Second, the court does not understand the required stay of further proceedings to divest it of jurisdiction to enforce the measures it has already imposed to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, including: Defendant’s conditions of release, ECF No. 13; the protective orders governing discovery materials, ECF No. 28, 37; the restrictions on extrajudicial statements, ECF No. 105, as modified by the D.C. Circuit’s decision in United States v. Trump, No. 23-3190, 2023 WL 8517991, at *28 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 8, 2023); and protective jury procedures, ECF No. Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 186 Filed 12/13/23

130. Unlike, for example, requiring additional discovery or briefing, maintaining those measures does not advance the case towards trial or impose burdens of litigation on Defendant beyond those he already carries. And if a criminal defendant could bypass those critical safeguards merely by asserting immunity and then appealing its denial, then during the appeal’s pendency, the defendant could irreparably harm any future proceedings and their participants.

That said, there is little precedent guiding the application of Griggs to such protective measures. The Ninth Circuit, at least, has transferred a “motion to enforce” a “protective order” back to the district court, even though the Circuit had taken “jurisdiction over the merits of the decision below, including the judgment,” reasoning that “the district court has not been divested of its jurisdiction over ancillary matters, such as protective orders.” Perry v. City & Cnty. of S.F., No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 2419868, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2011) (citing, among others, Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58). But the parties have not identified—and the court is not aware of—any guiding precedent in this Circuit on that issue, much less instructive cases in the context of an interlocutory immunity appeal. In addition, Defendant does not appear to argue that the protective measures are themselves stayed. See Reply at 3. Nonetheless, if he asks the court reviewing his immunity appeal to also take temporary jurisdiction over the enforcement of those measures, and that court agrees to do so, this court of course will be bound by that decision. Date: December 13, 2023 Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 186 Filed 12/13/23 Page 3