DOJ-OGR-00019348.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page6 of 24 request modification of the respective protective orders to permit compliance with the Subpoenas. In or about April 2019, one court (“Court-1”’) granted the Government’s application, and permitted the Government to share Court-1’s order—and only that order, which itself prohibited further dissemination—to the Recipient. Subsequently, the second court (“Court-2”) denied the Government’s application. Because the relevant grand jury investigation remains ongoing, both Court-1 and Court-2 have ordered that the filings regarding the Subpoenas remain under seal, except that both have expressly permitted the Government to produce those filings to Maxwell as part of its discovery obligations in this criminal case. 6. After providing that factual background, the Government argued that Maxwell’s motion should be denied for failing to show good cause to modify the Protective Order for several reasons. First, Maxwell had consented to the portions of the Protective Order that prohibit use of criminal discovery materials produced by the Government in any civil litigation. Second, Maxwell had cited no authority to support the argument that a criminal defendant should be permitted to use criminal discovery in civil cases. Third, Maxwell utterly failed to explain how the criminal discovery materials at issue supported any legal argument she wished to make in civil litigation. The Government also noted that to the extent Maxwell sought to challenge the process by which the Government sought compliance with the Subpoenas and obtained certain materials that it intended to DOJ-OGR- 00019348