DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page27 of 37 21 look primarily for the presence of a novel and signifi- cant question of law... and... the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice.” In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d at 939. As described below, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the Order. This Court should not issue a writ of mandamus and should in- stead follow its “normal practice ... to decline to treat improvident appeals as mandamus petitions.” Capar- ros, 800 F.2d at 26. This case does not raise the rare and exceptional circumstance in which the Court should depart from its practice. POINT Il The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Maxwell’s Motion to Modify the Protective Order Even if this Court had jurisdiction to hear Max- well’s appeal, the Order should be summarily affirmed because the District Court did not abuse its discretion. The Order—which was issued after receiving briefing from the parties—carefully evaluated Maxwell’s re- quest and reached a conclusion indisputably within the bounds of permissible discretion. A. Applicable Law This Court reviews a district court’s decision deny- ing modification of a protective order for abuse of dis- cretion. See, e.g., United States v. Longueuil, 567 F. Appx 18, 16 (2d Cir. 2014) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion DOJ-OGR-00019634