DOJ-OGR-00002363(1).jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 16 of 23

Ex. H, p 6.

ARGUMENT

A. Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Should Suppress The Evidence Obtained From [REDACTED] And Dismiss Counts Five And Six, Which Are The Fruits Of That Evidence

1. The role of protective orders in civil litigation.

Protective orders serve a “vital function” in civil litigation. Martindell v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979). They promote “the ‘secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination’ of civil disputes, by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). “If protective orders were easily modified . . . parties would be less forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes.” S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, “witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective orders if their testimony were to be made available to the Government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those orders.” Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295–96. Parties thus rely on protective orders, and courts strictly enforce them. See, e.g., Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) (“In the Second Circuit, there is a strict standard for modification of a protective order entered by a district court.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

This case illustrates just how crucial a protective order is. The Maxwell depositions sought highly intrusive evidence of the most personal aspects of Maxwell’s life. Her sexual practices. Her sexual preferences. Her sexual partners. In urging the district court to permit these extraordinary intrusions—in what should have been a simple defamation case—[REDACTED]

11

DOJ-OGR-00002363