Document: 460 U.S. 557 103 S.Ct. 1356 75 L.Ed.2d 281 ILLINOIS, Petitionerv.ABBOTT & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. No. 81-1114. Argued Nov. 29, 1982. Decided March 1983. Syllabus by the Court Section 4F(a) of Clayton Act, enacted in 1976, provides that whenever Attorney General United States has brought an action under federal antitrust laws and reason to believe any State attorney general would be entitled bring Act based on substantially same alleged violation, he shall give written notification official. Under § 4F(b), order assist a evaluating this notice or bringing action, upon general's request must make available him, "to extent permitted law, investigative files other materials which are may relevant material actual potential cause action" Act. After Justice Department had refused Illinois' for certain grand jury involved investigation violations laws, Illinois filed petition Federal District asserting right access such materials, contending 4F(b) made it unnecessary him meet "particularized need" standard required Rule 6(e). The denied petition, Appeals affirmed. Held: does not special is independent modifies limitations imposed Criminal Procedure Pp. 565-573. (a) 6(e) establishes "General Secrecy" providing transcripts remain custody Government "unless otherwise ordered court particular case." One seeking disclosure normally showing obtain materials. Rule, cannot proceedings without approval, approval obtained merely alleging civil action. Accordingly, follows from language mandating only law," sought case. 565-568. (b) 4F(b)'s legislative history supports conclusion Congress intended section recognize did intend change applicable law concerning 568-571. (c) Act's goals enhancing federal-state cooperation encouraging more state lawsuits against price fixers sufficient show existing rules absent affirmative expression intent do so. Pp.572-573 659 F.2d 800 (7th Cir.), Thomas M. Genovese, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Richard G. Wilkins, Washington, D.C., respondent support Michael B. Nash, respondents Abbott Associates, Inc., STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 asserts statutory transcripts, documents, gathered generated two juries during their investigations laws. He contends 15 U.S.C. 15f(b) (1976), as part Title III Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements 1976 ("the Act"), makes generally Rules Disagreeing with Courts Appeals,1 Seventh Circuit rejected contention. (CA7 1981). We granted certiorari resolve conflict, 455 1015, 102 1708, 72 132 (1982), now affirm. 2 * On January 31, 1980, Northern documents bid-rigging construction trades Illinois. These resulted return three separate indictments naming 59 defendants.2 At time its most defendants entered pleas nolo contendere charges one been found guilty jury, but eight were still awaiting trial.3 state's materials,4 explaining they could disclosed Procedure.5 3 advised already initiated class actions 86 defendants, charged identified unindicted coconspirators, recover damages violations. State's invoked 4F(b)6 disclosure. It further stated "the requested extremely Plaintiff's causes; will insure promote efficient economical utilization scarce judicial taxpayers resources, also obviate need duplicative redundant discovery, . ." App. 13. supported petition.7 Certain suits others who testified before intervened oppose 4 first considered claim making compelling particularized need. concluded that, response request, was free disclose independently acquired executive branch voluntarily presented jury. But held testimony through use subpoena power "investigative files" within meaning Moreover, nothing suggest either authorize "unmonitored purely materials" 6(e), modify traditionally applied itself. 5 then explained why record developed justify reference Noting absence scope plaintiffs, interests secrecy survived termination criminal proceedings,8 all petitions denial, however, prejudice renewed requests after discovery efforts created basis narrowly focused needs."9 6 timely appeal Circuit. contend satisfied Instead, issue finally resolved Court's order: whether gives when became law. plain authorizes affirmatively indicates Congress's preserve then-existing II 7 15f(a) promptly 15f(b), "shall, general, sections 12 27 title." 8 requires us evaluate legal context legislated 1976. statute expressly mandates law." therefore appropriate examine which, at passed, matters occurring general.10 9 Since 1946 minutes governed Procedure. In so many words, knowingly violated, "may punished contempt court."11 government case."12 There exception prohibition prior limited personnel performing specified enforcement function.13 Plainly permit unless directed court. 