United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. et al.
356 U.S. 677 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party seeking wholesale disclosure of grand jury transcripts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 must show a particularized need that outweighs the long-established public policy of grand jury secrecy; general claims of relevance, usefulness, and cost-saving are insufficient to establish the required "good cause."
Facts:
- The United States Government conducted an 18-month grand jury investigation into potential criminal antitrust violations by Colgate-Palmolive Co. and other companies.
- The grand jury concluded its investigation without returning any indictments.
- Following the grand jury investigation, the Government initiated a civil antitrust lawsuit against the same companies based on the same underlying conduct.
- In preparing its civil case, the Government utilized the transcripts from the prior grand jury proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States sued Colgate-Palmolive Co. and other companies in a federal district court, a court of first instance, for civil violations of the Sherman Act.
- The defendant companies (appellees) filed a motion in the district court to compel the Government to produce the transcript of a related, prior grand jury investigation.
- The district court granted the motion, finding the defendants had shown "good cause" under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The district court ordered the Government to produce the transcript.
- The Government refused to comply and, at its own request to create a final, appealable order, the district court amended its order to state that the Government's complaint would be dismissed for failure to produce.
- After the Government persisted in its refusal, the district court entered a final judgment dismissing the Government's case.
- The Government (appellant) appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 generalized showing that grand jury transcripts would be relevant and useful for preparing a civil defense and avoiding deposition costs constitute sufficient "good cause" under Rule 34 to overcome the traditional secrecy of grand jury proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. A generalized showing of relevance and usefulness is insufficient to establish the "good cause" necessary to compel wholesale production of grand jury transcripts. The Court reasoned that the long-established policy of maintaining grand jury secrecy is indispensable and must not be broken absent a compelling and particularized necessity. This policy encourages witnesses to testify freely without fear of retaliation. While modern discovery rules aim for open disclosure, they do not override strong public policies like grand jury secrecy. The appellees' claims—that the transcript was relevant, would aid their defense, and would save the cost of depositions—fall short of showing that their defense would be greatly prejudiced or that an injustice would occur without the transcript. A more discrete showing of need is required, which was not made here. The court reserved judgment on cases involving the limited use of transcripts at trial for impeachment or refreshing recollection, which represent instances of particularized need.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that good cause existed for disclosure. The dissent argued that the majority improperly framed the question as a rigid test for "good cause" instead of as a review of the trial court's discretion. Given the immense complexity of the antitrust litigation, the government's ongoing use of the transcript for its own preparation, and the trial judge's deep familiarity with the case, the order granting reciprocal access was a reasonable exercise of discretion to ensure fairness and justice. The dissent contended that the majority's inflexible rule unwisely curbs the power of trial judges to manage difficult cases, especially when the grand jury's function has ended and the reasons for secrecy are diminished. There is little functional difference in litigation fairness between a grand jury that was improperly used for civil discovery and one whose transcripts are later used exclusively for a civil case after it fails to return an indictment.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Whittaker
No. While agreeing with the majority that the appellees failed to show a sufficient particularized need for wholesale disclosure, the concurrence expressed concern about the fundamental unfairness of the Government's one-sided use of the transcripts. To prevent the government from using grand jury proceedings as an ex parte tool for civil discovery, a better rule would be to require that in all cases where a grand jury returns a "no true bill," the transcripts should be sealed and impounded with the court. Thereafter, any party—including the Government—would have to demonstrate a particularized need to the court before gaining access for the purposes of a civil suit.
Analysis:
This case establishes the influential "particularized need" standard for breaching grand jury secrecy in the context of civil discovery. It solidifies the primacy of grand jury confidentiality over the broad disclosure principles of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By rejecting arguments of general relevance and convenience, the Court set a high bar for civil litigants seeking grand jury materials, significantly impacting how subsequent antitrust and other complex civil cases involving prior government investigations are litigated. The decision forces defendants to develop their cases through conventional discovery unless they can demonstrate a specific, compelling injustice that can only be remedied by access to the secret testimony.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. et al.