Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1195 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 2 Holland & Knight 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300I Miami, FL 33131 IT IF 305.789.7799 Holland & Knight LLP I WAW.hklaw.com Sanford L. Bohrer +1 305-789-7678 [email protected] Christine N. Walz +1 305-789-7678 [email protected] January 27, 2021 Via ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: INTERVENORS' LETTER IN RESPONSE TO MAXWELL'S LETTER (DKT. 1191), v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska: and Miami Herald Media Co. respectfully submit this letter in Intervenors Julie response to Ghislaine Maxwell's letter dated January 25, 2021 (Dkt. 1191), and in concurrence with letter in response (Dkt. 1194). While Ms. Maxwell begins her letter by expressing privacy concerns over the soon-to-bereleased portion of her transcript, it is clear her real concern, expressed on the second page, is concealing potential evidence of perjury. This is not a recognized countervailing interest to overcome the presumption of public access. First, Ms. Maxwell's privacy concerns can hardly be weighty when Ms. Maxwell herself seems unsure whether the statements even relate to sexual activity or not.I See Dkt. 1191, at 1. Second, Ms. Maxwell continues to rehash the same reliance argument that has been rejected by this Court numerous times. The Second Circuit has held that "the mere existence of a confidentiality order says nothing about whether complete reliance on the order to avoid disclosure I Again, Intervenors do not have access to the unredacted letter and can only understand the contents based on the context surrounding the redactions. Anchorage I Atlanta I Austin I Boston I Chadofte I Chicago I Dallas I Denver I Fort Lauderdale I Houston I Jacksonville I Lakeland Los Angeles I Miami I New York I Orlando I Philadelphia I Portland I San Francisco I Stamford I Tallahassee I