See Federal Deposit Ins. It cannot be said here that the District Court abused its discretion in failing to promul- gate a generic rule, beyond the compass of Rule 6.1, requiring a public docket for all grand jury ancillary proceedings. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed on this point. This alternative request for relief raises no momentous issue, because the rule itself already allows for that which is being sought. Counsel for appellants admitted that there is no realistic possibility that the media ever will be unaware of grand jury proceedings in a high-profile case.
History defies any such claim.
Thus, appellants cannot reasonably assert that they are unduly handicapped without a public docket for all grand jury ancillary proceedings. Rather, they merely contend that a rule requiring public docketing in all cases might facilitate media attempts to uncover matters before a grand jury. This is hardly a justification for an interpreta- tion of Rule 6.1 beyond its terms. When a party makes a request under Rule 6.1 for a redacted public docket in a specific proceeding, the District Court must duly consider the request and, if it denies the request, offer some explanation. The District Court's expla- nation must bear some logical connection to the individual request.