DOJ-OGR-00019601.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page10 of 15 discovery documents and should be appealable because of the breadth of its restraint.” Jd. (citing United States v. Salameh, 992 F.2d 445, 446-47 (2d Cir. 1993)). Beyond standing for the proposition that interlocutory appeals are the exception and not the rule (which Ms. Maxwell doesn’t dispute), Pappas has nothing to add to the analysis here. Even strictly construing the three requirements for collateral order jurisdiction, see Will, 546 U.S. at 349, the order here meets the test. The balance of the government’s argument against jurisdiction misunderstands Ms. Maxwell’s position. For example, according to the government, “it is not entirely clear that all of the issues Maxwell seeks to raise in this appeal have been finally resolved.” Doc. 37, p 17. Ms. Maxwell’s argument, says the government, is “primarily focused on attacking the legitimacy of the Government’s methods of obtaining evidence that it intends to use to prosecute the criminal case through the Subpoenas to” the recipient. Doc. 37, p 17. Based on this understanding, the government claims that Ms. Maxwell “seeks to have this Court reach the merits of her arguments on that issue in the context of the cvz/ appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated by the DOJ-OGR-00019601