DOJ-OGR-00019424.pdf

Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page25 of 58 Assuming Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan's order under the collateral order doctrine, this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to modify the protective order as requested by Ms. Maxwell. E.g., Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass'n, 635 F.2d 1295, 1298 (7th Cir. 1980) (declining to decide whether the collateral order applied and instead issuing a writ of mandamus to vacate a district court decision declining to modify protective order), superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1068 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009); see Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798 (recognizing that protective orders in criminal cases "[i]n rare instances . . . might raise issues available for review via a petition for writ of mandamus"). A writ of mandamus issued under the All Writs Act "confine[s] the court against which mandamus is sought to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction." In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). A writ is properly issued when "exceptional circumstances amount[] to a . . . clear abuse of discretion." Id. (internal quotations omitted). Three conditions must exist for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus: (1) the petitioner must demonstrate the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable; (2) she must have no other adequate means to attain the relief desired; and (3) the issuing court must be satisfied the writ is appropriate. In re 20 DOJ-OGR-00019424