Opinion ID: 458893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ex Parte Hearing.

Text: 15 Appellants first argue that the district court should not have granted the rule 6(e) order ex parte, but instead should have given notice to the appellants and held an adversary hearing. 16 Prior to 1983, rule 6(e) contained no provision for ex parte hearings. Nevertheless, the senate report on the 1977 amendments to rule 6(e) stated that [i]t is contemplated that the judicial hearing in connection with an application for a court order by the government under [rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) ] should be ex parte so as to preserve, to the maximum extent possible, grand jury secrecy. S.Rep. No. 354, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 8, reprinted in 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 527, 532. 17 Rule 6(e)(3)(D), which took effect in 1983, explicitly provides that a petition for disclosure made pursuant to rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) may be made ex parte when the petitioner is the government. The Advisory Committee note on the 1983 amendment to rule 6(e)(3)(D) points out that the rule provides only that the hearing 'may' be ex parte when the petitioner is the government, thus allowing the court to decide the matter based upon the circumstances of the particular case. 18 Appellants contend that an adversary hearing would not have jeopardized grand jury secrecy since they were fully aware of the concluded grand jury investigation at the time of the government's request and nothing that was presented to the court ex parte was unknown to them. The government argues, however, that the facts sought to be disclosed were such that any meaningful discussion at an adversary hearing would have disclosed to the appellants the grand jury testimony and documents of parties other than the appellants. The government also notes that since the appellants included eight different persons, the court would have had to devise a procedure by which the grand jury testimony and documents of each appellant were shielded from every other appellant. In view of these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion here by resolving the matter ex parte. 19