Document: 356 U.S. 677 78 S.Ct. 983 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY et al. No. 51. Argued April 28, 1958. Decided June 2, Mr. Robert A. Bicks, Washington, D.C., for the appellant. Mathias F. Correa, New York City, appellee Colgate-Palmolive co. Kenneth C. Royall, Proctor Gamble Co. Abe Fortas, Lever Brothers Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. 1 This is a civil suit brought under § 4 Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4, U.S.C.A. to enjoin alleged violations and §§ 1, 2. The was filed on heels grand jury investigation in which no indictment returned. Government using transcript prepare case trial; appellees, who are defendants that suit, desire same privilege. They moved discovery production minutes Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.1 District Court granted motion, ruling appellees had shown 'good cause' required by Rule 34.2 It rested ground preparation trial, it would be useful their preparation, only this way could get information. These reasons, court held, outweighed reasons behind policy maintaining secrecy proceedings. 19 F.R.D. 122, 128. entered orders directing produce 30 days permit inspect copy it. Government, adamant its refusal obey, motion requesting those amended provide that, if were not made, dismiss complaint. Alternatively, stay order pending filing an appeal application extraordinary writ. Appellees did oppose motion; providing unless released August 24, 1956, 'the will enter dismissing complaint.'3 As persisted refusal, judgment dismissal. here appeal, 32 823, 62 869, 989, 29, 29. We postponed question jurisdiction argument merits. 352 997, 77 556. 3 First. dismissal final orders, ending case.4 See United States v. Wallace Tiernan Co., 336 793, 69 824, 93 L.Ed. 1042. urge may maintained because complaint solicited Government. invoke familiar rule plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed his sue out writ error. Evans Phillips, Wheat. 73, 516; Babbitt, 104 767, 921. here. at all times opposed orders. might course have tested validity other ways, example, route contempt. Yet understandable why more conventional getting review adverse sought any unseemly conflict with avoided. When proposed failure lost merits seeking expeditious review. therefore like Thomsen Cayser, 243 66, 37 353, 61 597, where losing party got lower rather than remand new so court, denying dismiss, said 5 'The plaintiffs consent against them, but there such judgment, should form instead interlocutory, they come without further delay.' Id., page 83, 358. 6 Second. On we concluded cause,' used 34, established. litigant is, course, subject rules discovery. At time, start long-established maintains proceedings federal courts.5 Johnson, 319 503, 513, 63 1233, 1238, 87 1546; Costello States, 350 359, 362, 76 406, 408, 100 397. varied.6 One encourage witnesses step forward testify freely fear or retaliation. antitrust suits employees even officers potential defendants, customers, competitors, suppliers. public institution serving community suffer testifying today knew testimony lifted tomorrow. 'indispensable proceedings,' supra, must broken except compelling necessity. There instances when need outweigh countervailing policy. But particularity. 7 No showing made relevancy usefulness were, sufficiently If available, through depositions, involve delay substantial costs, these showings fall short proof defense greatly prejudiced reference injustice done. Modern instruments serve purpose, noted Hickman Taylor, 329 495, 67 385, 91 451. together pretrial procedures make trial less game blind man's buff fair contest basic issues facts disclosed fullest practicable extent. 501, 388. Only strong policies weigh disclosure. present information notes opposing lawyer. do reach problems concerning use impeach witness, refresh recollection, test credibility like.7 Those cases particularized discretely limitedly. hold necessity been wholesale 34. much particularized, discrete necessary establish cause.' finding one witness. ordered entire over appellees. undoubtedly influenced fact type complex, long drawn out, expensive prosecute defend. also seemed prosecution criminal elicit evidence case. device, flouting law. For Act Congress guarded camera taking depositions * shall open public' excluding valid. 731, 30, 30. 8 cannot condemn practice proceeding shortcut goals otherwise barred difficult reach. true returned reflection integrity prosecution. know, trails looked fresh faded along way. What beginning cast apparently took different character events transactions disclosed. failed does mean obtained procedure subverted warranted. 9 Reversed. 10 WHITTAKER, concurring. 11 Believing sufficient exceptional justified invasion circumstances case, I concur Court's decision, add word. 12 Although 'no ture bill' voted case—and, hence, Government's attorneys, agents investigators then proceedings, wree conducted lawful purposes—the admits transcripts intends them prosecution, suggest, principally basis prepared, presented asked jury, purpose conducting obtain, ex parte, direct derivative contemplated. fact. However, obvious be, probnably often been, real investigations cases. property investigators, nor entitled possession Instead documents records court. And seems clear where, here, voted, secrecy, law wisely provides, fully violated disclosure government counsel, defendants' counsel suit. 13 In maintain proceedings; eliminate temptation conduct grant means parte procurement contemplated suit; eliminate, far possible, fundamental unfairness inequality permitting possess materials while attorneys adopt requiring copies thereof memoranda therefrom, promptly upon return sealed impounded clerk inspection after notice hearingUpon circumstances, Surely still 14 HARLAN, whom FRANKFURTER BURTON join, dissenting. reverses below adverting what me case: Did abuse discretion ordering furnish proceedings? believe can avoided obscured casting issue terms whether adequate 34 gained. constitutes necessarily turns each particular last analysis rests within sound Moore's Federal Practice (2d ed. 1950) 34.08. 