DOJ-OGR-00019654.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page8 of 23 public.* Op.Br. 16. (distinguishing United States v. Caparros, 800 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1986)). The government argues that Ms. Maxwell can wait until after the criminal trial to challenge whether, for example, Judge Preska’s unsealing decisions produce unfair pretrial publicity in the criminal case. But a panel of this Court considering an appeal in the criminal case presided over by Judge Nathan won’t have any jurisdiction to review orders entered by Judge Preska in the civil case. The time for reviewing Judge Preska’s unsealing order in the civil case is right now in the appeal of Judge Preska’s order, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. The government also argues that, in a post-trial appeal, Ms. Maxwell can challenge the government’s conduct in obtaining Ms. Maxwell’s deposition transcripts and the use of those transcripts as a basis for two perjury counts. * This Court should accordingly reject the government’s argument that “[t]o the extent Maxwell still wishes to use materials she obtained through criminal discovery for other purposes after entry of final judgment in the criminal case, she can seek authorization from this Court to do so then.” Ans.Br. 17. Similarly, the government misunderstands the relief Ms. Maxwell seeks when it contends that “[i]f Maxwell complains that her inability to use criminal discovery materials in civil matters may result in premature unsealing ..., she can... raise [that] claim[] before this Court on appeal after entry of final judgment in her criminal case.” Ans.Br. 17. A post-final-judgment appeal will do no good because there is no way to “re-seal” material already unsealed and no way to retroactively stay an unsealing process that is largely if not entirely complete. DOJ-OGR-00019654