EFTA00039822

**Subject:** RE: US v Maxwell - [conferrals regarding pretrial disclosures & redactions to replies]

We are available to speak tomorrow after 2:30 pm EST. On the issue of redactions, on Friday, Judge Nathan ordered the parties to docket the April 1, 2021 joint letter or to propose redactions by April 19, 2021. (Dkt. 203). We do not believe any redactions are necessary to the letter. Assuming you agree, will you please docket the letter since you wrote the letter? If you would like to discuss, please let us know.

As to the redactions to the undocketed Reply Briefs and certain exhibits you proposed being filed under seal, below please find our position for inclusion in a letter. If you would like to discuss tomorrow, please let us know.



Reply Brief 1


The Government takes no position on the defendant’s proposed redaction on page 5 of Reply Brief 1. The defense submitted Exhibit A to Reply Brief 1 under seal and the Government agrees that Exhibit A should remain sealed in order to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties.



Reply Brief 3


The Government agrees with the defense’s proposed redactions to Reply Brief 3, which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of victims and third parties. Further, the proposed redactions are consistent with the redactions ordered by the Court on March 18, 2021. (Dkt. 168).

As to the exhibits to Reply Brief 3, the defense submitted Exhibits L, M, and N under seal. The Government filed Exhibit L in connection with its Omnibus Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendant’s Pretrial Motions as Exhibit 6. Exhibit 6 was filed without any redactions and accordingly, the Government does not object to the public filing of Exhibit L. The Government does not object to the public filing of Exhibits M and N, but respectfully submits that the names and email addresses/contact information of third parties should be redacted from Exhibits M and N to protect the privacy interests of third parties.

The defense also submitted Exhibits J and O to Reply Brief 3 under seal. The Government filed Exhibits 5 and 7 to its opposition, which are, respectively, redacted versions of Exhibits J and O. See Dkt. 204. The Government had set forth proposed redactions to Exhibits 5 and 7 in order to protect the privacy interests of third parties, which the Court adopted on March 18, 2021 (see Dkt. 168). Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the defense should redact Exhibits J and O to Reply Brief 3 to reflect the redactions approved by the Court and reflected in the publicly filed versions of Exhibits 5 and 7 to the Government’s opposition.



Reply Brief 5


The Government respectfully submits that there is no basis under the applicable standard to redact the language that the defendant proposes redacting in Reply Brief 5 as it refers to language contained in the publicly-filed Indictment in this case. The information in the Indictment is part of the public record and, therefore, has a diminished privacy interest.



Reply Brief 6


The Government agrees with the defense’s proposed redactions to Reply Brief 6, which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of third parties. The proposed redactions are consistent with the proposed redactions requested by the Government on pages 158 to 159 and 163 of its opposition to the defendant’s pretrial motions, which the Court granted on March 18, 2021. (Dkt. 168).



Reply Brief 10