DOJ-OGR-00019598.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page? of 15 Second, the appeal of Judge Nathan’s order is entirely “independent of the issues to be tried” in the criminal case and its “validity can[] be adequately reviewed” now. See Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 268. There is nothing about Ms. Maxwell’s request to share information with Judge Preska that must wait until the criminal trial is over. To the contrary, waiting until the criminal trial is over will moot the issue. Third, this appeal does not and will not delay the criminal case, which is proceeding apace despite the proceedings before this Court. See zd. at 264 (explaining that interlocutory appeals in criminal cases are generally disfavored because of the “societal interest in providing a speedy trial”). The government’s contentions to the contrary rely on two easily distinguishable cases and misunderstand Ms. Maxwell’s arguments on the merits. Start with the two cases on which the government relies. Doc. 37, p 11 (citing United States v. Caparros, 800 F.2d 23, 24 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v. Pappas, 94 F.3d 795, 798 (2d Cir. 1996)). According to the government, Caparros and Pappas hold that “protective orders regulating the use of documents exchanged by ‘ That the criminal case is proceeding on course despite this appeal confirms that this appeal involves an issue completely separate from the merits of the criminal action. DOJ-OGR-00019598