Legal Document

60 United States Supreme Court Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 156 99 Reporter 1667 441 U.S. 211 DOUGLAS OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Petitioners,v.PETROL STOPS NORTHWEST al. Number 77-1547. Argued Dec. 5, 1978. Decided April 18, 1979. Syllabus Respondents are independent gasoline dealers, one of which operates in Arizona and several other States, two operate the vicinity Tucson, Ariz. They brought civil antitrust actions District against large oil companies, including petitioners. While these proceedings were pretrial stages, a Government investigation Central California culminated an indictment for illegal price fixing California, Arizona, elsewhere, petitioners all ultimately pleaded nolo contendere. After unavailing discovery requests, respondents petitioned to order release certain grand jury transcripts under Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(e)(2)(C)(i), provides disclosure "when so directed by court preliminarily or connection with judicial proceeding." The Antitrust Division did not object disclosure. Over petitioners' objection, transcripts' was ordered subject various protective conditions. Appeals affirmed, relying upon versus Procter & Gamble Co., 356 677, 78 983, 2 1077, held that parties seeking must show material sought is needed avoid possible injustice another proceeding; need exceeds continued secrecy; request covers only needed. found secrecy substantial factor as proceeding had concluded three years before already been released Although conceded it knew little about proceedings, speculated would facilitate prosecution suits. Held: 1. courts below err selecting standard governing Rule 6(e). Though veil should be lifted unnecessarily, recognized some situations justice may demand discrete portions made available subsequent proceedings. Here clear demonstrated particularized outweighed interest secrecy, correctly understood applied Gamble, supra. Pp. 217-224. 2. In this case, however, having custody abused its discretion issuing order, concededly no dependable knowledge status of, needs in, based decision largely unsupported assertions counsel during oral argument, supplemented inadequate data such criminal complaints. Even comparison those documents clearly what portions, if any, pertinent actions, involved same territory case. Under circumstances, better practice have Court, after making written evaluation determination limited evidence showed might appropriate, send requested materials where cases pending. 224-231. 571 Federal Reporter, 2nd 1127, reversed remanded. Max L. Gillam, Los Angeles, Cal., Daniel Berman, Salt Lake City, Utah, private respondents. Sara S. Beale, Detroit, Mich., respondent U. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents intertwined questions concerning litigant's right obtain transcripts1 federal First, justification party overcome presumption applicable transcripts? Second, assess strength showing—the action pending, acts custodian documents? * Respondent Petrol Stops Northwest retailer unaffiliated any major company. 1973, operated 104 service stations located Oregon, Washington, States. On December 13, filed 12 Douglas Oil company Phillips Petroleum Co.2 complaint, alleged on January 1, there sharp reduction amount offered sale it, resulted from conspiracy among companies restrain trade gasoline, violation §§ Sherman Act. 26 Statutes-at-Large 209, amended, 15 Code KF62 As part conspiracy, charged, their codefendants fixed prices at retail wholesale distribution levels Oregon Washington.3 3 Gas-A-Tron Coinoco also independently sell through they own lease. Unlike Northwest, operations November 2, complaint naming defendants nine petitioner Co.4 Like Coinco supply sharply reduced, attributed specific charges behavior asserted retailers substantially paralleled included allegation levels.5 4 issues same, assigned different judges Arizona. February 1974, served set interrogatories state whether either time between 1968, 14, (sic), communication competitors sold retailers. Petitioners asked produce communications. responded aware communications, therefore could request.6 5 meantime, Department investigating since 1972 pricing west coast See App. 26. investigation, employees called testify empaneled California. Government's March 19, 1975, when returned charging four conspired fix "rebrand gasoline" Nevada, Arizona.7 price-fixing begun July 1970 least until end 1971. 6 initially six charged guilty, each contendere fined $50,000. Before changing pleas, petitioners, acting pursuant 16(a)(1)(A), give them copies testimony given jury. Their granted, appears continue possess transcripts. 