Opinion ID: 184629
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Appropriate Procedure

Text: We will now endeavor to set forth the contours of how ashow cause hearing may proceed once a prima facie case hasbeen established, recognizing that within these boundaries,the district court should have sufficient leeway to establishprocedures it believes will assist it best in discovering thetruth of the matter while at the same time not causing undueinterference with either the work of the grand jury or that ofthe district court itself. We find the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Eisenberg to bethe most useful precedent on the direction the show causehearings should take. In Eisenberg, the targets of two grandjuries filed motions in district court alleging violations of Rule6(e)(2) and submitting as proof various newspaper articlesthat reported government agents and attorneys as the sourceof the information disclosed. The district court, after findingthe articles conclusively established the existence of a Rule6(e)(2) violation, ordered counsel for the government to identify to counsel for the targets each government attorney,officer, agent, or employee with access to the aforedescribed __________ 15 Our decision to limit direct movant participation at thissecond stage of the show cause hearing is further fueled by theimmediacy of the potential harm to the grand jury. As we understand it, this grand jury is still hearing testimony, and while theinterest in grand jury secrecy does not disappear altogether afterthe investigation is concluded, see Douglas Oil, 441 U.S. at 222, it isat its most intense while the investigation is ongoing. See, e.g., Inre Grand Jury Subpoena, 72 F.3d 271, 275 (2d Cir. 1995) (Thegovernment represents that the grand jury investigation here isvery much ongoing, thereby heightening the government's interestin secrecy.). Indeed, it would obviously be futile to invoke civilcontempt sanctions, which are intended to be forward-looking andprophylactic, if grand jury proceedings were already concluded. This requires that extra care be taken in structuring appropriateRule 6(e)(2) proceedings to ensure that the course of the grandjury's investigation is not diverted. grand jury matters as well as to furnish affidavits executedby each such person that included the identity of any newsmedia representative with which they had communicated andthe circumstances and substance of each communication. Id.at 962 (internal quotation omitted). As in our case, thegovernment in Eisenberg did not contest the district court'sconclusion that the news articles submitted established aprima facie case or that it was required to provide thedesignated information to the court for its consideration. The government did challenge, however, just as the IC doeshere, any requirement that it furnish that information directlyto the targets at a time before any indictments had yetissued. Id. at 963-64. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's order toproduce information about the press disclosure to the targetsbefore indictments had been issued or the grand jury's investigation had ended. Ruling that the articles established onlya prima facie case, the Court of Appeals nonetheless found itappropriate for the district court to have ordered the government to take steps to stop any publicity emanating from itsemployees before moving to a consideration of whether thegovernment had in fact violated Rule 6(e)(2) by past disclosures. Id. at 964. The court stated decisively, however, thatthe targets should not be allowed to participate directly inthis inquiry as to the government's culpability. Rather, thedistrict court should first have conducted an in camerareview of the government's proffer of evidence as to itsconduct: [W]e do not think the court properly balanced the targets' interest in the information with the harmful effects that could follow the disclosure to targets' counsel of names of all the government employees involved in the investigation.... Such information could lead counsel to call upon those government agents and attempt to interview them; news would spread that the attorneys for the targets were invading the province of the grand jury; and prospective witnesses could be intimidated from testifying. Id. at 965. As a result, the Eisenberg court held that theinformation identified by the district court should first be furnished to the district court in camera; after reviewingthis material, the district court could then determine whetherfurther proceedings were necessary as well as the extent ofthe targets' involvement in those proceedings. Id. at 966. Admittedly, Eisenberg does not provide all the answers. Itis not entirely clear, for example, whether the Eisenbergcourt contemplated that the in camera review of the government's rebuttal evidence might, if it failed to satisfy the judgeas to the government's innocence or guilt, be followed by ahearing in which the targets' counsel would be allowed toparticipate in order to determine the existence of a violation,see id. (The court may subsequently determine whether ahearing should be held on the alleged government violationsof Rule 6(e) and whether counsel for targets should bepresent at the hearing.), or whether the court would makethe decision on the existence of a violation by itself and invitethe presence of the targets' counsel only at the remedy stage,see id. at 965 (Once the court determines that Rule 6(e) hasbeen violated, the court may properly inform the targets'counsel of the names of the violators. Targets' counsel maythen