DOJ-OGR-00019423.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page24 of 58 preserve the status quo and protect Ms. Maxwell’s right to litigate Martindell and the Fifth Amendment in the criminal proceeding. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413, ECF Dkt. 69, p 33. Only by mischaracterizing Ms. Maxwell’s argument can the government contend that she “seeks to have this Court reach the merits of her arguments on [the Martindell] issue in the context of the czvil appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated by the District Court in the criminal case.” See Doc. 37, p 17. Ms. Maxwell’s point is that, unless the unsealing order is reversed, Ms. Maxwell likely won’t be able to “properly litigate” the Martindell issue at all. Nor is ¢hzs appeal the proper forum for deciding whether the government improperly circumvented Martindell. All Ms. Maxwell seeks here is an order allowing her to share with Judge Preska information that is essential to her decision to unseal the deposition material and to rule on a motion to stay, information Judge Preska did not know at the time and information the government insists should be kept from her. And that issue—whether it is proper for one Article III judge, at the request of the government, to keep secret from a co-equal judge information relevant and material to the second judge’s role in deciding a matter before her —is properly reviewed on an interlocutory basis because it is “an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action.” W2il, 546 U.S. at 349. 19 DOJ-OGR-00019423