7 October 1976, requests Civ.Proc. 34 production possession. objected production, arguing relevant likely lead admissible evidence. pursue motion trial 37 compel discovery. n. 17, infra. Rather, petition asking court, guardian 6(e), An attorney appeared indicated objection respondents' receiving 16(a)(1)(A). He suggested real opportunity heard. accepted suggestion, participated adverse 8 briefing Chief Division's Angeles Office "to [respondents'] inspection copying previously disclosed Company attorneys relating Phillips, Criminal Docket 75-377." 48-49. subject, "be [respondents] actions" pending Furthermore, court's "may used . solely purpose impeaching witness refreshing recollection witness, deposition trial" actions. Finally, forbade further reproduction matter turned over respondents, "upon completion purposes authorized Order." 9 appeal, Ninth Circuit affirmed order. 1127 (1978). noted 1077 (1958), access "particularized need." evaluating shown present considered factors: material. former insubstantial, claim, but suits: Petitioners' answers 1974 communications odds pleas action. II 10 contend erred holding that, because dissolved defendants, "slight need" disclosure.8 According approach 6(e) contrary prior decisions indicating "a litigant demonstrate compelling necessity specified proper." Brief 16. 11 We consistently proper functioning our system depends See, e. g., supra.9 particular, we distinct interests safeguarding confidentiality preindictment public, many prospective witnesses hesitant come forward voluntarily, knowing whom testimony. Moreover, who less fully frankly, open retribution well inducements. There risk indicted flee, try influence individual jurors vote indictment. preserving assure persons accused exonerated will up public ridicule.10 For reasons, reluctant lift unnecessarily At time, has use Socony-Vacuum 310 150, 233-234, 811, 849, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940). Indeed, recognition occasional litigants led provision 6(e)(2)(C)(i) proceeding."11 13 accommodate competing ruling "without transcript defense greatly prejudiced without reference done." U.S., 682, S.Ct., 986. required showing "with particularity" "the [may] discretely limitedly." Id., 683, 987. Accord, Pittsburgh Plate Glass 360 395, 400, 79 1237, 1241, 1323 (1959). 14 Dennis 384 855, 86 1840, 16 973 (1966), records quite circumstances. It abuse refuse disclose earlier activities defendants. completed whose testified matters. "[n]one reasons traditionally advanced justify nondisclosure minutes" significant id., 872 1850 whereas witnesses' inconsistent From emerges determining traditional broken: Parties seek proceeding, greater than structured cover needed.12 Such even operations, Dennis. considering effects consider immediate particular jury, effect future juries. Persons likelihood day outside parties. Fear social stigma act powerful deterrents aid performance duties. Concern consequences frank full heightened employee investigation. Thus, although eliminated merely ended activities.13 appropriate outweighs burden demonstrating balance rests equally considerations justifying become relevant, asserting lesser justification. Illinois Sarbaugh, 552 768, 774 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Judge Simmons Illinois, 434 889, 98 262, 54 174 (1977); Industries, Incorporated 345 21 (CA9), denied, 382 814, 32, 62 (1965); C. Wright, Practice Procedure § 106, Page 173 (1969). sum, often situation jurisprudence, duty kind weigh carefully light circumstances standards announced And ordered, include limitations material, emphasize determine necessarily infused discretion. supra, 399, 1240, 1323. 17 Applying principles conclude neither nor assessed question secrecy. 53-55. Similarly, enunciated requires examine extent continuing disclosure, directly disclosure.14 III 18 contend, irrespective legal applied, rule note both purported base Arizona.15 consideration nature matters peculiarly within competence 19 important one, heretofore occasion direct minutes 6(e).16 addressed generally said toward auspices empaneled. 772-773; Gibson 131 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 144, 403 166, 167 (1968); Herman Schwabe, Shoe Machinery Corp., F.R.D. 233, 235 (1957); accord, 174. But see American 264 F.Supp. 93, 95 (ED Mo.1966). choice file supervised control transcripts.17 20 Quite apart practical necessity, policies underlying dictate jury's supervisory participate reviewing best position Ideally, judge review he first-hand activities. district sat able discover facts affecting more easily elsewhere around country. readily reference. personnel particularly Attorney's office worked jury—are informed experience request. conclude, therefore, general, does follow, every make final granted. Where, district, firsthand litigation allegedly needed, means can obtained. cannot manner maintaining impossible apply reiterated above, lifted. 221-224. 