DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page26 of 37 20 In an attempt to sidestep the jurisdictional issue, Maxwell suggests that this Court should exercise man- damus jurisdiction and issue the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to modify the Protective Order if Maxwell “cannot ap- peal” the Order under the collateral order doctrine. (Br. 20). The Supreme Court has described this as “a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). This Court has made clear that it “issue[s] a writ of mandamus only in exceptional circumstances amounting to a judi- cial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion.” In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010). “Pretrial discovery orders ... generally are not re- viewable on direct appeal, and we have expressed re- luctance to circumvent this salutary rule by use of mandamus.” Jn re S.E.C. ex rel. Glotzer, 374 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 2004). “Nevertheless, mandamus may be available where a discovery question is of extraordi- nary significance or there is extreme need for reversal of the district court’s mandate before the case goes to judgment.” Jd. “To determine whether mandamus is appropriate in the context of a discovery ruling, we solve or modify injunctions, except where a direct re- view may be had in the Supreme Court.” Orders regu- lating discovery in a criminal case, even if couched us- ing “words of restraint,” are not injunctions and are therefore not appealable under § 1292(a)(1). See Pap- pas, 94 F.3d at 798; Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26. DOJ-OGR-00019633