DOJ-OGR-00019420.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page21 of 58 terminate. Nor is there any allegation of grave harm to appellant if the order is not immediately reviewed. Id. at 26 (internal citations omitted). This case is not like Caparros. For one thing, Ms. Maxwell does not seek to make anything public. To the contrary, she seeks to provide documents to judicial officers— under seal—to ensure that all the Article III decisionmakers are on the same page regarding the relevant facts and that Judge Preska does not continue to remain in the dark. For another thing, this appeal w¢// become moot if review awaits a final judgment in the criminal case, even if the protective order continues to have prohibitive effect following the criminal trial. That’s because what Ms. Maxwell seeks is permission to share information with Judge Preska nom, information that should be part of Judge Preska’s decisionmaking in the unsealing process and any decision whether to stay that process. And unless Ms. Maxwell can share the information now, the request will become moot because there is no way to “re- seal” a document Judge Preska prematurely unseals without the benefit of knowing all the facts. Pappas also doesn’t help the government. In Pappas, this Court dismissed in part an appeal challenging a protective order prohibiting the defendant from disclosing classified information he obtained from the government as part of discovery. 94 F.3d at 797. At the same time, the Court accepted jurisdiction over the 16 DOJ-OGR-00019420