## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e15,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT I n r e: SPE C I A L G R A N D J U R Y 89- 2,

A pp el l ants . N os . 04- 1193 and 04- 1215

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO

( D . C . N O . 96- Y - 203) J onathan Turl ey , G eor ge W as hi ngt on L aw School , W as hi ngt on, D . C . , and K e n n e th E . P e c k , B u sh e ll & P e c k , D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o , (B e tte K . B u sh e ll, B u sh e ll & P eck, D env er, C olor ado , w i t h h i m on t he b ri ef) for the A pp el l ants . J err yN . J ones , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( W i l l i am J. L eone, A ct i ng U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i t h hi m on t he br i ef) , D enver , C ol or ado, fort he A ppel l ee. B efo re M UR P HY , EBEL , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge. F ed era l R u le of

C ri m inal P roc ed u re 6 (e) p roh ibit s g ran d juro rs, co u rt r epor t er s , governm entat t or ney s , and other s fr om di s cl os i ng “a mat t eroccurr i ng befor e the gr and j ur y . ” The rul e cont ai ns s ever al exce pt i ons author i zi ng d isc lo su re to c e rta in g o v e rn m e n t atto rn e y s a n d o th e r g o v e rn m e n t o fficia ls in s peci fi ed ci r cumst ance s , and perm i t t i ng a courtt o author i ze di s cl os ur e i n other-2-

li m it ed circu m stan ce s. A p p ell an ts w ere m em b ers o f a fe d era l gran d jury empanel ed i n 1989 t o i nves t i gat e pos s i bl e envi r onm ent al cr i m es atthe R ocky Fl at s N ucl ear W eapons Pl ant ( R ocky Fl at s ) i n C ol or ado. T heyw er e di s char ged on M ar ch 24, 1992, on t he eve of a pl ea a gr eementbetw een the U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyand R ockw el l I nt ernat i onal C orpor at i on ( R ockw el l ) , t he oper at orof the fac i l i t yundercontr actw i t h t he D epart m entof Ener gy( D O E ) fr om 1975 t hr ough 1 9 8 9 . A t th a t ti m e th e g ra n d ju rysu b m itt e d to th e d istric t co u rt a re p o rt o f its fi ndi ngs . I n J anuary1993 t he di s tr i ctcourtpubl i cl yr el eas ed a he avi l yr edac t ed v e rs io n o f

th e re p o rt . O n A ugus t1, 1996, al m os tal l t he mem ber s of the gr and j ur yfi l ed w i th t he di s t r i ctcour ta pet i t i on r eques t i ng t hatt he s ecr ecyobl i gat i on i m pos ed on them by R u le 6 (e ) b e lifte d so th a t th e yc o u ld g iv e a n “ a c c u ra te a c c o u n t” o f c e rta in m at t er s t hathad occ ur r ed befor e the gr and j ury . A pl t . A pp. at8. L at ert hey added r eques t s t o r el eas e a l es s r edac t ed ver s i on of the r eport , al ong w i th por t i ons of the gr and j ur yt r ans cr i ptand ce r t ai n s eal ed fi l i ngs fr om t hi s cas e. T hey cont end thats om e of thi s m at er i al i s notgoverned byR ul e 6( e) ; t hats om e ca n be r el eas ed undert he exc ept i ons i n R ul e 6( e) ; and thati ns ofaras R ul e 6( e) does not author i ze di s cl os ur e of otherm at er i al , t he di s tr i ctcourthas i nher entpow ert o do s o. O ne of the gr and j ur or s , A ppel l antK enneth Peck, has al s o s epar at el yfi l ed a s i m i l arpet i t i on. T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed both pet i t i ons , bel i evi ng thati tl acke d juri sd ict ion b ec au se th e p eti ti o n s so u g h t on lyan ad v isoryo p inion an d there fo re-3-

di d notpr es enta C as e orC ont r over s yunderA r t i cl e I I I of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. A ppel l ant s fi l ed tw o not i ces of appe al , one byA ppel l antPeck and o n e b y th e o th e rs . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . O n ap p ea l th e g o v ern m en t con tend s tha t A p p ell an ts’ n o ti ce s o f a p p ea l w ere unt i m el ybeca us e theydi d notm eett he 10- daydeadl i ne forappea l s i n cr i m i nal cas es , and thatt he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the pet i t i ons s ought an advi s or yopi ni on and A ppel l ant s l acke d s t andi ng. W e di s agr ee, hol di ng that t he not i ces of appe al s at i s fi ed the t i m e l i m i t s forappea l s i n ci vi l cas es and that t he di s t r i ctcour thad j ur i s di ct i on. W e ther efor e r ever s e and r emand forfur ther pr ocee di ngs , pr ovi di ng s om e gui dance t o the di s tr i ctcourtr egar di ng the s cope of R u le 6 (e ). I . BA CKGROUND R ockyFl at s i s ow ned byt he U ni t ed St at es . I tpr oduced c om ponent s for nucl earw eapons unt i l i tw as s hutdow n m or e than 10 y ear s ago. Fr om J une 30, 1975, t hr ough 1989 i tw as oper at ed byR ockw el l . I n 1987 the FB I began i nves t i gat i ng pos s i bl e envi r onm ent al cr i m es occurr i ng atR ockyFl at s , and on A ugus t1, 1989, t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado empanel ed Speci al G r and J ur y89- 2 forfur theri nves t i gat i on. T he gr and j urym et form or e than tw o and one- hal f y ear s , exami ned hundr eds of boxes of evi dence , and hea r d t es t i m onyfr om m or e than 100 w i tnes s es . Pl ea ne got i at i ons betw een pr os ecut or s and R ockw el l began i n 1990 and cul m i nat ed i n an agr eementon-4-

M a rc h 2 6 , 1 9 9 2 , tw o d a y s a f te r th e g ra n d ju ry w a s fo rm a lly d is c h a rg e d . R ockw el l pl eade d gui l t yt o fi ve fe l oni es and fi ve mi s demeanor s and agr eed t o pay a fi ne of $18. 5 m i l l i on. T he pl ea a gr eementw as acc ept ed byt he di s tr i ctcourton J u n e 1 , 1 9 9 2 . A tt he end of

i t s s ervi ce on M ar ch 24, 1992, t he gr and j urys ubm i t t ed t o t he di s t r i ctcour ta r eportof i t s fi ndi ngs ; dr afti ndi ctm ent s purpor t i ng t o char ge curr ent and fo rm er R ock w el l and D O E em ploy ees w i th cri m es; and do cum ents , des i gnat ed as “pr es entm ent s , ” thatal l eged w r ongdoi ng w i thoutanyform al c h a rg e s . See In r e G r and Jur y Proce edi ngs , 813 F. Supp. 1451, 1456 ( D . C ol o. 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e Un i t e d S t a t e s At t o r n e yr e f u s e d t o s i g n t h e i n d i c t me n t s . On S ep tem b er 2 5 , 1 9 9 2 , the s u p erv isi n g co u rtissue d an o rde r pro h ibit ing the re p o rt f ro m b e in g re le a s e d to th e p u b lic . S e e id . A new s paperand a t el evi s i on s t at i on then fi l ed a pe t i t i on w i th the di s tr i ct cour ts eeki ng r el eas e of the r eport , dr afti ndi ctm ent s , and pr es entm ent s . T he cour tdeni ed much of t he pet i t i on. I tr ej ect ed the r eques tfort he dr aft i ndi ctm ent s , not i ng t hatgr and j ur i es cannoti ni t i at e a pr os ecut i on ori s s ue an i ndi ctm entw i t houtt he s i gnatur e and appr oval of a U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney . Id . at 14 61 -62. T he requ estfor the “p res entm ents ” w as l i kew i se denied beca use pr es entm ent s ar e “c ons i der ed obs ol et e i n the fe der al s y s t em” and ar e “no l onger i ncl uded bys t atut e as a cha r gi ng document . ” Id . at1462 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons o m itte d ).I n a l at eror der , t he courts um m ar i zed i t s r eas ons forr efus i ng t o r el eas e the 1 re p o rt. T h e re p o rt w a s fa u lty , the c o u rt sa id , b e c a u se it acc us ed i ndi vi dual s i dent i fi abl e byname orpos i t i on, i ncl udi ng acc us at i ons agai ns tpubl i c off i ci al s t hatl acke d the r equi r ed r ecomm endat i on forr emoval ; deal ti n rum orand conj ectur e; engage d i n s oci al and eve n l egal ar gum ent ; deal tw i th pol i t i cal and s oci al i s s ues out s i de the pr ovi nce of t he s peci al gr and j ury ’ s dutyof i nves t i gat i ng cr i m e; [and] cont ai ned cha r ges notbas ed upon a pr eponder ance of the evi dence . A p lt . A p p . at 24 5 (O rde r R e R elea se o f G ran d Ju ryD o cs. at 2, Jan . 2 6 , 1 9 9 3 ). -5- A s fort he r epor t , t he di s t r i ctcour tacknow l edged thatgr and j ur i es m ay is s u e re p o rt s , s ee 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 3 3 3 , b u t i t r ef u sed to relea se in fu ll the re p o rt p re p a re d b yth is g ra n d ju ry , sa y in g : T he C our texpl ai ned t o t he Speci al G r and J urythe det ai l ed r equi r ement s of how t o s ubm i ta r eportforpubl i c vi ew . T he G r and Ju ryh e ld in its h a n d s a u n iq u e o p p o rtu n ityto e n lig h ten a c o m m u n ity e n tit led to k n o w o f

th e su c c e ss e s a n d fa ilu re s o f its g o v e rn m e n t, i n t hi s cas e, t he oper at i on of R ockyFl at s . A ccor di ngl y , w e mustbe cl earon t hi s poi nt : i tw as pos s i bl e forthe s peci al gr and j uryt o dr aft an ac cept abl e r epor t , a r eportw hi ch the C our tcoul d, i n good cons ci ence , r el eas e t o publ i c vi ew . I ti s w i th gr eatr egr etthatthe C our thas w at ched the Speci al G r and J ur yfal l s hor tof the obj ect i ves of i t s empanel i ng. T he G r and J ur ys ubm i t t ed document s thatfai l ed th e le g a l r e q u ir e m e n ts fo r r e le a s e . Id . at1459. T he courtadded, how ever , t hat“i tm aybe thatpor t i ons of the

1 R epor tm ayl egi t i m at el ybe di s cl os ed i n or dert o enl i ght en the comm uni tyon m at t er s deal i ng w i t h heal t h, s afe ty , and envi r onm ent al conce rns . ” In r e G r and Ju r y P r o c e e d in gs , 8 1 3 F . S u p p . at 1 4 6 8 . It th e re fo re o rd e re d th e g o v e rn m e n t to-6-

p ro d u c e a re d a c te d c o p yo f th e re p o rt fo r i n c a m e ra re v ie w fo r p o s s ib le re le a s e . Id . T h e c o u rt rejec ted so m e o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p ro p o se d re d a c tio n s, b u t d id re d a c t “p a ss a g e s o f

leg a l ar g u m e n tatio n a n d u n su b sta n tiate d , ina p p ro p ria te char ges agai ns tnongovernm ent al ent i t i es ” as w el l as “mat er i al hi ghl ycr i t i cal of i dent i fi abl e i ndi vi dual s , for ay s i nt o r ecomm endat i ons on nat i onal nucl ear fa cil it ies p o li cy , ch arg es a g ains t entit ies b ey o n d the s co p e o f th e G ran d Ju ry ’s i nqui r y , concl us i ons w i t houtanyfac tual bas es w hat s oever , and di s cus s i ons of p o licyo r a c tiv iti e s o u tsid e th e G ra n d Ju ry ’s c h a rg e d ju risd ictio n . . . . ” A p lt. A pp. at247 n. 4 ( O r derR e R el eas e of G r and J ur yD ocs . at4, J an. 26, 1993) . T he c o u rt o rd e re d re lea se o f th e re d a c ted re p o rt. N o gr and j ur orw as a partyt o anyof th e s e p ro c e e d in g s . O n A ugus t1, 1996, ei ght een mem ber s of the gr and j ur y( A ppel l ant s ) fi l ed a pet i t i on w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t“s eeki ng perm i s s i on t o r el eas e i nform at i on and f re e d o m to sp e a k p u b liclya b o u t th e ir e x p e rie n c e a s g ra n d ju ro rs a n d th e ir per cept i ons of the conduc tof governm entempl oy ees and D epart m entof J us t i ce l aw y er s . ” A pp. A at17 ( O r deron Seal ed Pet s . at2, M ar ch 12, 2004) . A n open heari ng on t he p et i t i on w as hel d o n N ov em ber 26, 1996 . O ne o f A pp el l ants ’ at t or ney s , J onathan Turl ey , w as i ns truct ed t o fi l e a pr offe rdet ai l i ng the occurr ence s befor e the gr and j ur yt hatA ppel l ant s w i s hed t o di s cus s publ i cl y . T he p ro ffe r w a s file d u n d e r s e a l in F e b ru a ry 1 9 9 7 .-7-