play a proper role in hearings involving imposition ofcontempt sanctions on government employees.). To theextent Eisenberg can be read to suggest that counsel for Rule6(e)(2) plaintiffs should be permitted to play an adversarialrole in the show cause hearing, we cannot agree. We do findpersuasive, however, the Eisenberg court's conclusion that incamera review of the government's ex parte proffer is themost appropriate way to conduct proceedings in Rule 6(e)(2)cases and protect grand jury secrecy. The use of in camera review in proceedings collateral to agrand jury investigation is by no means novel. Districtcourts are often required to conduct an in camera review ofgrand jury material requested under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) 16 to __________ 16 Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) permits disclosure of matters occurringbefore the grand jury when so directed by a court preliminary toor in connection with a judicial proceeding. Fed. R. Crim. P.6(e)(3)(C)(i). Parties seeking such material must show that thematerial they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another determine what material, if any, is responsive to the needasserted by the requesting party; this in camera review isnecessary due to the paramount concern of all courts for thesanctity and secrecy of grand jury proceedings. Lucas v.Turner, 725 F.2d 1095, 1109 (7th Cir. 1984); see also In reSpecial Grand Jury 89-2, 143 F.3d 565, 572 (10th Cir. 1998); S. Rep. No. 95-354, at 8 (1977), reprinted in 1977U.S.C.C.A.N. 527, 532 (It is contemplated that the judicialhearing in connection with an application for a court order bythe government under subparagraph (3)(C)(i) should be exparte so as to preserve, to the maximum extent possible,grand jury secrecy.). Similarly, courts often use in camera,ex parte proceedings to determine the propriety of a grandjury subpoena or the existence of a crime-fraud exception tothe attorney-client privilege when such proceedings are necessary to ensure the secrecy of ongoing grand jury proceedings. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Nos. 95-7354, 96-7529 and96-7530, 103 F.3d 1140, 1145 (3d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.Roe v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 2412 (1997) (Ex parte incamera hearings have been held proper in order to preservethe ongoing interest in grand jury secrecy.); In re GrandJury Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury Sep. Term,1991, 33 F.3d 342, 353 (4th Cir. 1994) ([T]he government'sproffer [as to the existence of the crime-fraud exception] wasmade in camera because it concerned matters subject to anon-going investigation before the grand jury.). Although incamera, ex parte submissions generally deprive one party toa proceeding of a full opportunity to be heard on an issue, Inre John Doe Corp., 675 F.2d 482, 490 (2d Cir. 1982), and thusshould only be used where a compelling interest exists, see,e.g., In re John Doe, Inc., 13 F.3d 633, 636 (2d Cir. 1994), wefind that the nature of a Rule 6(e)(2) hearing, particularlywhen conducted during an ongoing grand jury investigation,involves such a compelling interest. See, e.g., In re GrandJury Proceedings, 33 F.3d at 353 (holding that in cameraproceedings in the context of grand jury proceedings and on__________ judicial proceeding, that the need for disclosure is greater than theneed for continued secrecy, and that their request is structured tocover only material so needed. Douglas Oil, 441 U.S. at 222. going investigations requiring secrecy are not violative of dueprocess despite lack of opportunity to rebut government'sproffer); In re John Doe, 13 F.3d at 636 ([W]here an incamera submission is the only way to resolve an issue withoutcompromising a legitimate need to preserve the secrecy of thegrand jury, it is an appropriate procedure.); In re John DoeCorp., 675 F.2d at 490 (We recognize that appellants cannotmake factual arguments about materials they have not seenand to that degree they are hampered in presenting theircase. The alternatives, however, are sacrificing the secrecyof the grand jury or leaving the issue unresolved at thiscritical juncture.). In light of these concerns, we conclude that the show causehearing in this instance should not proceed in a fully adversarial manner when only a prima facie case has been made. We emphasize, however, that the burden of rebutting theprima facie case will lie with the IC, who must now comeforward with evidence, in whatever form the district courtrequires (including affidavits, depositions, production of documents, or live testimony) to rebut the inferences drawn fromthe news articles that established the prima facie case of aRule 6(e) leak to the press by personnel in or close to theIC's office. This evidence should be submitted ex parte andin camera for the district court's review. Because the government must negate at least one of the two prongs of theprima facie case--by showing either that the informationdisclosed in the media reports did not constitute mattersoccurring before the grand jury or that the source of theinformation was not the government--relevant evidencemight include what actually occurred before the grand jury,whether the purported grand jury disclosures are accurate,the identities of its employees with access to any of the grandjury information disclosed, and whether these individuals inturn provided any such information to the media, Barry, 740F. Supp. at 890, as well as evidence as to the IC's generalpolicies concerning press contacts, evidence as to the