DOJ-OGR-00004788.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page4of21 a protective order to the Government absent a formal motion or subpoena. It further held that a court should modify a protective order that a party reasonably relied on only if the order had been improvidently granted or upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances or compelling need. Judge McMahon held a second ex parte hearing on April 9, 2019. At that hearing, citing a district court case called Chemical Bank for the proposition that civil litigants ought not foment criminal investigations against their opponents to gain strategic advantage, she asked the Government about contacts between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and BSF on the subject of the Government’s investigation. The Government explained that BSF had informed the Government that some of the documents the Government sought were covered by a protective order. The Government did not mention any of the communications with BSF attorneys in 2016. Judge McMahon issued a sealed order granting the Government’s application followed by a sealed opinion dated April 9, 2019. In the opinion, she explained that Martindell governed the Government’s application, but that two of the Martindell factors supported modification of the protective order. First, Maxwell did not reasonably rely on the protective order because it was subject to modification. Second, the Government had shown extraordinary circumstances supporting modification of the protective order because it could not otherwise obtain information about the high-profile targets of its investigation without tipping them off. Magistrate Judge Netburn denied the Government’s similar application in another case, applying the same standard but concluding that the Government had not shown extraordinary circumstances or compelling need. Following Judge McMahon’s order, BSF turned over its records from the civil litigation to the Government. Those documents included transcripts of Maxwell’s depositions. The DOJ-OGR-00004788