T he mat t erw as then r efe r r ed t o a magi s tr at e j udge t o conducta “nonadj udi cat or yhear i ng atw hi ch t i m e s w or n t es t i m onyw i l l be gi ven byform er m ember s of G r and J ur y89- 2 r el at i ng t o conductorevent s w hi ch theyal l ege ha ve occurr ed. ” A pl t . A pp. V ol . 2 at257. T he di s tr i ctcour tor der ed thatthe pr ocee di ng be cl os ed, advi s i ng t hatthi s t es t i m onyw as s ubj ectt o the s ecr ecy req u ir em en ts o f R u le 6 (e). T esti m o n yw as tak en fro m sev era l of the g ran d juro rs a n d s e a le d tr a n s c ri p ts w e re d e liv e re d to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . O n Sept ember24, 1997, t he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed a mot i on r el i evi ng M r. T u rle ya n d c o -c o u n se l Jo a n M a n ley fro m re p re se n tatio n o f A p p e llan t K e n n e th Peck. B ett e K . B us hel l cont i nued t o r epr es entA ppel l antPeck butw i thdr ew as c o u n se l fo r th e o th e r 1 7 A p p e llan ts. (W e w ill re fe r to th e 1 7 A p p e llan ts s til l r e p r e s e n t e d b yM r . T u r l e ya n d M s . M a n l e ya s “ th e T u r l e yAp p e l l a n t s . ” ) On Sept ember26, i n a s eal ed mot i on, M r . T ur l eyr eques t ed r el eas e t o the part i es of the tran scripts o f th e g ran d juro rs’ t esti m o n y . O n O ctob er 1 5 the d istri ct co u rt or der ed thatt he tr ans cr i pt s of the s eal ed hea r i ng be r el eas ed t o the U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , as w el l as t o M s . B us hel l and M r . T ur l ey , s ubj ectt o the s ecr ecy req u ir em en ts of

R u le 6(e ), “fo r th e li m it ed p u rpo se o f p u rsuin g this m att er b efo re t hi s cour tand forno ot herpurpos e. ” Id . at269. O n D ece m ber30, 1997, M r . Peck s ubm i t t ed a “ M emora ndum C oncerni ng Pr opos ed Pr ocedur e for L i t i gat i ng t he I s s ues . ” A pl ee. Supp. A pp. V ol . B at396. T h e d istric t co u rt d id-8-

notacton t he mem or andum. N othi ng fur theroccurr ed i n the ca s e form or e than fi ve y ears . O n A pr i l 22, 2003, i n r es pons e t o a l et t erfr om one of the gr and j ur or s , t he d istri ct co u rtissue d an o rde r directing that “re sp ec ti v e c o u n sel fo r th e p eti ti o n ers s h a ll file th e irs ta te m e n ts s p e c if y in g th e re lie f

s o u g h t.” A p lt. A p p . V o l. 2 a t 2 6 7 . O n J une 21, 2003, t he Turl eyA ppel l ant s s ubm i t t ed thei rs t at ement . T hey r eques t ed r el eas e of ( 1) t he tr ans cr i ptof the gr and j ur or s ’ t es t i m onyand the pr offe rfr om t he s eal ed hea r i ng conduct ed i n 1997; ( 2) t he l egal ar gum ent s and fi l i ng s i n thi s case; and (3) po rt i on s of t he g rand j uryt ranscr i pt and a l essred ac ted v ersion o f th e g ran d juro rs’ repo rt . T h eyalso req u ested (4) c o u rt fin d in g s re g a rd in g th e g ra n d ju ry ’s a lleg a tio n s o f w ro n g d o in g , an d p o ss ib le re fe rra l fo r in v e stig a tio n ; (5 ) “ c o n firm a tio n th a t th e g ra n d ju ro rs m a yd isc u ss th e ir a lleg a tio n s a n d th e u n d e rly in g c o n tro v e rsy w ith in th e b o u n d a rie s o f th e p u b lic r ecor d cr eat ed i n t hi s cas e, ” id . at287; ( 6) pr es ervat i on of al l gr and j ur ym at er i al forpos s i bl e futur e i nves t i gat i ons byt he J us t i ce D epart m entorC ongr es s ; and ( 7) at t orneyfees. T heyfurther sugg est ed thatt his rel i ef be add res sed i n tw o st ages, w i t h i t ems ( 1) and ( 2) bei ng addr es s ed fi r s tand the r emai ni ng i t ems addr es s ed l at er . T heyal s o s ugges t ed pr ocedur es fordeal i ng w i th eac h r eques t ed ca t egoryof r el i ef. W i t h r es pectt o t he gr and j uryt r ans cr i ptt heyr ecomm ended thatboth s i des b e g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ityto re v iew th e tra n sc rip t an d id e n tifyw h ich p o rtio n s, if any , w er e r el evantt o t he pr offe rand t es t i m onyof the gr and j ur or s . T heys ai d t hat-9-

“[t ] hes e por t i ons w i l l al m os texcl us i vel yconce rn excha nges betw een the s peci al gr and j ur or s and the pr os ecut or s . . . . ” Id . at286. T he part i es w oul d then p ro p o se re d a c ted tra n sc rip ts o r su m m a rie s to th e d istric t co u rt, w h ich w o u ld re v ie w th e m to d e te rm in e w h a t s h o u ld re m a in s e a le d . A p p e lla n t P e c k file d a s e p a ra te p e titio n o n J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 . A ccor di ng t o t he di s t r i ctcour t , hi s pet i t i on cont ends t hatbeca us e he i s a l aw y er , he s houl d be r el eas ed fr om t he gr and j ur ys ecr ecyobl i gat i ons s o thathe ca n r eport“cl ai m ed unethi cal and pot ent i al l ycr i m i nal act s ” and “ i nform t he A t t or neyR egul at i on C ouns el of the C ol or ado Supr eme C our t , t he I ns pect orG ener al fort he D ep artm en t of

Ju sti ce , the F ed era l B u rea u o f In v esti g ati o n an d o ther reg u lat o ry a n d p ro se c u to ria l o fficia ls o f h is p e rc e p tio n s o f

th e c o n d u c t o f

th o se in v o lv e d in t he Speci al G r and J ur ypr ocee di ngs . ” Id . at373 ( O r deron Seal ed Pet i t i ons at4, M a rc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 ). A p p e llan t P e c k a lso re q u e ste d re lea se o f th e g ra n d ju ryre p o rt, b u t w ith o u t a n yre d a c tio n s . I n an or derdat ed M ar ch 12, 2004, t he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the pet i t i ons for lac k o f ju risd ictio n , sta tin g : [T]he pet i t i ons now befor e thi s courtand the pr ocedur es s ugges t ed do notenabl e thi s cour tt o go forw ar d t o adj udi cat e and ba l ance t he compet i ng i nt er es t s of gr and j ur ys ecr ecyand the i nt er es t s of pet i t i oner s i n publ i c di s cl os ur e. I ti s fundament al t o the j ur i s di ct i on of thi s cour tt hatques t i ons pr es ent ed t o i tm us tbe i n the form of a cas e orcontr over s yunderA r t i cl e I I I of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. W hi l e the Tent h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s r ecogni zed i n Hof f m an- P ugh [ v. Keenan , 338 F. 3d 1136 ( 10th C i r . 2003) , ] t hat the p lai n ti ff

there m igh t seek reli ef fro m the c o u rth av ing su p erv isoryUni t ed Stat es v. R obi ns on , 3 6 1 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 2 9 (1 9 6 0 ), is o f ten c ited fo r th is 2 pr opos i t i on. B uti n E ber har tv. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 2 6 S . Ct . 4 0 3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , t h e S u p r e me (continued...) -10- a u th o rityo v e r th e sta te g ra n d ju rya n d th e p e tit io n e rs a re e ss e n tially s eeki ng t hatt ype of r el i ef he r e, the ul t i m at e r es ul tw oul d be nothi ng m or e than an a dvi s or yopi ni on of gene r al concl us i ons and in su fficie n t p a rticu lar ityto p ro tec t th e p e tit io n e rs f ro m p o ss ib le s a n c tio n s in c ri m in a l o r c iv il p ro c e e d in g s . Id . a t 3 7 4 . I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . T i m el i nes s of

N ot i ces of

A ppeal T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng A ppel l ant s t hei rr eques t ed r el i ef w as fi l ed on M ar ch 12, 2004. T he Turl eyA ppel l ant s fi l ed thei rnot i ce of appea l 56 d a y s la te r o n M a y7 , 2 0 0 4 . A ppel l antPeck fi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l on M ay21, 2 0 0 4 , fo u r t e e n d a ys a f t e rt h e T u r l e y A p p e l l a n t s fi l e d t h e i rn o t i c e a n d 7 0 d a ys a f te r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt is s u e d its fin a l o rd e r. A ft eri s s ui ng on O ct ober7, 2004, an or dert o A ppel l ant s t o s how caus e w hyt hei rappea l s s houl d notbe di s m i s s ed as u n tim e ly, th is c o u rt d is m is s e d th e a p p e a ls a s u n tim e ly o n J a n u a ry 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 . A ppel l ant s fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr ehea r i ng, w hi ch w as gr ant ed on M ar ch 23, 2005, and the t i m el i nes s i s s ue w as r efe rr ed t o the mer i t s panel . W e now hol d thatt he n o t i c e s o f

a p p e a l w e r e t i m e l y. T hi s cour thas hel d t hat“[a ] t i m el ynot i ce of appea l i s both m andat oryand j ur i s di ct i onal . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Es pi nos a- Tal am ant es , 3 1 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 4 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h e d isp u te h e re is w h e th e r th is 2(...continued) 2 C our tr etr eat ed fr om w hathad bee n the w i del yacc ept ed meani ng of R obi ns on and s t r ongl ys ugges t ed thata t i m el ynot i ce of appea l i s notj ur i s di ct i onal and that o bjec tio n to a n u n tim e lyn o tice m a yb e fo rfe ited : “ R obi ns on h a s c r e a t e d s o me confus i on beca us e of i t s obs ervat i on that‘ court s have uni form l yhel d thatthe t aking of

an ap peal w i t hin the p res cri bed t i m e i s m andat or y and j ur is di ct i onal .’

