In Re: Sealed Case
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 8826, 346 U.S. App. D.C. 91, 250 F.3d 764 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E), when a court supervising a grand jury transmits grand jury materials to another court for use in a judicial proceeding, it must also transmit a written evaluation of the need for continued grand jury secrecy. Government attorneys may not disclose grand jury matters to another court without first obtaining authorization from the supervising grand jury court.
Facts:
- A qui tam complaint was filed under seal in a federal district court (the 'qui tam court').
- The plaintiffs in this matter later filed a similar qui tam complaint, which was consolidated with the first, and the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
- Subsequently, a grand jury was convened in the District of Columbia to investigate allegations of improper payments related to the settlement.
- One of the plaintiffs testified before the grand jury that he had received a copy of the sealed qui tam complaint from a government employee.
- The plaintiff testified that he immediately returned the complaint, advising the sender that it should not have been sent.
- Two Department of Justice prosecutors, without prior court approval, sent a 'Notice to the Court of A Breach of Seal' to the qui tam court.
- This notice summarized the plaintiff's grand jury testimony and revealed the breach of the qui tam court's seal.
Procedural Posture:
- Following the prosecutors' unauthorized notice, the qui tam court urged the Government to seek transmission of the testimony.
- The Government filed an ex parte motion with the grand jury court (the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) to transmit the testimony.
- The grand jury court granted the motion and ordered the grand jury materials transmitted to the qui tam court.
- The plaintiffs moved the grand jury court to order the Government to show cause for contempt and to vacate the transmission order.
- The grand jury court, acting as the trial court for these motions, denied both of the plaintiffs' motions.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the denial of their motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with the Government as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court's order transmitting grand jury materials to another court for use in a judicial proceeding comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E) if government attorneys first made an unauthorized disclosure to the receiving court and the transmission order itself does not include a written evaluation of the need for continued grand jury secrecy?
Opinions:
Majority - Ginsburg, Circuit Judge
No. A court order transmitting grand jury materials to another court is procedurally deficient under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E) if it is not accompanied by a written evaluation of the need for continued grand jury secrecy. The court found that the government prosecutors clearly violated Rule 6(e) by making an initial, unauthorized disclosure of grand jury matters to the qui tam court, rejecting the government's 'untenable and disturbingly cavalier' argument that providing information to a judge is not a 'disclosure.' While this violation was serious, the court declined to hold the government in contempt because the supervising court subsequently ratified the disclosure by ordering the transmission of the materials, making a contempt proceeding pointless. However, the transmission order itself was invalid because it failed to comply with the two-court procedure codified in Rule 6(e)(3)(E) and articulated in Douglas Oil Co. The supervising court failed to transmit the required 'written evaluation of the need for continued grand jury secrecy,' thereby preventing the qui tam court from properly balancing the competing interests. The remedy is not to suppress the material, but to remand for the supervising court to prepare and transmit the required written evaluation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict, formal procedures governing the disclosure and inter-court transfer of secret grand jury materials under Rule 6(e). It serves as a strong rebuke to government attorneys who might attempt informal or ex parte communications about grand jury matters, clarifying that such actions are clear violations of the rule. The opinion strictly construes the procedural requirements of Rule 6(e)(3)(E), emphasizing the separate and distinct roles of the supervising court (evaluating secrecy) and the receiving court (balancing secrecy needs against the particularized need for disclosure). This holding solidifies the `Douglas Oil` framework, ensuring that grand jury secrecy is not compromised without a thorough, two-stage judicial review.
Unlock the full brief for In Re: Sealed Case