Opinion ID: 474294
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proper Showing to Impose a Secrecy Order

Text: 20 In this appeal, the Government does not question that part of the district court's order denying issuance of a secrecy order because the Government failed to make an adequate showing. The district court stated: 21 Even if it were conceded that a court might be empowered to order a bank to remain silent in some circumstances, a proposition not obviously right for the reasons outlined above, we are not inclined to believe that the government has in this case made a sufficiently specific showing. The agent who testified named no names, and he gave no detailed reasons for his beliefs. The showing was vague, and the risks claimed were not differentiated from those that would obtain if an indictment is eventually handed down against the customer. 22 628 F.Supp. at 581. 23 The Government does not dispute the district court's finding in this regard, but contends that it has further information to present for the district court's consideration, should we rule that the district court possesses the power to issue such an order. We are therefore bound to affirm because the Government has not contested the district court's determination that it failed to make a sufficient showing to justify issuance of the order. 24 Although we are not presented with the issue of what kind of showing by the Government warrants issuance of such an order, we observe that the policy of non-secrecy as to grand jury witnesses embodied in Rule 6(e)(2) should not be set aside except in situations where the need for secrecy outweighs the countervailing policy, and that this need must be shown with particularity. In so observing, we draw upon the language of United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., supra, in which the Supreme Court outlined the circumstances in which the policy of secrecy embodied in Rule 6(e) may be set aside by a federal court. We believe the policy of openness as to grand jury witnesses dictated by Rule 6(e)(2) requires similar considerations. To impose an order of secrecy upon a grand jury witness, there must be a compelling necessity    shown with particularity. See United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. at 682, 78 S.Ct. at 986. 25 Accordingly, while affirming the district court, we remand the case for the district court to consider any Government motion for reconsideration based on additional evidence.