. . . [S] ubs equentopi ni ons have r epea t ed thi s phr as e, attr i but i ng i tdi r ect l yor i ndi r ect l yt o R obi ns on . ” Id . at406 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . B utthe “na rr ow and unr emar kabl e hol di ng” of R obi ns on w as that“w hen the G overnm entobj ect ed t o a fi l i ng unt i m el yunderR ul e 37, the court ’ s dut yt o di s m i s s the appe al w as m andat or y . T he neteffectof R obi ns on . . . i s t o admoni s h the G overnm entthat fa ilu re to o bjec t to u n tim e lysu b m iss io n s e n tails fo rfe itu re o f th e o bjec tio n , an d to admoni s h defe ndant s t hatt i m el i nes s i s of the es s ence . . . . ” Id . Be c a u s e we c o n c lu d e th a t A p p e llan ts’ n o tice s o f a p p e a l w e re tim e ly , w e d o n o t n e e d to re s o lv e to d a yw h e th e r t im e lin e s s o f a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l is ju ri s d ic tio n a l. -11- c a se is c iv il o r c rim in a l. If c rim in a l, th e n th e n o tice s o f a p p e a l w e re u n tim e ly underFed. R . A pp. P. 4( b) ( 1) ( A ) , w hi ch r equi r es a defendantt o fi l e the not i ce w i t hi n 10 day s aft erentr yof the j udgm entoror derbei ng appea l ed. I f ci vi l , then t he Turl eyA ppel l ant s ’ not i ce w as t i m el yunderFed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 1) ( B ) , w hi ch perm i t s 60 d ay s t o fil e t he n oti ce i n a civi l case t o w hich the g ov ernm ent i s a p arty , an d A p p ell an t Pe ck ’s no ti ce w as ti m elyu n d er F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(3), w h ic h g ra n ts a n a d d itio n a l 1 4 d a y s a f te r a n o th e r p a rt yh a s file d a tim e ly n o tic e . See Woodr uf

f v. C ovi ngt on , 389 F. 3d 1117, 1120- 21 ( 10th C i r . 2004) (R u le 4 (a )(3 ) p e rm its “ a n yp a rtyto file a n o tice o f a p p e a l f

ro m a n yo rd e r w ith in fo u rt e e n d a y s a f

te r a n o th e r p a rt ya p p e a le d a d e c is io n o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ” ). O r di nar i l y , i ti s obvi ous w hethera ca s e i s cr i m i nal orci vi l . A cr i m i nal p ro s e c u tio n is a “ c ri m in a l c a s e ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f R u le 4 . See 2 0 J a me s W m. M oo re etal . , M oo re’ s Fed eral P ract i ce ¶ 3 04 . 20 (3d ed. 1999 ) ( hereaft er M oo re’ s)-12-

A nd “[t ] he t erm ‘ ci vi l cas e, ’ al t hough notdefi ned i n A ppel l at e R ul e 4, has been br oadl ycons t rued t o coveral l cas es thatar e notcr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons . ” Id . ¶ 3 0 4 .1 0 . T h e lan g u a g e o f R u le 4 (b ) itse lf

is q u ite s u g g e stiv e . E n tit led “ A p p e a l in a C ri m in a l C a s e ,” i t s t i m el i nes s r equi r ement s deal expl i ci t l yonl yw i th “ a defe ndant ’ s not i ce of

appea l , ” R ul e 4( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( 10- dayl i m i t ) , and “the g o v e rn m e n t[ ’s ] . . . n o tic e o f a p p e a l,” R u le 4 (b )( 1 )( B ) ( 3 0 -d a ylim it) . A ccor di ngl y , t he 10- dayt i m e per i od gener al l yappl i es onl yt o a cr i m i nal d e fe n d a n t b e in g p ro s e c u te d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. R u le 4 (b )( 1 )( A ). N e v e rt h e le s s , th e re a re g ra ya re a s p re s e n tin g c h a lle n g in g is s u e s . On s ever al occa s i ons w e have had t o addr es s w hethera pr ocee di ng w as cr i m i nal or ci vi l forpurpos es of R ul e 4. O url eadi ng, and contr ol l i ng, opi ni on i s t he en banc deci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. B r oui l l et , 7 3 6 F .2 d 1 4 1 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). B r oui l l et h e ld th a t a pr ocee di ng r el at i ng t o the for fei tur e of a cr i m i nal bai l bond w as “es s ent i al l y. . . ci vi l ” and gove r ned byR ul e 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) , overrul i ng ourear l i er deci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 5 6 7 F .2 d 9 6 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). Jones h a d h e ld th a t su c h a fo rfe itu re p ro c e e d in g is a c a se “ a risin g u n d e r th e c rim in a l law s a n d is governed byt he rul es of cr i m i nal pr ocedur e r es pect i ng the fi l i ng of appe al s , ” id . at96 7, becau se “al l provis i on s for r el ease from cust od yon bail , i ncludi ng t ho se pr ovi di ng forfor fei tur e and j udgm entof defaul tagai ns tt he obl i gor s on the bond, ar e s etfor t h i n t he R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e and i n the C r i m i nal C ode, ” i d . at 9 6 6 -6 7 . B u t B r oui l l etd iso w n e d th a t ap p ro a c h . W e n o ted th a t fo u r o th e r c irc u its-13-

h a d r e f u s e d t o fo l l o w Jones : “These ci r cui t s vi ew a mot i on r el at i ng t o the forfei ture of a b ai l bo nd as es s ent i al l y a ci vi lpr ocee di ng ar is i ng f r om a cr i m i nal one , s i m i l art o an ac t i on t o col l ecta cr i m i nal fi ne. ” B r oui l l et , 736 F. 2d at1415 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). W e jo in e d o u r fe llo w c irc u its in a d o p tin g th e v iew th a t itis t he es s ent i al natur e of the ac t i on, notthe under l y i ng pr ocee di ng i tar os e fr om , t hat d e te rm in e s w h e th e r i t is c iv il o r c ri m in a l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Hol land , 214 F. 3d 523, 526 ( 4t h C i r . 2000) ( “A nci l l arym ot i ons i n a cr i m i nal cas e ar e not nece s s ar i l ycr i m i nal . . . . I ns t ead, a pr ocee di ng t hati s bas i cal l yci vi l s houl d be c o n s id e re d a c iv il a c tio n e v e n if it s te m s f

ro m a p ri o r c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n .” (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d )) . O u r s u b s e q u e n t o p in io n s h a v e g e n e ra lly fo llo w e d th is v ie w . C ompany X v. United S tates (

In re G randJury P roceed i ngs) , 8 3 5 F . 2 d 2 3 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ), hel d t hatan appe al fr om t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o quas h a s u b p o e n a is s u e d b ya g ra n d ju ry w a s a c ri m in a l c a s e c o n tr o lle d b yR u le 4 (b ). W e not ed the “i nves t i gat i ve and c har gi ng funct i on of the gr and j ury , ” id . at239, and th e n e e d fo r e x p e d itio n in re s o lv in g le g a l c h a lle n g e s to its w o rk , id . “[ G ]ran d jury pr ocee di ngs , ” w e conc l uded, “ar e cr i m i nal i n natur e. ” Id . N ext , i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Madden , 9 5 F . 3 d 3 8 , 3 9 n . 1 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) , we agr eed w i t h everyot herci r cui tt hathad rul ed on the i s s ue i n hol di ng thata mot i on fo r r e tu rn o f

p ro p e rt yu n d e r F e d . R . C ri m . P . 4 1 (g ) i s c iv il r a th e r t h a n c ri m in a l. Such pr ocee di ngs ar e es s ent i al l yci vi l beca us e they“‘ r epr es enta means byw hi ch-14-

a cr i m i nal defe ndantcan de t erm i ne herr i ght s i n pr operty , and nota partof the t r i al and puni s hm entpr oces s t hati s cr i m i nal l aw . ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng Huntv. U. S. D ep’ tof Jus t i ce , 2 F .3 d 9 6 , 9 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 )) . P erhaps ou r one ou t l i er i s Uni t ed Stat es v. R obbi ns , 179 F. 3d 1268, 1270 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ), w h ich h eld th at a d efen d an t’ s req u est fo r att o rne yfe es a fter a fai l ed pr os ecut i on w as a cr i m i nal cas e governed byR ul e 4( b) ( 1) ( A ) . R obbi ns w as char ged w i t h t w o count s of i nt er fer i ng w i th a fe der al empl oy ee butw as acqui t t ed aft eronl y25 m i nut es of j ur ydel i ber at i ons . H e moved forfee s undert he H y de A m e n d m e n t , w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t“ ‘ . . . i n a n y cr i m i nalcas e . . . [the court ] m ay aw ard a re aso n ab le att o rne y ’s fe e a n d o ther li ti g ati o n ex p en ses, w h ere the c o u rt fi nds t hatt he pos i t i on of the U ni t ed St at es w as vexat i ous , fr i vol ous , ori n bad fai t h . . . . ’ ” Id . at1269 ( quot i ng Pub. L . N o. 105- 119, 111 St at . 2440, 2519 ( 1998) ) . R athert han conduc t i ng an ana l y s i s of the es s ent i al natur e of the pr ocee di ng ati s s ue, as had bee n ourpr i orpr act i ce, w e s i m pl yhel d thatt he m ot i on forat t orneyfee s w as cr i m i nal beca us e i t“ar i s es outof” a cr i m i nal p ro s e c u tio n , a n d th e re fo re th e s h o rt e r a p p e a l p e ri o d in R u le 4 (b ) a p p lie d . Id . at 1270. A l t hough ot herci r cui t s have notadopt ed thatvi ew of pr ocee di ngs under th e H y d e A m e n d m e n t, s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. B unn ( In r e 1997 G r and Jur y) , 215 F .3 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 5 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (R u le 4 (a ) a p p lies ); Un itedS ta tes v . Tru e sd a le , 211 F .3 d 8 9 8 , 9 0 2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (s a m e ); United S tates v. P erry , 360 F. 3d 519, 523 n .3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (s a m e ); Un itedS ta tes v . B ra u n ste in , 2 8 1 F .3 d 9 8 2 , 9 9 3 (9 th-15-

C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (s a m e ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Wade , 255 F. 3d 833, 839 n. 5 ( D . C . C i r . 2001) (sa m e ), itis s til l co n tro lli n g in th is c irc u it. See United S tates v. C ha nthada ra , 230 F. 3d 1237, 1260 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( “A bs entan i nt erveni ng change i n the l aw . . . , oren banc r evi ew , w e ca nnotr evi ew the j udgm entof anotherpanel of th is c o u rt.”). B u t R obbi ns d id n o t, a n d c o u ld n o t, c h a n g e th e m o d e o f a n a ly sis m andat ed byourpr i ordeci s i on i n B r oui l l et . C f . United S tates v. Espi no za , 244 F .3 d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 4 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ [ W ]h e n fa c e d w ith a n in tr a -c ir c u it c o n flic t, a panel s houl d fol l ow ear l i er , s ett l ed pr ece dentovera s ubs equentdevi at i on th e re f ro m .” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d )) . F i n a l l y, i n Es

pi nos a- Tal am ant es , 319 F. 3d at1246, w e hel d thata mot i on t o m odi fya t erm of i m pr i s onm entunder18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) w as contr ol l ed by R u le 4 (b )( 1 )( A ) b e c a u s e it w a s “ a c o n tin u a tio n o f th e p ri o r c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g .” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). W e c ited w ith a p p ro v a l Uni t ed Stat es v. O no , 72 F. 3d 101, 102 ( 9t h C i r . 1995) ( m ot i on under§ 3582( c) i s “a s t ep i n the crim inal ca se” (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)); Un itedS ta tes v . P e tty , 82 F. 3d 809, 810 ( 8t h C i r . 1996) ( s ame) ; and Uni t ed Stat es v. A lvar ez , 210 F. 3d 309, 310 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( s a m e ). T hus , how everdes i r abl e a br i ghtl i ne rul e maybe, s ee Company X, 835 F . 2 d at 23 9 (“in m att ers relati n g to ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n , b ri g h t l ine ru les are hi ghl ydes i r abl e”) , s uch cl ar i t yi s notal w ay s pos s i bl e, and w e “mustexami ne the natur e of the pr ocee di ngs and of the or derbei ng appea l ed fr om ” t o det erm i ne-16-

