DOJ-OGR-00003792.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document212 Filed 04/16/21 Page 18 of 20 government’s claim that its investigation of Maxwell did not start until 2018. But based on the discovery provided to Maxwell in response to her Pretrial Motion No. 3, we know the investigation actually began as early as 2016, when two months before Maxwell’s first deposition, Boies Schiller met with the government and pressed an investigation for, among other things, perjury. This Court should adhere to Oshaiz and, as the court there granted the motion to quash, here it should grant the motion to suppress. The government’s final argument is a red herring. Resp. at 103. Maxwell’s argument is not, and has never been, that a Protective Order cannot be modified. Maxwell agrees that, under Martindell, and after notice to the real party in interest and an opportunity to be heard, modification of a Protective Order is appropriate if the government can show “improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.” 594 F.2d at 296. Here, Maxwell was never given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and Chief Judge McMahon’s finding of “extraordinary circumstances” was fatally tainted by the government’s misrepresentations to her about the origins of its investigation. IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. Because there are genuine disputes of material fact, and for the reasons given in Maxwell’s Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. CONCLUSION For these reasons, as well as those given in the Motion, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the Government obtained from Boies Schiller and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six. Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion. I3 DOJ-OGR- 00003792