DOJ-OGR-00004803.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document307 Filed 06/25/21 Page19of 21 The Court thus finds that Maxwell has not made a substantial preliminary showing under either prong of Franks, and thus that she is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. For the same reasons, and because the present record does not establish a violation of due process, the Court declines to suppress the evidence obtained by the Government’s grand jury subpoena. D. Martindell provides no independent basis for suppression The Court turns finally to Maxwell’s argument that Martindell provides an independent basis for suppression. Maxwell cites no authority in her opening brief for the proposition that a court may suppress evidence because it disagrees with another court’s decision to modify a protective order under Martindell. Indeed, there is no such authority. No court has ever granted a motion to suppress on this ground. The Court declines to review Judge McMahon’s decision, because Martindell provides no basis to suppress evidence even if this Court were to disagree with it. Even if Maxwell were right that this Court should review Judge McMahon’s decision on the merits, that decision—like a magistrate’s probable cause determination—would be entitled to “great deference.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 914. Courts will uphold another judge’s decision to allow the Government to obtain evidence on a motion to suppress so long as there is a “substantial basis” for the decision. Salameh, 152 F.3d at 113 (quoting ///inois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238- 39 (1983)). Judge McMahon found that the Government had established exceptional circumstances to modify the protective order based on the factual record before her. Judge McMahon concluded that modification was necessary under the circumstances to allow the Government to investigate a high-profile matter in secrecy and so not to tip off the target of the investigation. Although reasonable minds may differ—indeed, Judge Netburn reached the opposite conclusion—there was a substantial basis for Judge McMahon’s decision and it is thus 19 DOJ-OGR-00004803