22 Electrical Equipment Cases, contemplated similar quandary. Following convictions 29 heavy electrical equipment manufacturers fixing, 1,900 damages suits Districts Note, Release Grand Jury Minutes National Deposition Program 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1133 (1964). During suits, plaintiffs Eastern Pennsylvania witness' refresh memory deposition. Philadelphia Westinghouse Electric 210 486 Pa.1962). Clary, charge difficulty, setting forth detail his 23 Recognizing, Courts related face control, Clary outlined procedure put requests. words: 24 "[T]he deposed [these suits], district. probably instances national depositions advisable. refusal [to case] out camera examination uncovers discrepancy concealed, failed remember, necessary uncover complete allowed. If, taken program, testimony, camera, immediately him. then contrast determine, discretion, disclosure." 491. 25 Because discussed care concerns him, motions way, provided precisely situation: coordinating views propriety disclosing minutes. Several courts, recognizing collaboration, devised collateral re 1975-2 Investigation, 566 1293, 1296 (CA5 1978); F.2d, 773 5; Baker Steel 492 1074, 1076-1077 (CA2 1974); U.S.App.D.C., 144-145, 167-168. entirely beyond expertise. hundred miles away 58. Nonetheless, Generally leave response duty, guide exercise overturn discretionary (1966). 27 find here releasing requested. Appreciating ignorant nonetheless judgment relative disclosure.18 argument complaints, single interrogatory plea complaints indicate unambiguously what, named covered. 28 possibility unnecessary breach insignificant. A familiar course seen differences allegations contours prove actions—differences value save perhaps mechanism general Alternatively, point premature; conflicts statements preferred wait ripened trial. pending.19 armed special evaluated respective evaluations.20 30 do suggest, course, arising Circumstances cooperative districts vary, procedures deal variations left rulemaking established Congress. Undoubtedly intelligently, basis knowledge, decide plainly inappropriate requesting party, court. Our today restricted situations, presented unlikely suit desired used. 31 reversed, remanded consistent opinion. 32 ordered. 33 REHNQUIST, concurring. N Immigration Nationality Decisions join Court's agree conclusions merits issue availability treble-damages plaintiffs. feel unnoticed, total absence took jurisdiction "appeal" granting am handicapped formulating view my assistance us properly "in" 1254. Liberty Mutual Life insurance Wetzel, 424 737, 96 1202, 47 435 (1976). losing appeal deciding treated separate conducted proceeding. 35 like (1958). 34.* granted discovery, deliberately default "final judgment" 29. 680, 985. absent extraordinary hold denial reviewable, except way mandamus gross Cobbledick 309 323, 540, 783 36 Two approaches appealability orders regarding Compare 1074 1974), 768 (1977). Since effort appellate directing applying factual permutations raise require analysis terms decided. example, sure transferring decision, ante, 230, appealable. Nor Seventh authority exercises type believe disposes contentions terminates appealable decision" 1291. 773. If correct conclusion, "in appeals" notice certiorari Satisfied now jurisdictional predicate merits. STEVENS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE STEWART join, dissenting. 38 last paragraphs opinion, conclusion sitting conditions stated More fundamentally, share readiness Judge's broad egregious confirmation Appeals.1 39 acted, allowed explain opposition transcripts,2 communicate Judges Arizona,3 obtained Justice,4 compared treble damages.5 Everything attention supported highly litigation,6 concrete irrelevance rebuttal,7 passed procedural opportunities showing.8 protecting retaliation remained. foresaw problems. 40 Had request, exercised did. today's holding, wrong. nearly troubling expansive function area usually latitude.9 Whatever validity, surely very wide mark. Accordingly, move decisively direction equating "abuse discretion" disagrees. rearrangement roles courts. "Transcripts" herein refer verbatim recordings Also Continental (an affiliate Oil); Gulf Co.; Shell Exxon Corp.; Mobil Union California; Amoco Standard Indiana; Armour addition, tied leasing stations, entered into concerted retailers, maintained monopoly refinery capacity predatory prices. Diamond Shamrock. violated Robinson-Patman Act, 49 1526, 13-13b 21a, selling affiliated favorable interrogatory, stated: "[S]ince October, 1969, Phillips' policy refrain conversations buying competitor product being bought obviously discussed." Record 6. addition Powerene Fletcher Refining Golden Eagle MacMillan Ring-Free codefendants. alleged, part, co-conspirators engaged unlawful combination restraint trade, Section Act Congress 1890, amended (15 1), commonly known aforesaid consisted agreement, understanding concert co-conspirators, increase, fix, stabilize maintain rebrand gasoline." 