DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page13 of 15 protective order), superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1068 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009); see Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798 (recognizing that protective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.” Jn 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] toa...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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N. Y., 745 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2014). All three conditions exist here. First, as explained in her opening brief, Judge Nathan clearly abused her discretion in declining to modify the protective order. Doc. 60, pp 23-33. Second, Ms. Maxwell has no other adequate means to attain the relief necessary because her request for Judge Preska to reevaluate her unsealing order 12 DOJ-OGR-00019604