w h e th e r t h is is a c ri m in a l o r c iv il c a s e , 2 0 M o o re ’s , s upr a, ¶ 3 0 4 - 2 0 . I n o u rv i e w, th e c a s e b e fo re u s is a c iv il o n e . T hi s cas e i nvol ves m er el yt he r eques tfordi s cl os ur e of s ecr eti nform at i on, notunl i ke a r eques tundert he Fr eedom of I nform at i on A ct( FO I A ) . A s i m i l ar r eques tw as cons i der ed i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Mi r am ont ez , 9 9 5 F . 2 d 5 6 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). M r. M ir am o n tez p eti ti o n ed the d istri ct co u rtfo r disclos u re o f g ran d jury t r ans cr i pt s , w hi ch he i nt ended t o us e t o fi l e a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2241. T he di s tr i ctcourtt r eat ed hi s pet i t i on as a r eques tunder b o t h F O I A a n d R u l e 6 ( e ) , a n d d e n i e d i t . W h e n M r . M i r a m o n t e z a p p e a l e d 4 9 d a ys aft ert he rul i ng, t he Fi fth C i r cui thel d thatt he ca s e w as ci vi l and ther efor e the appea l w as t i m el y ; t he courtnot ed thathi s convi ct i on had l ong been f i nal , and t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s t r eatm entof the pet i t i on as a FO I A r eques t“emphas i zes t he ci vi l as pectof thes e pr ocee di ngs . ” Id . at 5 8 ; s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. C a mp b e ll , 2 9 4 F . 3 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 7 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (R u le 6(e ) m o ti o n s fo r disclos u re a re ci vi l pr ocee di ngs ) . W e agr ee w i th Mi r am ont ez . T he g ov ernm ent pr esent s four reas on s w hyt his shou l d b e t reat ed as a c ri m in a l c a s e . Fi r s t , r el y i ng on ouropi ni on i n C ompany X, 8 3 5 F .2 d a t 2 3 7 , it as s er t s t hatappea l s fr om gr and j ur ypr ocee di ngs ar e “ c a teg o ric a lly cr i m i nal . ” U ni t ed St at es J ur i s . M em. B r . at8. B uti n Comp a ny X w e w e re b e in g a sk e d to re v iew a su b p o e n a f

ro m a n a c tiv e g ra n d ju ry . T h e a p p e a l n o w b e fo re u s, in contr as t , w i l l notaffectt he “i nves t i gat i ve and c har gi ng funct i on of the gr and-17-

j ur y , ” 835 F. 2d at239, w hos e ac t i vi t i es ar e t o be r evi ew ed. T hi s gr and j ur yw as di s char ged more t han 13 y ear s ago, and thi s cas e w as notfi l ed unt i l m or e than fo u r ye a rs a f

te r t h a t d is c h a rg e . Second, t he governm entnot es t hatt he gr and j ur or s ar e s eeki ng t o be r el eas ed fr om an obl i gat i on i m pos ed on them bya rul e of cr i m i nalpr ocedur e, and t hatgr and j ur ys ecr ecypr ot ect s the pr operfunct i oni ng of the cr i m i nalj us t i ce s y s t em. A s des cr i bed above , w e r el i ed on s i m i l arr eas oni ng i n Jones , not i ng t hat pr ocee di ngs r el at i ng t o t he for fei tur e of a cr i m i nal bai l bond ar i s e “unde rt he cr i m i nal l aw s ” and thatt he pr ovi s i ons r el at i ng t o for fei tur e “a r e s etfor th i n the R u les o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re .” 5 6 7 F .2 d a t 9 6 6 -6 7 . B u t w e rejec ted th is r eas oni ng w hen w e overrul ed Jones i n B r oui l l et , 7 3 6 F .2 d a t 1 4 1 5 . N ot w i t hs t andi ng t he under l y i ng cr i m i nal cas e and rul es , w e l ooked t o w hethert he c a s e w a s e s s e n tia lly c iv il. See i d. C l os el yr el at ed t o t hi s ar gum enti s t he governm ent ’ s t hi r d cont ent i on— t hat i ti s a rul e of cr i m i nalpr ocedur e, R ul e 6( e) , t hatgoverns t he pr oces s fors eeki ng di s cl os ur e of gr and j ur ym at er i al s . T hi s i s s uffi ci ent l yaddr es s ed byt he pr ece di ng p a r a g r a p h . W e a d d o n l y t h a tt h i s a r g u m e n ti s f u r th e ru n d e r c u tb y Madden , 95 F. 3d at39 n. 1, w hi ch hel d t hata mot i on underFed. R . C r i m . P. 41( g) for re tu rn o f

s e iz e d p ro p e rt yis a c iv il p ro c e e d in g . Fi nal l y , t he governm entcont ends t hatt hi s cas e enc om pas s es a cor e gr and j ur yfunct i on beca us e A ppel l ant s have r eques t ed thatt he di s tr i ctcourtm ake-18-

re fe rr a ls fo r p o s s ib le p ro s e c u tio n b a s e d o n w h a t o c c u rr e d b e fo re th e g ra n d ju ry. B utt hi s i s , atm os t , a col l at er al m at t er . T her e i s no ongoi ng cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on. T he gi s tof A ppel l ant s ’ pet i t i ons i s a r eques tfordi s cl os ur e of d o c u m e n ts a n d p e rm is s io n to s p e a k . W e h o ld th a t th e p ro c e e d in g b e lo w w a s “ e s s e n tia lly a c iv il p ro c e e d in g ,” B r oui l l et , 736 F. 2d at1415; R ul e 4( a) t her efor e appl i es ; and A ppel l ant s ’ not i ces o f a p p e a l w e re tim e ly. B . A rti cl e III C ase or C on troversy T he governm entcont ends t hatA ppel l ant s ’ cl ai m m us tfai l beca us e the di s t r i ctcour thad no j ur i s di ct i on t o heart he mat t er . T he out l i nes of j ur i s di ct i on w er e s um m ar i zed i n F l as tv. C ohen , 3 9 2 U .S . 8 3 (1 9 6 8 ):

T he j ur i s di ct i on of fe der al court s i s defi ned and l i m i t ed by A r t i cl e I I I of the C ons t i tut i on. . . . [T]he j udi ci al pow erof fe der al c o u rt s is c o n s titu tio n a lly re s tr ic te d to “ c a s e s ” a n d “ c o n tr o v e rs ie s .”

. . . E mb o d i e d i n t h e wo r d s “ c a s e s ” a n d “ c o n tr o v e r s i e s ” a r e t wo com plem entarybu tsom ew hat di fferentl i m i t at i on s. In partt ho se w o rd s lim it th e b u sin e ss o f fe d e ra l co u rts to q u e stio n s p re se n ted in an adve r s arycont extand i n a form hi s t or i cal l yvi ew ed as capa bl e of r es ol ut i on t hr ough t he j udi ci al pr oces s . A nd i n partt hos e w or ds defi ne the r ol e as s i gned t o the j udi ci aryi n a tr i part i t e al l ocat i on of pow ert o as s ur e thatt he fe der al court s w i l l noti ntrude i nt o ar eas comm i t t ed t o t he otherbr anche s of governm ent . J us t i ci abi l i tyi s t he t erm of artempl oy ed t o gi ve expr es s i on t o thi s dual l i m i t at i on pl ace d upon fede r al cour t s byt he ca s e- and- contr over s ydoctr i ne. J us t i ci abi l i t yi s i t s el f a c onceptof unce r t ai n m eani ng and s cope. I t s r eac h i s i l l us t r at ed byt he var i ous gr ounds upon w hi ch q u e stio n s s o u g h t to b e a dju d ica ted in fe d e ra l co u rts h a v e b e e n h e ld nott o be j us t i ci abl e. T hus , no j us t i ci abl e contr over s yi s pr es ent ed w hen the part i es s eek a dj udi cat i on of onl ya pol i t i cal ques t i on, w hen-19-

t he part i es ar e as ki ng foran advi s or yopi ni on, w hen the ques t i on s oughtt o be adj udi cat ed has been moot ed bys ubs equent d e v e lo p m e n ts , a n d w h e n th e re is n o s ta n d in g to m a in ta in th e a c tio n . Id . at94- 95 ( footnot es om i t t ed) . T he governm entr ai s es t w o ar gum ent s w hyt he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on: ( 1) t heyendor s e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s vi ew t hat r es ol ut i on of thi s cas e ca l l s foronl yan advi s oryopi ni on, and ( 2) t heycont end t h a tA p p e l l a n t s l a c k s t a n d i n g . We a d d r e s s , a n d r ej e c t , e a c h a r g u m e n ti n tu rn . We re v ie w ju ri s d ic tio n a l q u e s tio n s d e n o v o . See Prai r i e Band of P otaw at om iIndi ans v. P i er ce , 2 5 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 4 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).

1. A dvi s ory O pi ni on A s s t at ed i n P reiser v. New ki rk , 4 2 2 U .S . 3 9 5 , 4 0 1 (1 9 7 5 ): [A ] fede r al cour thas nei t hert he pow ert o r enderadvi s oryopi ni ons nort o deci de ques t i ons t hatcannotaffectt he r i ght s of l i t i gant s i n the cas e befor e them. I t s j udgm ent s m us tr es ol ve a r eal and s ubs t ant i al contr over s yadmi t t i ng of s peci fi c r el i ef thr ough a dec r ee of a concl us i ve cha r act er , as di s t i ngui s hed fr om an opi ni on advi s i ng w hat th e la w w o u ld b e u p o n a h yp o th e tic a l s ta te o f fa c ts . ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T hus , “[t ] he r eal val ue of the j udi ci al pr onouncement

— w hatm akes i ta pr operj udi ci al r es ol ut i on of a ‘ cas e or c o n tro v e rsy’ rath e r th a n a n a d v iso ryo p in io n — is in th e se ttl in g o f so m e d isp u te w hi ch affec t s t he beha vi orof the defendantt ow ar ds t he pl ai nt i ff. ” Hew i t tv. He lms , 482 U . S. 755, 761 ( 1987) ( emphasi s om i t t ed) . I n deny i ng A ppel l ant s ’ pet i t i ons t he di s tr i ctcourti nvoked A r t i cl e I I I and s t at ed that“the pet i t i ons now befor e thi s courtand the pr ocedur es s ugges t ed do-20-

notenabl e thi s cour tt o go forw ar d t o adj udi cat e and ba l ance the compet i ng in ter e sts o f

g ra n d ju ryse c re c ya n d th e in ter e sts o f p e tit io n e rs in p u b lic di s cl os ur e, ” and thatw er e the courtt o do s o, “the ul t i m at e r es ul tw oul d be not hi ng m or e than an a dvi s or yopi ni on of gene r al concl us i ons and i ns uffi ci ent p a rticu lar ityto p ro tec t th e p e tit io n e rs f ro m p o ss ib le s a n c tio n s in c rim in a l o r c iv il pr ocee di ngs . ” A pl t . A pp. V ol . 2 at373 ( O r deron Seal ed Pet i t i ons at4, M ar ch 12, 2 0 0 4 ). Iti s not cl ear t o u s w hyt he d i stri ctcou rtfel tt hat r esol uti on of A pp el l ants ’ p e titio n s w o u ld re q u ir e a n a d v is o ry o p in io n . A side fro m att o rne yfe es, w h ich a re d e ri v a tiv e o f

