DOJ-OGR-00019603.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page12 of 15 is that, unless the unsealing order is reversed, she likely won’t be able to “properly litigate” the Martindell issue at all. Nor is this appeal the proper forum for deciding whether the government improperly circumvented Martindell. All Ms. Maxwell seeks here is an order allowing her to share with Judge Preska information that is essential to her decision to unseal the deposition material and to rule on a motion to stay, information Judge Preska did not know at the time and information the government insists should be kept from her. And that issue—whether it is proper for one Article III judge, at the request of the government, to keep secret from a co-equal judge information relevant and material to the second judge’s role in deciding a matter before her—is properly reviewed on an interlocutory basis because it is ““an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action.” Will, 546 U.S. at 349. II. Alternatively, this Court can exercise mandamus jurisdiction. 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. E.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 11 DOJ-OGR-00019603