DOJ-OGR-00019396.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 54, 09/23/2020, 2937091, Page3 of 6 case and to stay the unsealing process, just as it moved to intervene and to stay discovery in Doe v. Indyke, a civil case in which Jane Doe alleges that Epstein and Ms. Maxwell abused and exploited her as a minor. According to the government, a stay of that case was necessary to “preserv[e] the integrity of the criminal prosecution against [Ms.] Maxwell.” Doe ». Indyke et al., No. 20-cv-00484, Doc. 81, p 4, 9/14/2020 Order Granting Motion to Stay. The court there agreed, and it granted Ms. Maxwell’s motion to stay. Jd. at 12. This Court should not let the government engage in such obvious gamesmanship. The government insists that, in these two appeals, Ms. Maxwell is “ask[ing] this Court to rule on .. . the lawfulness of the Government’s applications to modify certain protective orders in other judicial proceedings.” Doc. 113, J 27. That is not so. The government’s contention mischaracterizes Ms. Maxwell’s argument. As Ms. Maxwell said in her opening brief: The civil case is not the appropriate forum to litigate the government’s apparent violation of Martindell. Ms. Maxwell intends to make that argument to Judge Nathan in the criminal case. But if Judge Preska’s unsealing order is affirmed and Ms. Maxwell’s deposition is released, her ability to make that argument before Judge Nathan will be prejudiced. Keeping the deposition material sealed will preserve the status quo and protect Ms. Maxwell’s right to litigate Martindell and the Fifth Amendment in the criminal proceeding. Doc. 69, p 33. Only by mischaracterizing Ms. Maxwell’s argument can the government contend that she is “ask[ing]| this Court to rule on . . . the lawfulness of DOJ-OGR- 00019396