th e o th e r c la im s , s ee SteelC o. v. C i t iz ens f ora B et t erE nvi r onm ent , 5 2 3 U .S . 8 3 , 1 0 7 (1 9 9 8 ) (“ A n in ter e st in a tto rn e y ’s fe e s is in su fficie n t to c re a te an A r t i cl e I I I cas e orcontr over s yw her e none e xi s t s on the mer i t s of the under l y i ng cl ai m . ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and el l i ps i s om i t t ed) ) , t he Turl ey A ppel l ant s r eques t ed s i x cat egor i es of r el i ef: ( 1) r el eas e of the pr offe rand t ranscr i pt fr om t he 1 99 7 h eari ng s; ( 2) r el eas e of the l egal ar gum ent s and fi l i ngs fr om t hi s cas e; ( 3) r el eas e of i dent i fi ed por t i ons of the gr and j ur yr eportand t r ans cr i ptr el evantt o t he pr offe r ; ( 4) fi ndi ngs fr om t he courtr egar di ng the al l egat i ons of w r ongdoi ng m ade byA ppel l ant s , and pos s i bl e r efe rr al forfur ther i nves t i gat i on; ( 5) perm i s s i on forA ppel l ant s t o di s cus s t hei rconce rns “w i thi n t he boundar i es of the publ i c r ecor d, ” A pl t . A pp. V ol . 2 at287 ( Pet i t i oner s ’ St at ement of R el i ef a t15, J une 23, 2003) ; and ( 6) pr es ervat i on of al l gr and j ur ym at er i al for-21-

pos s i bl e futur e i nves t i gat i ons . W i th r es pectt o cat egor i es ( 1) thr ough ( 3) , the T ur l eyA ppel l ant s al s o pr opos ed pr ocedur es w her ebythe courtcoul d det erm i ne, aft er appropri at e m oti on s and respon ses fr om each si de, w hetherpo rt i on s of t hese m at er i al s s houl d be r edac t ed befor e r el eas e. A ppel l antPeck l i kew i s e r eques t ed ( 1) r el eas e fr om t he s ecr ecyobl i gat i on, and ( 2) di s cl os ur e of ( a) an unr edac t ed ver s i on of the gr and j ur yr epor t , ( b) hi s t es t i m onybefor e the magi s tr at e j udge, a n d (c ) a n a ffid a v it atta c h e d to h is p e tit io n w h ich g iv e s d e tails a b o u t ce rta in o c c u rre n c e s b e fo re th e g ra n d ju ry . T h e re w o u ld b e n o th in g a d v iso rya b o u t a deci s i on ei t hergr ant i ng ordeny i ng the r eques t ed r el i ef. E i therw ay , t he rul i ng w o u ld re late n o t to a h yp o th e tica l se t o f fa c ts, b u t to a c o n c re te d isp u te c o n c e rn in g th e p a rt ie s b e fo re it. T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s vi ew appea r s t o have be en bas ed, atl eas ti n part , on a conce r n t hatt he r el i ef s oughtw as nots peci fi c enough, beca us e, forexampl e, A p p e llan ts d id n o t sta te p re c ise lyw h a t p o rtio n s o f th e re p o rt sh o u ld re m a in re d a c ted . B u t A p p e llan ts h a v e so u g h t re lea se o f sp e c ified d o c u m e n ts. T h e ir r ecogni t i on t hatt he governm entm aypos e obj ect i ons and thatt he courtm aygr ant onl ypar t i al r el i ef ha r dl ym akes t he ca s e a hypothet i cal one. W e have been di r ect ed t o no author i t y , norar e w e aw ar e of a ny , s t at i ng thata cl ai m s eeks an advi s or yopi ni on unl es s i tpr edi ct s how t he courtw i l l rul e on the cl ai m . Such a u th o ri ty w o u ld s u rp ri s e u s .-22-

P erhaps t he requ estfor fi nd i ng s byt he d i stri ctcou rtregar ding A pp el l ants ’ al l egati on s of w rongd oing am ou nts t o a requ estfor an ad vis oryop i nion, becau se i ti s notappar enthow s uch nonbi ndi ng fi ndi ngs orr ecomm endat i ons w oul d affect a n y o n e ’s ri g h ts o r d u tie s u n d e r t h e la w . See Pre is er , 422 U . S. at401 ( fede r al c o u rt lac k s p o w e r “ to d e c id e q u e stio n s th a t ca n n o t affe c t th e rig h ts o f lit ig a n ts in th e c a se b e fo re th e m ” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); Uni t ed Stat es v. A nders en , 9 4 0 F .2 d 5 9 3 , 5 9 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (“ T h e u lti m a te d e c isio n w h e th e r to char ge a de fenda nt , and w hatchar ges t o fi l e . . . , r es t s s ol el yw i th s t at e and fede r al pr os ecut or s . ”) . A ppel l ant s s ugges tt hat“[f] eder al court s r out i nel yr efe r s uch mat t er s fori nves t i gat i on once a cogni zabl e bas i s fors us pi ci on of cr i m i nal or u n ethica l con d u ct ha s b ee n b rou g h t t o it s att en ti o n . ” A p lt . B r. at 20 . B u t w e a re unaw ar e of, and have notbeen c i t ed t o, anyi ns t ance s i n w hi ch court s have re c o g n ize d a c a u se o f a c tio n th a t m e re lyse e k s s u c h a re fe rra l. T h e o n lya u th o rity ci t ed b yA pp el l ants i s Mus kr atv. Uni t ed Stat es , 219 U . S. 346 ( 1911) , and Hayb urn’s C ase , 2 U .S . 4 0 8 (1 7 9 2 ). N e ith e r o p in io n , h o w e v e r, su p p o rts th e ir cont ent i on. N ei t hercas e i nvol ved a r eques tfora r efe rr al forpr os ecut i on ( or any t hing si m i l ar) , and bo t h h el d thatt here w as no jur i sdi ct i on . N evertheles s, A ppel l ant s ’ r eques tforfi ndi ngs r egar di ng thei ral l egat i ons of w r ongdoi ng ar e a col l at er al m at t er , r epr es ent i ng onl ya fr act i on of the r el i ef s ought , t he bul k of w hi ch ce r t ai nl ydoes nots eek a n advi s or yopi ni on; and thatpart i cul arr eques tcan b e c la ri fie d , a n d p e rh a p s reje c te d a s b e y o n d th e c o u rt ’s ju ri s d ic tio n , o n re m a n d .-23- 2. St andi ng C l os el yr el at ed t o t he pr os cr i pt i on agai ns tadvi s oryopi ni ons i s t he “s t andi ng” r equi r ementof A r t i cl e I I I . I t“ens ur es t hata pl ai nt i ff ha s a s uffi ci ent personal s t ake in a dis pu t e t o en sure the ex i st ence o f a l i ve case o r cont rovers y w hi ch r ender s j udi ci al r es ol ut i on appr opr i at e. ” Ta n d y v . C ity o

f Wich ita , 380 F. 3d 1277, 1283 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . T o es t abl i s h s t andi ng, “pl ai nt i ffs m us tal l ege (a n d u lti m a telyp ro v e ) th a t th e yh a v e su ffe re d a n ‘inju ryin fa c t,’ th a t th e inju ryis fa irlytra c e a b le to th e c h a llen g e d a c tio n o f th e D e fe n d a n ts, a n d th a t itis r edr es s abl e bya fa vor abl e dec i s i on. ” Ini t i at i ve & R ef er endum Ins t i t ut e v. Walker , N os . 02- 4105, 02- 4123, 2006 W L 1377028, at*3 ( 10th C i r . M ay17, 2006) ( en b a n c ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s th a t A p p e llan ts h a v e n o t su ffe re d th e re q u isite i nj ur y , and thatt he r el i ef s oughtw oul d notadequa t el yr edr es s t he cl ai m ed inju rie s. A lth o u g h th is iss u e w a s ra ise d b e lo w , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t ad d re ss it b e c a u s e it fo u n d th a t it la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n o n o th e r g ro u n d s . W e fi r s taddr es s t he r equi r ementt hatpl ai nt i ffs s uffe ran “i nj uryi n fac t . ” T he Supr eme C our thas notpr eci s el ydefi ned the t erm . Som e al l eged i nj ur i es s uffi ce a nd s om e do not . I n L u ja n v . D e

fen d e rs o

f Wild lif

e , 504 U . S. 555, 560 ( 1992) , t he Supr eme C our tdefi ned i nj ur y i n f acta s “ a n in v a sio n o f a leg a lly pr ot ect ed i nt er es tw hi ch i s ( a) concr et e and pa r t i cul ar i zed a nd ( b) actual or i m m i nent , notconj ectur al orhypothet i cal . ” ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . Th e t e r m leg a lly p ro tec tedin ter e st has gener at ed s om e conf us i on-24-

beca us e the C our thas m ade c l earthata pl ai nt i ff c an have s t andi ng des pi t e l os i ng on t he mer i t s — t hati s , even though the i nt er es tw oul d notbe pr ot ect ed bythe l aw in th a t c a s e . S e e , e.g ., Wa rth v . Se ld in , 4 2 2 U .S . 4 9 0 , 5 0 0 (1 9 7 5 ) (“ [ S ]ta n d in g in no w aydepends on t he mer i t s of the pl ai nt i ff’ s cont ent i on t hatpar t i cul arconduct is illeg a l . . . . ” ); Tandy , 3 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 3 n .1 0 (sa m e ); Ini t i at i ve & R ef er endum In stitu te , 2006 W L 1377028, at*9 ( “[W ] her e the pl ai nt i ff pr es ent s a nonfr i vol ous l egal chal l enge, al l egi ng an i nj uryt o a pr ot ect ed r i ghts uch as fr ee s peec h, the fede r al cour t s m aynotdi s m i s s forl ack of s t andi ng on t he theorythatthe u n d e rly in g in ter e st is n o t leg a llyp ro tec ted .”); cf . P ansy v. B or ough of Str ou dsbu rg , 23 F. 3d 772, 777 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( new s paper s s eek di s cl os ur e of se a led se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t; “w e n e e d n o t d e ter m in e th a t th e N e w sp a p e rs w ill u lti m a telyo b tain a c c e ss to th e so u g h t-a f ter S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t. W e n e e d o n ly fi nd t hatt he O r derof C onfi dent i al i tybei ng chal l enged pr es ent s an obs t acl e t o t he N e w s p a p e rs ’ a tte m p t to o b ta in a c c e s s .” ). T h e p o st- Luj an opi ni on i n B ennet tv. Spear , 520 U . S. 154 ( 1997) , w r i t t en fo ra u n a n i m o u s c o u r tb y Luj an ’ s author , m ayhave be en try i ng t o di s pel s om e of t hi s confus i on bys ubs t i tut i ng “j udi ci al l ycogni zabl e i nt er es t , ” id . at167, for “l egal l ypr ot ect ed i nt er es t ” i n t he def i ni t i on of i nj ur

y i n f act . W e t ake thi s new l ocut i on t o emphasi ze thatan i nt er es tcan s uppor ts t andi ng even i f i ti s not pr ot ect ed byl aw ( atl eas t , notpr ot ect ed i n the part i cul arcas e ati s s ue) s o l ong as i ti s t he s or tof i nt er es tt hatcour t s t hi nk t o be of s uffi ci entm om entt o j us t i fy-25-

