DOJ-OGR-00019642.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page35 of 37 29 she can appeal to this Court following the entry of final judgment in the criminal case. Maxwell presented Judge Nathan with no coherent reason—not to mention good cause—to modify the duly entered Protective Order in this criminal case. In the absence of any explanation of Maxwell’s need to use criminal discovery materials to litigate a civil case, Judge Nathan was well within her discretion when de- termining that Maxwell’s arguments “plainly fail to es- tablish good cause.” (A. 101). Judge Nathan’s Order falls comfortably within the range of permissible deci- sions on a motion to modify a protective order, and so she did not abuse her discretion in so ruling. the criminal trial would likely have been subject to deposition. That concern, among others, raised a sig- nificant risk that proceeding with the civil matter would adversely affect the ongoing criminal prosecu- tion against Maxwell. Moreover, the interests of judi- cial economy and the public interest in enforcement of the criminal law were served by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. DOJ-OGR-00019642