DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page30 of 37 24 does not suggest that Judge Nathan committed legal error when issuing the Order denying her motion. Second, Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion when determining that Maxwell had offered no basis for determining that good cause justified a modifica- tion of the Protective Order. In her briefing before the District Court, Maxwell offered no coherent explana- tion of how the criminal discovery materials could have any conceivable impact on the issues pending in civil litigation. She cited no case law suggesting that, for example, the possibility of an inevitable discovery argument by the Government should foreclose unseal- ing in a civil case, or that unsealing analysis should be affected by a concern about pretrial publicity in a sep- arate criminal case. In the absence of any such expla- nation, Judge Nathan’s Order declining to modify the Protective Order did not amount to an abuse of her broad discretion when overseeing an ongoing criminal case. Even on this appeal, Maxwell still fails to explain why she needs to use materials relating to the Govern- ment’s applications seeking the modification of certain protective orders in other judicial proceedings. As far as the Government is aware, the only issue pending in the civil litigation in which Maxwell seeks to use those criminal discovery materials involves whether the First Amendment requires that certain filings in those cases be made available on the public docket. Maxwell cannot explain why certain criminal discovery materi- als are relevant to the issues pending in those cases or how the manner in which the Government obtained DOJ-OGR-00019637