j udi ci al i nt ervent i on. T hi s under s t andi ng w oul d be cons i s t entw i th the s om ew hat cyni cal vi ew of a l eadi ng t r eat i s e on the mat t er : “The onl yconcl us i on [r egar di ng w hati nj ur i es ar e s uffi ci entfors t andi ng] i s thati n addi t i on t o i nj ur i es t o comm on l aw , cons t i tut i onal , and s t atut or yr i ght s , a pl ai nt i ff ha s s t andi ng i f he ors he a ss e rts a n inju ryth a t th e C o u rt d e e m s s u fficie n t fo r sta n d in g p u rp o se s.” E rw in C hemer i ns ky , Feder al J ur i s di ct i on § 2. 3. 2 at74 ( 4th ed. 2003) . T he l es s on for th is c a se is th a t o n c e a n in ter e st h a s b e e n id e n tifie d a s a “ju d icia llyc o g n iza b le interest” in o n e c ase , itis suc h an interest i n o ther c ase s as w ell (alth o u g h there m aybe othergr ounds forgr ant i ng s t andi ng i n one ca s e butnotthe other ) . I n the new s et t i ng i tm aybe abunda nt l ycl earthatthe i nt er es ti s i ndeed notpr ot ect ed by anyl aw , but , as pr evi ous l ynot ed, thatl ack of pr ot ect i on goes t o the mer i t s , not s t andi ng. In th is lig h t, i t is a p p a re n t th a t A p p e llan ts h a v e a “ju d icia llyc o g n iza b le i nt er es t ” i n s t at i ng w hatt heyknow . T hati nt er es ti s the s ame i nt er es tj us t i fy i ng s t a n d i n g t o myr i a d l i t i g a n t s wh o h a v e b r o u g h tF i r s tAme n d me n tc l a i ms c h a lle n g in g re s tr ic tio n s o n th e irs p e e c h . See, e. g. , Mem bers of the C i t y C ounci lof Los Angel es v. Taxpayers f orVi ncent , 466 U . S. 789, 803 ( 1984) ( s uppor t er s of pol i t i cal candi dat e had s t andi ng t o chal l enge or di nance pr ohi bi t i ng pos t i ng of sig n s o n p u b lic p ro p e rty ); A m er i can C i vi lLi ber t i es Uni on v. Johns on , 194 F. 3d 1149, 1154- 55 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernetpr ovi der s had s t andi ng t o chal l enge sta tu te p ro h ib iti n g d iss e m in a tio n b yc o m p u ter o f m a ter ial th a t is h a rm f u l to-26-

m in o rs) . A p p e llan ts w ish to d isc lo se m a tters th a t o c c u rre d b e fo re th e m w h ile s ervi ng as gr and j ur or s . T o be s ur e, theyal s o s eek di s cl os ur e of doc um ent s . B ut th is d is c lo s u re o f

d o c u m e n ts is in tim a te ly co n n e c te d to th e ird e s ir e to s p e a k . W h a t th e yk n o w a n d w ish to d isc lo se is a lso in th o se d o c u m e n ts, a n d p u b lic di s cl os ur e of the document s w i l l both del i neat e w hattheycan t al k aboutand pr ot ectt hem agai ns tcl ai m s t hatw hattheys ayhas gone bey ond w hati s perm i t t ed. W e r ecogni ze, of cour s e, thatA ppel l ant s do notr ai s e a c l ai m undert he F i rs tA m end m ent. B ut there i s no requ i rem ent that the legal basi s for the int eres t of pl ai nt i ff thati s “i nj ur ed i n fac t ” be the s ame as , oreven r el at ed t o, t he l egal b asis fo r th e p lai n ti ff ’s claim , at l ea st ou tsi d e the taxp ay er-stan d ing co n text. In D uke Pow erv. C ar ol i na E nvi r onm entalSt udy G r oup, Inc. , 438 U . S. 59, 78 ( 1978) , t he pl ai nt i ffs chal l enged a s a vi ol at i on of due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on t he Pr i ce- A nder s on A ct ’ s l i m i t at i on on t he l i abi l i tyof pr i vat e nucl earpow er plant s for nuclearacci den t s. T he d i stri ctcou rtsust ai ned t he ch al l eng e beca use “the amountof r ecove r yi s notr at i onal l yr el at ed t o the pot ent i al l os s es ; . . . t he A ctt ends t o encour age i r r es pons i bi l i tyi n m at t er s of s afe tyand envi r onm ent al pr ot ect i on; . . . t her e i s no qui d pr o quo fort he l i abi l i tyl i m i t at i ons ; . . . [and] t he A c tp l a c e s t h e c o s to f n u c l e a rp o w e ro n a n a rb i tr a r i l y c h o s e n s e g m e n to f s o c i e t y, t hos e i nj ur ed bynucl earcat as t r ophe. ” Id . at82 ( i nt ernal br acke t s , ci t at i ons , and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he Supr eme C our taddr es s ed atl ength the i s s ue of s t andi ng of the pl ai nt i ffs

— a l aboruni on, an envi r onm ent al or gani zat i on, and-27-

per s ons w ho l i ved nea rt he s i t e of the pl anned faci l i ty . I thel d thatthe i nj ur y - i nfac tr equi r ementw as s at i s fi ed bythe i nj ur i es the pl ai nt i ffs w oul d s uffe rfr om t he p ro d u c tio n o f

n u c lea r p o w e r— sp e c ifica lly , “th e e n v iro n m e n tal a n d a e sth e tic cons equenc es of the therm al pol l ut i on of the tw o l akes i n the vi ci ni tyof the d ispu ted p o w er p lants . . . [a ]nd the e m issi o n o f n o n -na tural rad iat ion into [ their] envi r onm ent . ” Id . at73- 74. T he C our tal s o hel d thatthe r ecor d s uppor t ed a fi ndi ng t hatovertur ni ng t he Pr i ce- A nder s on A ctw oul d r emedythes e i nj ur i es by m a k in g it u n lik e ly th a t th e p la n ts w o u ld b e c o n s tru c te d . Id . a t 7 4 -7 6 . T he C ou rtt hen turned to t he an t i st and i ng argum ent that the p l ai nti ffs “m ust demonstr at e a c onnect i on betw een the i nj ur i es theycl ai m and the cons t i tut i onal r i ght s bei ng as s ert ed. ” Id . at 7 8 . S u c h a n e x u s w a s la c k in g , w e n t th e a rg u m e n t, b e c a u se “ th e e n v iro n m e n tal a n d h e a lth inju rie s c laim e d . . . are n o t d ire c tly r el at ed t o t he cons t i tut i onal att ack on the Pr i ce- A nder s on A ct. . . . ” Id . T he C our tr ej ect ed the ar gum ent , obs ervi ng t hats uch a “ nexus r equi r ement , ” id . at78, had bee n r ecogni zed onl yi n t he cont extof t axpay ers ui t s , and r efus i ng t o ext end it f u rt h e r, id . at79. M or e r ece nt l y , J us t i ce Sca l i a, i n di s s ent , has obs erved, w ith o u t app are n t disap p rov al, that the “ ‘l o g ical ne x u s’ an aly sis of [th e tax p ay ers t andi ng cas e l aw ] . . . has . . . fal l en i nt o des uetude. ” Fr i ends of the Earth, Inc. v. Lai dl aw E nvi r onm entalSer vi ces (TO C ) , Inc. , 528 U . S. 167, 203 ( 2000) ( Scal i a, J . d is s e n tin g ).-28-

H e n c e , w e a re p e rsu a d e d th a t an in f rin g e m e n t o n A p p e llan ts’ in ter e st in s peaki ng can c ons t i tut e the r equi s i t e i nj uryi n fac tforA r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng even t hough t heyar e r ai s i ng no Fi r s tA m endmentcl ai m . H er e, the cr i t i cal fea tur e of A ppel l ant s ’ cl ai m i s t hatt heyw i s h t o s etas i de a ba rt o thei rs peaki ng aboutw hat t heyal readykn ow . R egardl ess of the legal basi s for the clai m or i t s m eri t s, gr ant i ng A ppel l ant s s t andi ng t o l i t i gat e w hethertheym ays peak, j us tas gr ant i ng sta n d in g to th o se c laim in g a F irst A m e n d m e n t v io latio n in lim iti n g th e ir rig h t to s peec h, w i l l do no vi ol ence t o t he r equi r ementthatcour t s addr es s onl yC as es or C on t rovers i es: t his l i t i gati on present s the sortof co ncret e adv ers arycon t est t ypical l ypresent ed to cou rt s and the i nv olvem ent of the judi ci aryhardl ypo ses a t hr eatt o t he “tr i par t i t e al l ocat i on of pow er , ” F last , 3 9 2 U .S . a t 9 5 . T he governm ent ’ s att ack on A ppel l ant s ’ “l egal l ypr ot ect ed i nt er es t ” foc us es on t he r eas ons w hyA ppel l ant s s eek di s cl os ur e and f r eedom t o s peak. For e x a mp l e , Ap p e l l a n t s s t a t e t h a tt h e ywi s h t o s p e a k o u tt o p r o t e c tth e i ro wn r eput at i ons agai ns tw hatt heyas s er tt o be fa l s e al l egat i ons . T he governm ent c h a llen g e s th is p a rticu lar c o n ten tio n b ya rg u in g th a t th e ir c laim o f inju rie s to th e ir r eput at i ons i s vague a nd s pecul at i ve. Perhaps the governm ent ’ s char act er i zat i on i s corr ect . B ut the reasons w hyA pp el l ants w i sh t o speak are notthe “int eres t s” c o n v e y in g sta n d in g . T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s a rg u m e n t is re a llyd ire c ted a t th e m e rits of A ppel l ant s ’ cl ai m — w hethert heyhave e s t abl i s hed ade quat e r eas ons t o l i ft g ra n d -ju ryse c re c y . F o r sta n d in g p u rp o se s w e n e e d n o t co n c e rn o u rse lv e s w ith-29-

w hy A ppel l ant s w i s h t o s peak. R egar dl es s of thei rm ot i ves — w hethert o r evea l all eg ed m isco n d u ct, p rotec t th eir ow n rep u tat ion s, m ak e m o n ey , p rom o te refo rm of nucl earpow er , orm er el yt el l an i nt er es t i ng s t or yt o the pr es s — i ti s enough that th e yw is h to s p e a k a b o u t m a tte rs w ith in th e irk n o w le d g e . O nce w e pr oper l yunder s t and the i nt er es tcl ai m ed byA ppel l ant s , i ti s cl ear t hati ti s concr et e and pa r t i cul ar i zed, actual and i m m i nent , and notconj ectur al or hypo t heti cal . Indeed , t he “all eged i njuryi s al readyoccu rr i ng ” beca use A p p e lla n ts a re c u rr e n tly p ro h ib ite d f ro m re v e a lin g in fo rm a tio n th e yp o s s e s s . C f. Ini t i at i ve & R ef

er endum , 2006 W L 1377028, at*13 ( r ej ect i ng r i penes s chal l enge beca us e al l eged i nj ur y— chi l l ed s peec h— “does notdepend on a nyuncert ai n, cont i ngentfutur e eve nt s ” buti s al r eadyoccurr i ng) . A ppel l ant s have e xpr es s ed a d efinit e inten t and d esire to sp ea k o u t abo u t spe cific m att ers tha t occ u rred b efo re t hem as gr and j ur or s . I ti s t he thr eatof puni s hm entforvi ol at i ng R ul e 6( e) t hat k e e p s th e m s ile n t. See Wi ns nes s v. Yocom , 433 F. 3d 727, 732 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “[T] o s at i s fyA r t i cl e I I I , t he pl ai nt i ff’ s expr es s i ve ac t i vi t i es m us tbe i nhi bi t ed by an obj ect i vel yj us t i fi ed fe arof r eal cons equenc es , w hi ch ca n be s at i s fi ed by s how i ng a cr edi bl e thr eatof pr os ecut i on orothercons equenc es fol l ow i ng fr om th e s ta tu te ’s e n fo rc e m e n t.” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d )) . M or eover , A ppel l ant s ’ cl ai m ed i nj ur yi s r edr es s abl e. A courtor der di s cl os i ng document s and perm i t t i ng them t o s peak w oul d end the r es tr ai nt s t hat conce r n t hem. T he governm entcont ends t hata courtor derw oul d s t i l l l eave m uch-30-