actualsource of information reported by the press, or evidencedescribing any actual exchanges between a member of theIC's staff and a member of the press associated with one of the identified reports. The district court's task at this stageis to review the IC's evidentiary submissions and determinewhether they are sufficient to rebut the movants' prima faciecase--in other words, whether the evidence presented by thegovernment is sufficient to render the identified press reports 17 inaccurate either in their characterization of materialas grand jury related or in their identification of the source ofthe information. If the district court determines that theIC's submission is insufficient to rebut the prima facie case,or, indeed, if the IC or a member of his staff admit toviolations, no further proceedings are necessary, and thedistrict court may proceed to find that a Rule 6(e)(2) violationhas occurred and determine the appropriate remedy. Theannouncement of the court's finding should be available to themovants and their participation in any remedy hearing presumptively allowed. If, on the other hand, the district courtdetermines that the IC's submission conclusively rebuts theprima facie case, the show cause order should be discharged.18 In either event, this first stage should be ex parte __________ 17 Although Barry makes reference to a determination ofwhether there has been a pattern or practice of impermissibledisclosures of grand jury material, see Barry, 865 F.2d at 1325,this should not be construed as requiring the district court toextend the Rule 6(e)(2) inquiry beyond the news articles submittedby the movants. Indeed, in order to limit the district court'sfunction to adjudication rather than investigation, we find it entirelyappropriate to limit any findings to those articles. 18 Because it is unlikely that a news report will attribute thedisclosure of purported grand jury material to a specific individual,it is possible that a showing as to each individual associated with theIC who has access to certain material will be required to constitutesufficient rebuttal. Cf. Lance, 610 F.2d at 219 (The inability toshow a definite source for some of the information contained in thearticles might cause a prima facie case to fail if a responsiveaffidavit denying the allegations is made.). We note that pursuantto Rule 6(e)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, theIC is required to provide to the district court the names of anygovernment personnel who have been made privy to grand jurymaterial in order to assist the IC in his investigation. and in camera in order to minimize the intrusion on theinterests protected by Rule 6(e)(2). If, however, after review of the government's rebuttal casethe district court finds that it cannot make an adequatedetermination as to whether a violation of the rule hasoccurred, or if the district court cannot identify with certaintythe individual or individuals responsible, further proceedingsmay be appropriate. Although the district court should takecare to protect the secrecy of the grand jury investigation bycontinuing to conduct the proceedings in camera and exparte, we do not wish unnecessarily to cabin the districtcourt's discretion as to the type of factfinding tools it mayuse. The court may, for example, request further affidavitsor other types of documentary evidence from either thegovernment or the movants; it may request that a member ofthe IC's staff or another witness answer questions of thecourt or questions submitted by the movants upon the court'sinvitation; the court may, if it so chooses, appoint a specialmaster or other individual to collect evidence and submit areport to the district court for its review and adjudication. See, e.g., Eisenberg, 711 F.2d at 966 (We can conceive ofcircumstances where a district court could seek the appointment of a special counsel to assist the court in determiningwhether Rule 6(e) violations had occurred.).19 If at the end of the day the district court determines that aviolation of Rule 6(e)(2) has occurred, it may report thisfinding to the movants and identify the government agent orattorney responsible for the disclosure.20 See Eisenberg, 711F.2d at 965. The movants may then participate in determining the appropriate remedy, which, as we have noted, mayinclude equitable relief, contempt sanctions, or both, see __________ 19 The movants acknowledged before the district court, and theIC stated in oral argument before this court, that the involvementof such an individual might be appropriate. See Prehearing Memorandum of President Clinton (March 10, 1998), at 3. 20 Ordinarily, the court should not reveal the precise substanceof the disclosure to the movants, as this would tend to revealmatters occurring before the grand jury. Barry, 865 F.2d at 1321-22, keeping in mind that the reliefgranted should be carefully tailored to avoid unnecessaryinterference with grand jury proceedings, id. at 1323. Finally, the district court must keep a transcribed record of whattranspired in any in camera proceeding; should the grandjury ultimately issue indictments, the indicted party or parties may request the transcript of the Rule 6(e)(2) proceedings in order to determine whether to contest any indictmenton the basis of the violation. See Eisenberg, 711 F.2d at 965; Fed R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(C)(ii) (disclosure of grand jury matterspermitted at the request of the defendant, upon a showingthat grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictmentbecause of matters occurring before the grand jury).21