10 court, authorized 6(e)(3)(C) disclosures prohibited Secrecy. authority delineated series cases setting forth need."14 delineate precise contours case, because no attempt Court, see n. supra, consistently maintained shoulder burden.15 11 Thus, existed propositions clear: (1) approval; (2) secure action.16 passed blanket comparable case have there since affects disclosure.17 seeks If text left doubt recognition Secrecy removed history. First, proposed specifically plaintiffs completion proceedings. As reported Senate Judiciary Committee, provision eliminated requirement disclosure, subject court-imposed conditions, payment reasonable costs.18 sweeping invasion drew substantial criticism number Senators.19 A floor amendment section's scope, amended adopted Senate,20 informal House-Senate conference House conferees objected Senate's dropped.21 net effect these deliberations leave unchanged. 13 Second, specific explanation Senator Abourezk, manager legislation, confirms included compromise bill accepted conference. Hruska expressed his concern might require act "a massive document distribution center benefit officials,"22 Abourezk explained: 14 "The limits General's release whatever powers turn over given demand demand. Therefore, where turned voluntarily." 122 Cong.Rec. 29160 (1976). Abourezk's interpretation questioned.23 16 Third, treatment Civil Investigative Demands (CID's) our 4F(b). increases CID powers,24 manner kept strictly confidential. persons outside consent provider. 1313 (1976; amended, Supp. IV 1980). This safeguard rights individuals protect witnesses retaliation.25 those reasons underlie traditional accorded anomalous placed stringent silently abrogated permitting wholesale disclosure.26 17 Finally, argues implements policy federal/state giving attorneys important role According State, broad goal served facilitating virtually government's core Sherman price-fixing bid-rigging—are conducted outset means juries.27 narrow reading severely limit amount additional general. Further, asserts, difficult satisfy attempted discovery—a stage provide assistance State. 18 However correct assertions be, add include carefully statute. Congress, course, rule changing categories litigants.28 important, deeply-rooted traditions, we infer exercised expressing enforcement, price-fixers, sufficient.29 simply entire complied judicially-developed standards implementing Because judgment 19 ordered. 20 BRENNAN, whom O'CONNOR joins, concurring. 21 I join opinion. write separately my view district considers public interest, if any, governmental body," ante, 568, 15, consideration properly favoring circumstances. provisions agree relieve Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 211, 99 1667, 60 156 (1979); follow irrelevant balancing test. When clearly evincing foster governments aid them surely interest governments. Colonial Chevrolet Corp., 629 943 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 913, 101 1352, 67 337 (1981) (placing burden justifying nondisclosure opposing party); B.F. Goodrich Co., 619 798 (9th Cir.1980) (allowing "relevance"). Contra, re Grand Jury Investigation Cuisinarts, 665 24 (CA2 1981), pending, 81-1585 (§ general). June, 1978, corporations, individuals, labor union conspiring rig bids sheet metal projects Chicago area. Climatemp, 78 CR 388 (ND Ill.) 1979, corporations indicted piping Borg, 79 (felony); S.J. Reynolds 66 (misdemeanor). memorandum scheduled begin trial February 4, 1980. Four subsequently acquitted. Department, abeyance pending trial. (Justice returned); 5, (State relating indictments). response, furnished pages staff memoranda. respect court-ordered 9-10. Fed.R.Crim.P., provides, part: "Rule 6. (e) Recording Disclosure Proceedings. Proceedings.—* recording reporter's notes transcript prepared therefrom control Secrecy.—A juror, interpreter, stenographer, operator device, typist transcribes recorded testimony, government, person paragraph (3)(A)(ii) subdivision except provided rules. knowing violation (3) Exceptions. (C) made— (i) preliminarily connection proceeding; (ii) defendant, grounds exist motion dismiss indictment orders manner, time, conditions direct." 