DOJ-OGR-00019433.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page34 of 58 compromises Ms. Maxwell’s ability to seek a stay of the unsealing process and thereby safeguard her right to a fair trial in the criminal case. The government can hardly dispute the merit of Ms. Maxwell’s argument for a stay. After all, the government itself moved to intervene and to stay all proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, a civil case in which Jane Doe alleges that Epstein and Ms. Maxwell abused and exploited her as a minor. ATTACHMENT B, p 4 (Doe ». Indyke et al., No. 20-cv-00484, ECF Dkt. 81, 9/14/2020 Order Granting Motion to Stay).° According to the government, a stay of that case was necessary to “‘preserv[e] the integrity of the criminal prosecution against [Ms.] Maxwell.” Jd. The court there agreed, and it granted Ms. Maxwell’s motion to stay. Jd. at 12.’ In contrast to Doe v. Indyke, the government has not moved to intervene in Giuffre v. Maxwell, to stay the unsealing process, or to keep the deposition material and Ms. Maxwell’s depositions under seal. This makes no principled sense if the government’s opposition to modifying the criminal protective order is to be © This Court can take judicial notice of this order. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2). “If a stay in Doe v. Indyke preserves the integrity of the criminal prosecution against Ms. Maxwell, Judge Nathan should have modified the criminal protective order so Judge Preska could have evaluated whether keeping the deposition material under seal would similarly “preserve the integrity of the criminal prosecution against Ms. Maxwell.” 29 DOJ-OGR-00019433