u n ce rt ainty ab o u t w h at the g ran d juro rs co u ld say . W e are n o t co n v ince d . It s houl d be cry s t al cl eart o eac h gr and j ur ort hathe ors he i s barr ed fr om di s cl os i ng anyt hi ng notcont ai ned i n r el eas ed document s . T o the ext entt hats om e gr ayar eas m a yre m a in , th e p ro b le m is n o t s u ffic ie n tly g re a t to d e n ys ta n d in g . W e hol d t hatA ppel l ant s have s t andi ng t o pet i t i on t o have the s ecr ecy re q u ir e m e n t lif

te d . C . C l ai m P rec l usi on and I s s ue P rec l usi on T he governm entcont ends on appea l t hatA ppel l ant s ’ pet i t i ons ar e barr ed by t he doctr i nes of cl ai m pr ecl us i on and i s s ue pr ecl us i on. T hi s cont ent i on i s w i t hout m er i t . A ppel l ant s w er e notpart i es t o anyform eract i on i nvol vi ng r el eas e of the re p o rt . See ParkLake Resour ces LLCv. U. S. D ep’ tof A gr i c. , 378 F. 3d 1132, 1 1 3 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (p a rtym a yb e p re c lu d e d f ro m ra isin g a c laim o r iss u e o n ly w h e n it w a s a p a rt y , o r i n p ri v ity w ith a p a rt y , to th e p ri o r a c tio n ). D . M er it s T he governm entcont ends t hatA ppel l ant s ar e notent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde r R ule 6( e), w hich, according t o the gov ernm ent, i s the ex cl usi ve v ehicl e for rel ease of m at t er s occurr i ng befor e a gr and j ury . A ppel l ant s r es pond t hatR ul e 6( e) i s not the s o u rce o f th e su p erv isi n g co u rt ’s au tho ri tyto o rde r release o f g ran d jury m at er i al s , buti s m er el ydecl ar at oryof the gene r al rul e of gr and j urys ecr ecy , and t hat court s r et ai n inherentauthori tyt o g o b ey on d the rule. A pp el l ant Peck al so cont ends t hats om e of hi s r eques t s come w i thi n R ul e 6( e) ’ s exce pt i ons t o the-31-

s ecr ecyr equi r ement . A nd fi nal l y , A ppel l ant s cont end thatnotal l the mat er i al t he ys e e k c on s i s t s of

“ mat t e roc c urr i ng be fo r e the gr a nd j ury . ” Fe d. R. Cr i m. P. 6( e) ( 2) ( B ) . W e fi r s taddr es s t hi s fi nal cont ent i on and then tur n t o the ques t i on of i nher entauthor i t y . W e l eave t o the di s tr i ctcour tthe s epar at e cont ent i ons of A p p e lla n t P e c k re g a rd in g th e a p p lic a b ility o f th e e x c e p tio n s in R u le 6 (e ). 1 . M a t t e r o c c ur r i ng be fo r e a g r a nd j ur y. A ccor di ng t o A ppel l ant s , t he tr ans cr i ptand pr offe rfr om t he 1997 s eal ed hear i ng ar e “nott echni cal l ygr and j uryi nform at i on s i nce [ theyw er e] cr eat ed l ong aft ert he t erm i nat i on of Speci al G r and J ury89- 2 and w er e notcr eat ed as partof t he gr and j ur yi nves t i gat i on. ” A pl t . B r . at28. T heyal s o ar gue thatt he l egal fi l i ngs i n t hi s cas e “a r e s t andar d fi l i ngs s eal ed undert he C our t ’ s gener al a u th o ri ty” a n d a re n o t c o v e re d b yR u le 6 (e ). Id . “[S] om e of thes e fi l i ngs , ” they s ay , “cont ai n abs ol ut el yno m ent i on of anyw i tnes s ordocumentfr om t he Speci al G r and J ur y , ” butm er el y“foc us on the l egal i s s ues i n the ca s e. ” Id . at29. T hey f u rth e r su g g e st th a t p o rtio n s o f th e g ra n d ju rytra n sc rip t, i n c lu d in g c e rta in excha nges betw een the gr and j ur or s and pr os ecut or s , coul d be r el eas ed w i thout o ffe n d in g R u le 6 (e ) b yre d a c tin g n a m e s a n d o th e r i d e n tif y in g fa c to rs . W e rejec t A p p e llan ts’ c o n ten tio n s, a t lea st in th e ir f u ll g e n e ra lity . F irst, t he r epr oduct i on of gr and j ur ym at er i al i n a l at erpr ocee di ng does notr emove t hat m at er i al fr om t he pr ot ect i ons of R ul e 6( e) . O therw i s e, any one w i th know l edge of gr and j ur ypr ocee di ngs coul d fi l e a s eal ed pet i t i on i n a s epar at e pr ocee di ng-32-

r eques t i ng r el eas e of gr and j ur ym at er i al , and then, w hen the r eques tw as deni ed, o b ta in re le a s e o f

th e s e a le d p e titio n w ith o u t b e in g b o u n d b yR u le 6 (e ). A c c o rd in g ly , R u le 6 (e ) c o n tain s th e fo llo w in g p ro v isio n s:

(5 ) C lo s e d H e a r in g . Subj ectt o anyr i ghtt o an open he ar i ng i n a cont empt pr ocee di ng, t he courtm us tcl os e anyhear i ng t o the ext entnece s s aryt o pr eventdi s cl os ur e of a m at t eroccurr i ng befor e a g r a n d j u r y. (6 ) S e a le d r e c o r d s . R ecor ds , or der s , and s ubpoenas r el at i ng t o gr and-j ur ypr ocee di ngs m us tbe keptunders eal t o the ext entand as l ong as nece s s aryt o pr eventunauthor i zed di s cl os ur e of a m at t er o c c u r r i n g b e fo r e a g r a n d j u ry. F e d . R . C rim . P . 6 (e )(5 ), (6 ). T h e A d v iso ryC o m m itt e e n o tes e lab o ra te:

T hi s addi t i on t o R ul e 6 w oul d m ake i tcl eart hatcert ai n hear i ngs w hi ch w oul d r evea l m att er s w hi ch have pr evi ous l yoccurr ed befor e a gr and j ur yorar e l i kel yt o occurbefor e a gr and j ur yw i th r es pectt o a p e n d in g o r o n g o in g in v e stig a tio n m u st b e c o n d u c ted in c a m e ra in w hol e ori n par ti n or dert o pr eventpubl i c di s cl os ur e of s uch s ecr et in fo rm a tio n . F ed . R . C ri m . P . 6 , ad v isoryco m m ittee n o tes, 1 9 8 3 A m en d m en ts. A s the T h ir d C i r cui thas s t at ed: “To pre s erve the s ecr ecyof gr and j ur ypr ocee di ngs , t he d istri ct co u rtm u st seal ce rt ain h ea ri n g s an d rec o rds, alth o u g h n o t gran d jury p ro c e e d in g s th e m se lv e s, w h e n a c c e ss to th o se h e a rin g s a n d re c o rd s w o u ld j eopar di ze gr and j ur ys ecr ecy . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 123 F. 3d 140, 149 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); see also , In r e New ark Mor ni ng LedgerC o. , 260 F. 3d 217, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “[T] he s ecr ecyof gr and j ur ypr ocee di ngs al s o ext ends t o col l at er al p ro c e e d in g s c o n ta in in g g ra n d ju ry m a te ri a l . . . .” ).-33-

I n s uppor tof thei rcl ai m t hatthe tr ans cr i ptand pr offe rfr om the 1997 hear i ngs ar e notcover ed byR ul e 6( e) , A ppel l ant s ci t e D iLeo v. C om m is s i oner , 959 F. 2d 16 ( 2d C i r . 1992) , and In r e Pl as t i cs A ddi t i ves A nt i tr us tLi t igat i on , 2004 W L 2 7 4 3 5 9 1 (E . D . P a. N o v . 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 ), fo r th e p rop o sit ion that “true g ran d jury m at er i al ” i s di s t i nctfr om “mat er i al t hati s col l at er al and ‘ s oughtfori t s ow n s ake ori nt r i ns i c val ue. ’ ” A pl t . B r . at28 n. 14 ( quot i ng D iLeo , 959 F. 2d at19- 20) . B ut t hese t w o cases provide no supp ortfor A pp el l ants . T he subj ectm at t er of i nter est in b o th c a se s w a s n o t tes tim o n yo r d isc u ss io n b e fo re th e g ra n d ju ryb u t d o c u m e n ts or i gi nal l yi n t he hands of a w i t nes s w ho pr oduced them t o the gr and j ur y . T he i s s ue i n bot h cas es w as w hetherR ul e 6( e) pr ecl uded otherper s ons fr om obt ai ni ng th e sa m e d o c u m e n ts b ysu b p o e n a in g th e sa m e w itn e ss . T h e c a se s h o ld th a t R u le 6( e) i s no barbeca us e pr oduct i on i n r es pons e t o the s ubpoena “ w oul d not s er i ous l ycompromi s e the s ecr ecyof the gr and j ury ’ s del i ber at i ons . ” D iLeo , 959 F .2 d a t 1 9 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); see United S tates ex rel . Woo dw ard v. Tynan , 7 5 7 F .2 d 1 0 8 5 , 1 0 8 7 -8 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (“ [ W ]h e n tes tim o n yo r d a ta is s oughtfori t s ow n s ake— fori t s i ntr i ns i c val ue i n the further ance of a l aw ful i nves t i gat i on— r athert han t o l earn w hatt ook pl ace befor e the gr and j ury , i ti s not a val i d defe ns e t o di s cl os ur e thatt he s ame i nform at i on w as r evea l ed t o a gr and j u r y o rt h a tt h e s a m e d o c u m e n t s h a d b e e n , o rw e r e p r e s e n t l y b e i n g , e x a m i n e d b y a g ra n d ju ry .” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )). H e re , in c o n tra st, d isc lo su re is s o u g h tfo rt h e v e r y p u rp o s e o f r e v e a l i n g w h a to c c u rr e d b e fo r e t h e g r a n d j u ry.-34-

