concerns are th