126-127. "Rebrand defined mean "gasoline resale trademark brand name owned controlled refiner." 124. undisputed purchased meaning initial matter, argue lack standing remaining one. 456 1043 (CA3 1972) (per curiam ). Contra, Article adversaries result injury them. Warth Seldin, 422 490, 499, 2197, 2205, 45 343 (1975). assert legally protected rulings One promoted protection innocent accusations him 10, contendere, entitled protection, returned. 17th century, closed kept eye. Calkins, Secrecy, 63 Mich.L.Rev. 455, 457 (1965). imported common law integral system. Costello 350 359, 362, 76 406, 408, 100 397 (1956); Johnson, 319 503, 513, 1233, 1238, 87 1546 (1943). codifies requirement secret, providing: "A juror, interpreter, stenographer, operator recording device, typist transcribes recorded [or] shall occurring otherwise rules. punished contempt court." originally criminally overreaching Crown, came viewed 681-682, 6, 986, summarized Rose, 215 617, 628-629 1954): " '(1) To prevent escape contemplated; (2) insure utmost freedom deliberations, friends importuning jurors; (3) subornation perjury tampering [the] later appear it; (4) encourage free untrammeled disclosures information respect commission crimes; (5) protect fact expense probability guilt.' full: "(e) Secrecy Proceedings Disclosure.— "(1) General Rule.—A Government, person paragraph (2)(A)(ii) subdivision No obligation imposed accordance rule. "(2) Exceptions.— "(A) Disclosure prohibited deliberations to— "(i) government attorney's duty; "(ii) deemed assist enforce law. "(B) Any subparagraph (A)(ii) utilize assisting promptly provide impaneled disclosed, names made. "(C) made— permitted defendant, grounds exist dismiss "(3) Sealed indictments.—The magistrate secret defendant Thereupon clerk seal return issuance execution warrant summons." 1977, changes bear 987, typical arises seeks impeach recollection, test credibility like." misleading trier fact. strictly aspect target enhance retaliatory employers factors supporting remain considered. out, say need," "minimal suffice. 1130 context, read unjustified lowering proof say, incorrect discussion thereof below. "prima facie" "because inquiry relation concerned." mere relevance [requested]." 1130. transcripts, location giving rise Juris. Statement O.T.1957, 51, 3. (1959), prologue. noted, virtue possession 216. defending Tr. Oral Arg., 35-36. appears, power derived retention suggests, questionable surrounding 53. whatsoever relationship two. Contrary dissenting post, 3, 8, "admonish judge" concluding recognize ruling. court—whose lot request—had authoritative guidance followed familiarity afford kind. Apparently difficult position, offered, "through overabundance precaution telephone [the presiding proceedings] objection" suggestion offer suitable substitute referring Court: busy formal receive. informal evaluate first hand contained. argues failure justified regardless implications. ibid. With great sensitivity impinging interest, specify relief entitled. carte blanche argued lacked expertise fair today, express Only moved 678 984 defendants' claims 34. 681, record similarities contest went further. additional submissions finding premised discrepancies bill particulars recent 1130-1131. second-guesses terms, second de novo information. nominal oppose allow hearing "real interest," acceded suggestion. 52, 90-100. outright forced 37. recipients following statement: "I glad precaution, you think Walsh Frey doesn't seem me relegate people application step coming here." 56. Instead responding "appropriate" once again argument—implicitly rejected decision—that simply relegated entire Civil 226. relied exclusively admittedly invalid bar new transferred cognizable here, inexplicable accommodation sua sponte—orally communicating announcing collective himself—is slightly majority chosen—formally forcing announce decisions. 230-231. 61. 57-59, 118-167. 1131. follows: "As far relevance, prima facie counsel, "main thrust" irrelevant suit. Instead, primary reliance 226, instance. 55-56. When reach comments tentative best. 57 (emphasis added): "MR. THURSTON [counsel Oil]: were—not possible. concerned number sale, levels, involve territory." accepting consult relevance. 874, 1851, 973. area, harsh admonish failing take steps taken. recognizes customary determinations "considered lower 228, citing 1323, finds support rather exacting Dennis, withheld thereby run afoul "that suppression, ordinarily promotes administration justice." 870-871, 1849 added), Jencks 353 657, 77 1007, 1103. Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 215. permissible scope qualified analogous favoring reached here.

Classification Label: 0