DOJ-OGR-00019197.jpg

Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 7

that was justified by substantial interest of promoting security
and preventing terrorism).

B. Second, the court finds that this partial closure of court
proceedings is narrowly tailored to protect public health
and safety and is less restrictive than the court’s current
in-court hearing protocols.

Allowing the public to access these proceedings through
telephone conference allows a large number (up to 500) of
members of the public to access the proceedings while, at the
same time, protecting the health of all involved by limiting the
potential exposure of the public, parties, and court staff to
COVID-19.

Importantly, the court finds that, in light of the court’s
current restrictions on the number of people permitted in the
courtroom, providing public telephonic access is less
restrictive than holding an in-person hearing which only a
limited number of people can attend. Further, via telephone,
even individuals who would have otherwise been prohibited from
entering the courthouse – for example, people who have tested
positive for COVID-19 – now have access (even though virtual) to
the proceedings. See Standing Order 20-9 (Mar. 20, 2020)
(prohibiting certain individuals from entering the courthouse,
including people diagnosed with or exposed to someone diagnosed
with COVID-19). Providing the public access to this proceeding
via telephone is the least restrictive means of protecting the

5

DOJ-OGR-00019197