Opinion ID: 180654
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Request for Grand Jury Voir Dire Materials

Text: In addition to her main arguments about the constitutionality of the grand jury's instructions, Caruto included two paragraphs in her motion to dismiss the indictment seeking disclosure of the grand jury voir dire transcripts and an instructional video that the grand jury watched before it was charged. Concluding that the disclosure of voir dire would invade the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings and that Caruto had not made [a] sufficient showing [of] the need for disclosure, the district court denied the request. Caruto challenges that decision. We review the decision not to release grand jury transcripts for abuse of discretion. United States v. Plummer, 941 F.2d 799, 806 (9th Cir.1991); see also Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 223, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979) ([A] court called upon to determine whether grand jury transcripts should be released necessarily is infused with substantial discretion.). Parties seeking grand jury transcripts under Rule 6(e) must show that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy, and that their request is structured to cover only material so needed. Douglas Oil, 441 U.S. at 222, 99 S.Ct. 1667. In her two-paragraph argument in support of her request before the district court, Caruto made none of these three required showings, nor does she make them in her briefs on appeal. The district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in denying Caruto's request. AFFIRMED.