DOJ-OGR-00019349.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page7 of 24 use in prosecuting its criminal case, she would have a full opportunity to do so in her pretrial motions in the criminal case before Judge Nathan. 7. On August 24, 2020, Maxwell filed a reply in further support of her motion. (Dist. Ct. Docket Entry 54). 8. On September 2, 2020, Judge Nathan issued the Order denying Maxwell’s motion. (Ex. F). In that Order, Judge Nathan noted that despite “fourteen-single spaced pages of heated rhetoric,” Maxwell had offered “no more than vague, speculative, and conclusory assertions” regarding why the criminal discovery materials were necessary to fair adjudication of her civil cases. (/d. at 3). Judge Nathan concluded that absent any “coherent explanation” of how the criminal discovery materials related to any argument Maxwell intended to make in civil litigation, Maxwell had “plainly” failed to establish good cause to modify the Protective Order. (/d.). Further, Judge Nathan noted that the basic facts Maxwell sought to introduce in civil litigation were already made public through the Government’s letter in opposition to her motion. (/d. at 3-4). Accordingly, even though Judge Nathan “remain[ed] in the dark as to why this information will be relevant” to the courts adjudicating the civil cases, Judge Nathan expressly permitted Maxwell to inform the tribunals overseeing her civil cases, under seal, of the basic series of events set forth in paragraph 5, supra. (/d. at 4). 9. On September 4, 2020, Maxwell filed a notice of appeal from DOJ-OGR-00019349