Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP BSF Document 988 Filed 09/20/19 Page 1 of 1 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER Sigrid McCawley Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Email: [email protected] September 20, 2019 VIA ECF The Honorable Judge Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-ev-07433-LAP Dear Judge Preska: Plaintiff submits this response to Defendant's September 18, 2019, letter (Dkt. 987) in order to correct the record concerning Judge Sweet's handling of deposition materials that were designated for use at trial. Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff's counsel provided the Court with "more than a dozen boxes of material, presumably all of the deposition transcripts," but then speculates that the transcripts were "unread" and asserts that "[t]he parties do not know whether Judge Sweet ever reviewed any of the deposition designations, counter-designations, or objections." Id. at 3. Contrary to Defendant's suggestion, Judge Sweet actively reviewed the materials submitted. See Dkt. 903 (Apr. 5, 2017, Tr.) at 31 (Court noting it had "two and a half feet of depositions to review with objections"); Ex. A (correspondence between and Plaintiff's counsel stating: "I just want to make sure that there is nothing MISSING from the Binder that the Judge needs to rule on"). The Court's review of these materials makes clear that these are judicial documents. In addition, the fact that Court reviewed the transcripts, designations, counterdesignations, and objections at the same time weighs in favor of grouping these materials in the same category. Ex. A at 1-3. The fact that there is not a separate docket entry for the initial trial deposition designations and instead the Court had the depositions delivered to does not mean that they are not part of the record to be considered for unsealing. The trial deposition designations are clearly part of the court record, as were the objections and the testimony of the co