DOJ-OGR-00019636.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page29 of 37 23 modify a protective order entered in a criminal case); United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 211 (8rd Cir. 2007) (same). B. Discussion Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion when entering the challenged Order. In reaching her deci- sion, Judge Nathan applied the correct legal standard, evaluated Maxwell’s argument that she needed to dis- close certain criminal discovery materials to the rele- vant judicial officers to “ensure the fair adjudication of issues being litigated in those civil matter,” found that Maxwell’s proffered reasons for the request were “vague, speculative, and conclusory,” and concluded that Maxwell’s arguments “plainly fail to establish good cause.” (A. 101). At no point did Judge Nathan fail to apply established law, and it cannot be said that her careful review of the parties’ arguments was not within the bounds of permissible discretion. First, Maxwell still fails to articulate any legal ba- sis for the use of discovery material received from the Government in a criminal case to litigate a separate civil case. Maxwell expressly consented to the entry of a Protective Order prohibiting her from using criminal discovery materials in civil litigation.7 In her motion to modify that Protective Order, Maxwell cited no legal authority for the use of criminal discovery in civil liti- gation. Her appeal points to no such authority, and she 7 Maxwell did so knowing that the Government had charged her with perjury in connection with civil cases. DOJ-OGR-00019636