DOJ-OGR-00019360.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page18 of 24 order it obtained during its criminal investigation on the grounds of inevitable discovery, she will have the opportunity to assert such a claim before Judge Nathan. If she is dissatisfied with Judge Nathan’s decision on that score, she can raise the issue on appeal after the entry of final judgment. 22. Further, given the substance of Maxwell’s motion to consolidate, it is not entirely clear that all of the issues Maxwell seeks to raise in this appeal have been finally resolved. Maxwell’s motion to consolidate this matter with the Giuffre v. Maxwell appeal appears primarily focused on attacking the legitimacy of the Government’s methods of obtaining evidence that it intends to use to prosecute the criminal case through the Subpoenas to the Recipient. (See Mot. at 10-12). It thus seems readily apparent that Maxwell intends to file a motion to preclude the use of such evidence at her criminal trial. Yet she seeks to have this Court reach the merits of her arguments on that issue in the context of the civil appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated by the District Court in the criminal case. As Judge Nathan has not yet addressed (or even had the opportunity to address) that issue in the criminal case, the issues Maxwell raises on this appeal do not appear to be final. Any such arguments are properly heard in the criminal case in the first instance by the district judge, “who play[s] a ‘special role’ in managing ongoing litigation,” and who “can better exercise [his or her] responsibility [to police the preyjudment tactics of litigants] if 17 DOJ-OGR-00019360