DOJ-OGR-00019640.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page33 of 37 27 “tell Judge Preska what happened and let Judge Preska decide whether the information weighs against unsealing the deposition material or in favor of a stay.” (Br. 31). To the extent Maxwell seeks to inform Judge Preska—or any other judicial officer—of the basic facts surrounding the criminal prosecution and the criminal discovery materials at issue, the District Court has al- ready granted Maxwell the supposed relief she seeks from this Court. Although the District Court did not modify the Protective Order, Judge Nathan authorized Maxwell to convey, under seal, to the appropriate ju- dicial officer the fact that the Government obtained an order from Court-1 permitting the Recipient to comply with a subpoena for materials covered by a protective order, that Court-2 subsequently denied similar relief in another case, and that Maxwell “learned of this in- formation (sealed by other courts) as a result of Rule 16 discovery in this criminal matter.” (A. 101-02). If the “very point” of Maxwell’s request to seek a modifi- cation of the Protective Order was to share infor- mation and not to challenge the legality of the Govern- ment’s investigative techniques, then her appeal is moot because Judge Nathan has already granted her permission to do so. Maxwell does not explain why those facts are not enough. Despite those available avenues, Maxwell still ar- gues that she cannot move to stay the unsealing pro- cess before Judge Preska and “thereby safeguard her right to a fair trial in the criminal case.” (Br. 29). As already noted, though, it is a matter of public record that the charges against Maxwell include allegations of perjury in civil cases. (A. 27-29). Without relying on any materials she received through criminal discovery, DOJ-OGR-00019640