16 Viewing matter light, think guilty discretion. A cursory statement setting accorded access suffice clear. By standards litigation great magnitude complexity. ordered, three years, despite assiduous efforts bring manageable compass, removed from posture sight. elaborate briefing oral argument, during found itself handicapped indicate exact intended make, connection case.1 17 granting wrote reasoned found: (1) following eighteen-month investigation, ended some four years before being returned;2 (2) continuing case; (3) ends justice' given reciprocal aid defense;3 (4) violate traditional safeguarding proceedings.4 18 quotation reveals alert sensitive concern unnecessary proceedings: 'I realize caveat needless intrusion indispensable therefor indelibly impressed served Assistant Prosecutor my home county ten spent greater part time presenting jury. positive persons break seal never done extreme prevent judicial processes. Which about justice—the purposes interest justice? requirement safely waived divulged limits prescribed law, furtherance justice. Under 6(e) Criminal Procedure our courts have, interpretation, extended remove veil secrecy' around court's discretion, justice requires side, see reason side motions thought prejudicial interest, useless unnecessary, reveal sought, already possessed obtain pursuing remedy.' findings procedural situation complicated fairly required, judge charge beginning, disturbed lightly Cf. Yellow Cab 338 338, 70 177, 94 150; Oregon State Medical Society, 343 326, 72 690, 96 978. 20 recognizes instituted solely suit—that obtaining indictment—the transcript. misuse process, am unable aborted thereafter uses treated differently. distinction relates motive instituting both effect precisely same, disrespects underlying 30,5 equity taken public. neither undertake lay down fixed transcripts, leave judge, dealt him light 21 subscribe view preserving general rarest inflexible announced today, allows overcome 'subverted' process manner suggested Court, unwise curbing judges efficient handling unique litigation. Prettyman Report Anti-Trust Protracted Cases, 62, adopted Judicial Conference States. particularly us, jury's functions since ended. Socony-Vacuum Oil 310 150, 233—234, 60 811, 849; Wigmore, Evidence (3d 1940), 2362. Here elsewhere realm discretionary power appellate safeguard instances, priori imposition rigid restrictions powerless act appropriate record, say abused available Appellee, U.S.C.A., note 5, infra. provides part: 'Upon good cause parties, provisions 30(b), action copying photographing, behalf moving party, designated documents, privileged, constitute contain relating matters scope examination permitted 26(b) possession, custody, control *.' 37(b)(2) provides: 'If refuses obey document thing inspection, copying, photographing *, regard just, among others following: '(i) An contents paper established accordance claim order; '(ii) refusing allow disobedient support claims defenses, prohibiting introducing things items *; '(iii) striking pleadings parts thereof, staying until obeyed, rendering default party; '(iv) lieu foregoing addition thereto, arrest agent disobeying 41(b) 'Unless specifies, subdivision provided rule, lack improper venue, operates adjudication merits.' While covers portion quoted shows restricted situation. 'Disclosure occurring deliberations vote juror performance duties. Otherwise juror, attorney, interpreter stenographer disclose directed preliminarily request defendant grounds exist obligation imposed person rule.' Rose, Cir., 215 F.2d 617, 628—629, summarized follows: '(1) To escape whose contemplated; insure utmost freedom deliberations, friends importuning jurors; subornation perjury tampering later appear indicted it; free untrammeled disclosures respect commission crimes; (5) protect innocent accused exonerated he expense standing probability guilt.' See, e.g., 234, 849, 84 1129. Jencks 353 657, 1007, 1103. opinion: '* McDowell, plaintiff's questions: "Mr. you object submitting detailed affidavit stating exactly (a) use, any, past preparing (b) future (c) trial.' 'He wished confer superiors Department deciding answer questions. awaited candid answers—but vain. McDowell wrote: "The questions put hearing December 12th serious consideration Justice. instructed respectfully inform wish hearing.' 'His 'statement' Because arbitrarily refused denied helpful result forced seek answers elsewhere.' (19 124.) response informed us requested indictment. Appendix opinion, reviews prior refers comment earlier stage "One concerns probably longer, how wait case? sooner factual contentions, commence—and before, obviously." footnote opinion. '(In) (Sherman Act), hearings examiner special master appointed take therein, trials court; attendance valid enforceable.'

Category: 8