4F 15f provides: "(a) Whenever title thereof To title, shall, Similar behalf parties, including local entities private persons, treble defendants. took position regard petitions. consolidated various purposes argument decision. "Petitioners material. quest information often acquire reams hours later final charge. Its embarrassing, destructive third parties concerned called testify furnish evidence involves them. principal jurors sworn secrecy. duty following scrutiny injury corporations. Petitioners having done little than filing suit, seek all-encompassing, unparticularized type full very nature defeat spirit Procter Gamble [United 356 677, 983, 1077 (1958); (1979) ]. Their offends common-law protection innocent built into system earliest conception." Pet. Cert. 37a-38a. comments point carry weight because, Chief Judge large metropolitan district, unique familiarity problems associated supervision conduct juries. disposed need, appealable 28 1291 court's acknowledgment deprive finality. ruling docketed proceeding, 40a; contemplates judges presiding actions, id., 39a. See Sarbaugh, 552 768, 773-774 1977); cf. 231-233, S.Ct., 1679-1680 (REHNQUIST, J., concurring) (the granting "disposes contentions terminates proceeding court" "final decision" 1291). briefed argued, question, covered Respondents imposes automatic mandatory obligation apply, apply materials—which can Given statute's proviso law", address question separately. 6(e)(2), quoted 8. codifies long-standing common recognized "an integral justice system." 218, 8, 1672, Several distinct safeguarding confidentiality 219, 10, 1673, 10. Even jury's investigation, continued protects reputations safeguards possible retaliation. addition, completed necessary encourage fully freely future Id., 222, 1674. More generally, procedural investigation. 6(e)(1). 6(e)(3)(A)-(B). 221-224, 1674-1675. "Parties needed avoid injustice another greater secrecy, structured cover needed." 1674; U.S., 682, 986; Pittsburgh Plate Glass States, 360 395, 398-399, 1237, 1240, 1323 (1959); Dennis 384 855, 1840, 973 (1966). investigations. concedes exercise discretion determine proposes less restrictive need." Brief Petitioner 30-33, 42-43. undermine ongoing countervailing impose protective Ibid. amicus curiae petitioner similar Amicus Curiae 24-28. formulated, differs standard, preserved rejecting rule, stress weigh body—along requisite need—in determining secrecy." directly argue apart permits oral Assistant uncertainty regarding Transcript Cf. (expressing 4F(b)). Although interpreting terms would, "permitted law" made. S.Rep. 803, 94th Cong.2d Sess. 33-35, 128, 152 (1976) 202(l) S. 1284). Committee FTC 31-32 202(k)). See, e.g., supra 17, 203-204 (minority views five members Committee), 15318 (Sen. Thurmond); 15835 Allen); 17428-17431 Tower). proposal opposed Administration. 17038. leading opponents 212(l ), Allen, introduced substitute amendment, defeated Senate, identical wording 15852-53, 16824-16825, 17194. Allen's provision, coupled strong opposition 212(l), abrogate protections defendant plea contendere, parties. 15917-15918, 16922-16923. Amended June 17572. 29147. conference, bill, chart comparing versions. showed 1284 gave version provisions. noted provision. 29151-29152. chart's structure strongly contemplate 22 29144. 23 statement debate consistent committee report earlier statute, explains Department's "are prohibited." H.R. 499, Cong., 2d (1975). paraphrases statute; quite prohibits save conditions. Limited conferred Process 1962, Pub.L. 87-664, 76 Stat. 548. considerably expanded codified §§ 1311 seq. 25 H.R.Rep. 1343, 3, (1976); 30-31, U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News p. 2572; 29341 (explanation Sen. Hart). 26 Indeed, Report increased canvassing inadequacy each alternative, investigations, purposes. Division try empanel currently sweeping, compulsory body unearth Supreme Division's utilize tool. Gamble, (1958), 'if prosecution using procedures elicit flouting law.' That subvert criminally flagrant, willful offenses, debase 'by tarring respectable citizens brush crime deeds involve criminality.' " 24, 2600. 14-15. cites passages hearings aware 16, stressed usefulness urged adoption strengthened powers. has, occasion, precisely that. 1966 approved amendments copies statements juries; Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(A). 1977, assisting 6(e)(3)(A). 3500(e)(3) (Jencks Act). 29 legislation designed enhance effectiveness small consumers. availability forefront deliberations. difficulty achieving certification consumer complexity measuring distributing cases. 22, 3-8; 6-7, 39-40. remedy problems, institute parens patriae residents, 15c exempts requirements 23, 15c(a); allows computed aggregation techniques, 15d. Therefore exaggerates frustrated

Category: 0