T hus , t o t he ext entt hatt he tr ans cr i ptand pr offe rfr om the 1997 s eal ed hear i ng di s cl os e gr and j ur ypr ocee di ngs , theyar e pr ot ect ed byR ul e 6( e) . T he s ame goes fort he otherl egal fi l i ngs i n thi s cas e. O f cour s e, pur el yl egal ar gum ent , w i t houtr efe r ence t o w hatoccurr ed befor e the gr and j ur y , needs no pr ot ect i on. B utt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s publ i c or der s , as w el l as thi s opi ni on, adequa t el ydi s cl os e thos e mat t er s . Perhaps m or e ca n pr oper l ybe di s cl os ed, but th a t c a n b e b e tte r d e te rm in e d d u ri n g th e p ro c e e d in g s o n re m a n d , w h ic h w e o rd e r. T her e r emai ns t he ques t i on of w hatcons t i tut es a “mat t eroccurr i ng befor e a g ra n d ju ry,” a n d th e re fo re is p ro te c te d f ro m d is c lo s u re b yR u le 6 (e )( 2 )( B ). A p p e llan ts’ p rim a rya rg u m e n t ap p e a rs to b e th a t w h a t w e m ig h t ca ll ad m inistrati v e m att ers, suc h as e x ch an g es b etw ee n g ran d juro rs an d p rose cu tors conce r ni ng t he gr and j ur y ’ s i nves t i gat i on, ar e nots o cover ed. W e ar e not p e rs u a d e d . W e h a v e b ro a d lyin terp re ted R u le 6 (e ) to e n c o m p a ss “ w h a t to o k p lac e in t he gr and j ur yr oom , ” A naya v. Uni t ed Stat es , 8 1 5 F . 2 d 1 3 7 3 , 1 3 7 9 (10 th C ir . 1987) , or“w hati s s ai d or. . . t akes pl ace i n the gr and j uryr oom . ” Tynan , 757 F .2 d a t 1 0 8 7 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T hi s i ncl udes , and pr oper l ys o, e x c h a n g e s b e tw e e n th e g ra n d ju ro rs a n d p ro se c u to rs. T h e se e x c h a n g e s c o u ld r evea l w hom t he gr and j ur yi s i nves t i gat i ng and w hatw i tnes s es have be en ca l l ed, h o w lik e ly is a n in d ic tm e n t, a n d w h a t is th e d ir e c tio n o f th e in v e s tig a tio n . See Do u g l a s Oi lCo . o

f Ca l . v . Pe tr o lS t op s Nw. , 441 U . S. 211, 219 n. 10 ( 1979)-35-

( gr and j ur ys ecr ecy“pr event [s ] t he es cape of thos e w hos e i ndi ctm entm aybe cont empl at ed; . . . pr event [s ] per s ons s ubj ectt o i ndi ctm entorthei rfr i ends fr om im p o rtu n in g th e g ra n d ju ro rs; . . . [ a n d ] p ro tec t[ s] [ th e ] in n o c e n t ac c u se d w h o is exoner at ed” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . Som e gr and j ur or s m i ghtbe m or e hes i t antt o pos e ques t i ons i f ther e i s a cha nce theym i ghtbecome publ i c, and pr os ecut or s ’ ans w er s t o ques t i ons al s o m aybe l es s for thcomi ng. Secr ecy e n c o u ra g e s u n tr a m m e le d d is c o u rs e d u ri n g th e in v e s tig a tio n . Id . (gra n d jury secr ecy“i nsures the u t m ostfreedom t o the grand juryi n it s del i berat i on s” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . A s s t at ed bythe D . C . C i r cui t , “[T] he t ouchs t one i s w hetherdi s cl os ur e w oul d t end t o r evea l s om e s ecr etas pectof the grand jury ’s i nv est i gati on [; ] s uch m at t ers as the ident i t i es of w i tnesses or j urors , th e s u b s ta n c e o f

te s tim o n y , the s tr at egy ordi r ect i on of the i nves t igat i on, the deli berati on s or quest i on s of j urors , and the l i ke. ” S e n a te o f P u e rto R ico ex re l. Judi ci ar y C om m . v. Uni t ed Stat es , 8 2 3 F .2 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 2 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ; in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T o be s ur e, as A ppel l ant s cont end, s om e of thes e conc erns can be a m e lio ra ted b yre d a c tin g n a m e s. A n d th e fa c t th a t th e g ra n d ju rye n d e d its i nves t i gat i on l ong ago al s o r educe s the nee d fors ecr ecy . T hes e cons i der at i ons c a n b e w e i g h e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e th e ra “ m a t t e ro c c u rr i n g b e fo r e th e g r a n d j u r y” s houl d be di s cl os ed. T heydo notm ean, how ever , thats uch exc hanges ar e not c o v e re d b yR u le 6 (e ). See D ougl as O i lC o. , 4 4 1 U .S . at 2 2 2 (“ [ T ]h e in ter e sts in-36-

gr and j ur ys ecr ecy , al t hough r educe d, ar e notel i m i nat ed mer el ybeca us e the gr and ju ry h a s e n d e d its a c tiv itie s .” ). O th e r a u th o ri tie s s u p p o rt th is b ro a d v ie w o f R u le 6 (e ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. P hi l l i ps , 8 4 3 F . 2 d 4 3 8 , 4 4 1 (11 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (“T h e term ‘m att ers o cc u rri n g b efo re a gr and j ur y ’ has been de fi ned t o i ncl ude anythi ng t hatw i l l r evea l w hattr ans pi r ed d u rin g th e g ra n d ju ryp ro c e e d in g s.” ); L an ce v. United S tates ( In re G randJury Inves t igat i on) , 610 F. 2d 202, 216 ( 5th C i r . 1980) ( “C our t s have i nt erpr et ed the s e c r e c yr e q u i r e me n ti mp o s e d b yRu l e 6 ( e ) t o a p p l yn o to n l yt o i n fo r ma t i o n d r a wn fr om t r ans cr i pt s of gr and j ur ypr ocee di ngs , butal s o t o anythi ng w hi ch mayt end t o r evea l w hatt r ans pi r ed befor e the gr and j ury . ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) ; 1 C har l es A l an W r i ght& A r thurR . M i l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd P ro c e d u re § 1 0 6 (3 d e d . 1 9 9 9 ) ( “ T h e ru le o f s e c re c ya p p lie s . . . to a n yth in g . . . t hat m i gh tt end t o reveal w hat happ ened i n the grand-j uryroom . ”); 24 M oo re’ s, s up r a , ¶ 606. 06[6] ( “The t erm ‘ m at t eroccurr i ng befor e the gr and j ur y ’ has been d efined as a n ything that w il l r ev ea l w h at tran sp ir ed d u ri n g the g ran d jury pr ocee di ngs . ”) ; Sar a Sun B eal e, etal . , G r and J uryL aw and Pr act i ce § 5. 6 ( 2d ed. 2005) ( “The t ouchs t one fordet erm i ni ng w hetherthe di s cl os ur e of a par t i cul ar i t em w oul d r evea l ‘ a mat t eroccurr i ng befor e the gr and j ur y ’ i s w hetherthe d iscl o su re o f th e it em w o u ld rev ea l som ethin g o f su b stan ce ab o u t th e g ran d jury ’s in v e s tig a tio n .” ).

2. D i s cl os ure of

G rand Jury M at eri al-37-

H a v in g d e ter m in e d th a t th e d isc lo su re s s o u g h t b yA p p e llan ts a re , w ith perhaps a fe w m odes texce pt i ons , governed byR ul e 6( e) , w e r emand t o the di s t r i ctcour tt o det erm i ne i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance w hetheranyof the r el i ef s oughtby A ppel l ant s i s w arr ant ed. T he courti ni t i al l ym us tdet erm i ne w hetherR ul e 6( e) author i zes di s cl os ur es forA ppel l ant s ’ purpos es , and, i f s o, w hethert heyhave met “the s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng w hen the tr adi t i onal s ecr ecyof the gr and j ur ym ay be br oken. ” D ouglas O i lC o. , 4 4 1 U .S . a t 2 2 2 . Par t i es s eeki ng gr and j ur yt r ans cr i pt s underR ul e 6( e) m us ts how t hat th e m a ter ial th e yse e k is n e e d e d to a v o id a p o ss ib le inju stic e in anotherj udi ci al pr ocee di ng, t hatt he nee d fordi s cl os ur e i s gr eat er th a n th e n e e d fo r c o n tin u e d se c re c y , an d th a t th e ir re q u e st is s t ructur ed t o coveronl ym at er i al s o neede d. Id . I f A ppel l ant s s eek r el i ef be y ond w hat , i f any , i s gr ant ed byt he courtunder R u le 6 (e ), th e c o u rt m u st th e n d e ter m in e w h e th e r re lief o u tsid e o f

R u le 6 (e ) is a p p r o p r i a t e . Th i s wo u l d b e a t wo - p a r ti n q u i ry . F i r s t , a s p r e v i o u s l yn o t e d , s o me m a tters th a t A p p e llan ts s e e k to d isc lo se , su c h a s le g a l ar g u m e n ts in th e ir p lea d in g s, m a yn o t b e p ro tec ted b yR u le 6 (e ) a n d c a n b e d isc lo se d , p e rh a p s in re d a c te d fo rm . S e c o n d , s o m e re lie f

m a yb e p ro p e r u n d e r t h e c o u rt ’s in h e re n t a u th o ri ty. T h e g o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s th a t th e re is n o su c h in h e re n t au th o rity . T h e A p p e llan ts c o n te n d th e c o n tr a ry. T h e re is s u b s ta n tia l s u p p o rt fo r A p p e lla n ts ’ p o s itio n . S ev era l cou rt s h av e h eld th at “a co u rt ’s po w er to o rde r disclos u re o f g ran d jury-38-

r ecor ds i s nots t r i ct l yconfi ned t o i ns t ance s s pel l ed outi n [R ul e 6( e) ] . ” In re P e tit io n to In sp e c t a n dC opy G ra n dJu ry Ma ter ia ls , 7 3 5 F .2 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 8 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 ); see also C r aig v. Uni t ed Stat es ( In r e Pet i t i on of

C r aig) , 131 F. 3d 99, 102 ( 2d C i r . 1997) ( “A l t hough . . . R ul e 6( e) governs al m os tal l r eques t s forthe re lea se o f

g ra n d ju ryre c o rd s, th is c o u rt h a s re c o g n ize d th a t th e re a re c e rta in

‘ s peci al ci r cumst ance s ’ i n w hi ch r el eas e of gr and j uryr ecor ds i s appr opr i at e eve n o u tsid e th e b o u n d a rie s o f th e ru le.” ); In r e G r and Jur y Proce edi ngs , 417 F. 3d 18, 26 ( 1s t C i r . 2005) ( R ul e 6( e) perm i t s “r ar e exc ept i ons pr emi s ed on i nher ent j udi ci al pow er ” t o re str ict d isc lo su re b e y o n d th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e ru le) ; s ee g e n e ra lly , B e a le , e t a l., supra , § 5. 19 ( “The cour t s . . . have r ecogni zed a n

‘ i nher entauthor i t y ’ t o di s cl os e gr and j urym at er i al s , al though theyhave c onfi ned th a t a u th o ri ty to e x c e p tio n a l c a s e s .” ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt , h o w e v e r, h a s n o t e x p lic itly re c o g n iz e d s u c h a u th o ri ty. T o be s ur e, i thas r ecogni zed thatdi s cl os ur e of gr and j ur ym at er i al s i s “comm i t t ed t o t he di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge, ” P i t ts burgh P lat e G las s C o. v. Uni t ed Stat es , 360 U . S. 395, 399 ( 1959) ; buti tdoes notnece s s ar i l yfol l ow t hatR ul e 6( e) s et s no boundar i es on t hatdi s cr et i on. A l though the C our thas s ai d that“R ul e 6( e) i s but d ec laratory[o f th e p rop o sit ion that d iscl o su re is co m m itted to the tri al j u d g e’s di s cr et i on] , ” id ., it also sa id in th e sa m e o p in io n th a t “ any di s cl os ur e of gr and ju ry m in u te s is c o v e re d b yF e d . R u le s C ri m . P . 6 (e ) p ro m u lg a te d b yth is C o u rt ,” id . at398 ( emphasi s added) . A nd the A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee not es s t at e that-39-

“R u le 6(e ) co n ti n u es to sp ell o u t th e g en era l ru le of sec rec yo f g ran d -j u ry proceed i ng s a n dth e ex c e p tio n s to th a t g e n e ra l ru le . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 6(e ), a d v iso ryc o m m itt e e n o tes , 2 0 0 2 A m e n d m e n ts (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see also 1 W r i ght& M i l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 106 ( “[R]e l i ance on the inh ere n t po w ers d o ctri n e is su sp ec t. ” (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). I n ourvi ew , i tw oul d be unw i s e forus t o r es ol ve thi s del i cat e i s s ue on the pr es entr ecor d. T he ca s es t hathave r ecogni zed thi s i nher entauthor i ty“have c o n fin e d [ it] to e x c e p tio n a l c a s e s .” B e a le e t a l., supra , § 5. 6. T h e d istri ct co u rt sh o u ld the refo re fir st de term ine w h ethe r suc h circu m stan ce s are p rese n t befo re deci di ng w hetheri thas i nher entpow ert o perm i toror derdi s cl os ur e. W e R E V E R S E a n d R E M A N D fo r f u rth e r c o n sid e ra tio n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is o p in io n .