DOJ-OGR-00019684.jpg

Case 20-3061, Document 105, 10/19/2020, 2955220, Page2 of 4

Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to consolidate is DENIED and the appeal is
DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell seeks interlocutory relief from a September 2, 2020
denial of her motion to modify a protective order entered on July 30, 2020. In the alternative, she
argues that this Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to modify the
protective order. She also moves to consolidate the instant appeal with the appeal pending in Giuffre
v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. Meanwhile, the Government moves this Court to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction and opposes Maxwell’s motion to consolidate on the grounds that the issues
presented on appeal are both factually and legally distinct. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court has jurisdiction over the “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
“Finality as a condition of review is an historic characteristic of federal appellate procedure.”
Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 324 (1940). The “final judgment rule requires that a party
must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits.”
Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). “This
insistence on finality and prohibition of piecemeal review discourage undue litigiousness and leaden-
footed administration of justice, particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal cases.” Di Bella v.
United States, 369 U.S. 121, 124 (1962) (citing Cobbledick, 309 U.S. at 324–26). The final judgment rule
is therefore “at its strongest in the field of criminal law.” United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458
U.S. 263, 265 (1982). In criminal cases, “finality generally is defined by a judgment of conviction and
the imposition of a sentence.” Florida v. Thomas, 532 U.S. 774, 777 (2001) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

There is a “narrow” exception to the final judgment rule that permits appeals from
“decisions that do not terminate the litigation, but must, in the interest of achieving a healthy legal
system, nonetheless be treated as final.” Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867–
68 (1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Supreme Court has described the
“conditions for collateral order appeal as stringent” in general, Digital Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 868
(emphasis added), and, with respect to criminal cases, it has “interpreted the collateral order
exception with the utmost strictness.” Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989)
(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). To fall within this limited category of
appealable collateral orders, a decision must “(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2)
resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively

2

DOJ-OGR-00019684