DOJ-OGR-00019424.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page25 of 58 Assuming Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan’s order under the collateral order doctrine, this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to modify the protective order as requested by Ms. Maxwell. F.g., Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass°n, 635 F.2d 1295, 1298 (7th Cir. 1980) (declining to decide whether the collateral order applied and instead issuing a writ of mandamus to vacate a district court decision declining to modify protective order), superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1068 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009); see Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798 (recognizing that protective orders in criminal cases “[i]n rare instances . . . might raise issues available for review via a petition for writ of mandamus”). A writ of mandamus issued under the All Writs Act “confine[s] the court against which mandamus is sought to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction.” In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). A writ is properly issued when “exceptional circumstances amount[]| to a...clear abuse of discretion.” /d. (internal quotations omitted). Three conditions must exist for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus: (1) the petitioner must demonstrate the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable; (2) she must have no other adequate means to attain the relief desired; and (3) the issuing court must be satisfied the writ is appropriate. Jn re 20 DOJ-OGR-00019424