Court Opinion

ID: 9475210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:20:02.851098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:18.910818
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result only.
I agree the order of the district court should be affirmed but not for the reasons set forth in the panel opinion.1 I would not remand the case for reconsideration. Accordingly, I concur in the result only.
I agree that we have appellate jurisdiction to review the order of the district court under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. At 678.
As I read the district court’s order, the district court held only that “in the face of the specific command” of Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2), it lacked authority to issue the protective order. In re Grand Jury Subpoena No. GJ 31, 628 F.Supp. 580, 581 (W.D. Ark.1986). Contra at 677. The district court expressly noted that its discussion of the inadequacy of the government’s specific factual showing was hypothetical and premised upon a proposition that was inconsistent with its analysis and holding. 628 F.Supp. at 581.
I believe the district court correctly held that under Rule 6(e)(2) it did not have the authority to impose an obligation of secre-
*682cy upon a grand jury witness. Fed.R. Crim.P. 6(e)(2) sets forth a general rule of secrecy with respect only to certain specific persons involved in the grand jury proceedings (grand jurors, interpreters, stenographers, recorders, typists, government attorneys, and certain other government personnel) and expressly provides that “[n]o obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with this rule.” The advisory committee notes state that subdivision (e)(2) “does not impose any obligation of secrecy on witnesses.” Fed.R. Crim.P. 6(e)(2) advisory committee note. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 575 F.Supp. 1219, 1221 (E.D. Pa.1983) (“explicit directive” of Rule 6(e) cannot be overridden by court’s general supervisory authority over grand juries); In re Grand Jury Subpoena (East National Bank), 517 F.Supp. 1061, 1066 (D.Colo.1981); In re Vescovo Special Grand Jury, 473 F.Supp. 1335, 1336 (C.D. Cal.1979); cf. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 558 F.Supp. 532 (W.D.Va.1983) (“systematic debriefing” of grand jury witnesses permitted); In re Grand Jury Summoned October 12, 1970, 321 F.Supp. 238 (N.D.Ohio 1970) (same). Thus, I would hold that the bank, like any other grand jury witness, is free to decide whether or not to notify its customers of the subpoena. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena (East National Bank), 517 F.Supp. at 1067.
I would also hold that the “compelling necessity ... shown with particularity” standard is inconsistent with the express language of Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2). Several cases do contain language suggesting that in certain situations the district court would be justified in imposing restrictions upon disclosure by grand jury witnesses under its inherent power to effect the proper administration of justice. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 574 F.Supp. 85, 86 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (no “particularized showing of need for secrecy”); In re Grand Jury Subpoena (East National Bank), 517 F.Supp. at 1066 (“very limited circumstances”); In re Swearingen Aviation Corp., 486 F.Supp. 9, 11 (D.Md.) (Swearingen) (when “necessary to protect the legitimate investigative function of the grand jury”), pet. for mandamus denied, 605 F.2d 125 (4th Cir.1979) (per curiam). However, Swearingen is the only case in which such an obligation of secrecy was actually imposed upon grand jury witnesses, and its precedential value is limited. The Fourth Circuit refused to order the district court to vacate its protective orders, but its refusal was expressly based upon its determination that only financial institutions, not the customers of financial institutions, had standing to contest the protective orders and thus did not reach the merits. 605 F.2d at 126. More importantly,
[a]ny reasons for a secrecy requirement, including the government’s attempt to prevent subornation of perjury, suppression of evidence, or falsification of documents, would apply with equal force to the presentation of oral testimony as to the production of documentary evidence. See United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n. 6 [78 S.Ct. 983, 986 n. 6] (1958).... [Tjhere is no distinction for purposes of Rule 6(e) between a witness’s freedom to disclose his [or her] oral testimony before a grand jury and his [or her] freedom to disclose what documentary evidence the witness has been compelled to provide to the grand jury.
In re Vescovo Special Grand Jury, 473 F.Supp. at 1336.
Because I would hold the district court correctly determined that under Rule 6(e)(2) it did not have the authority to impose an obligation of secrecy upon a grand jury witness, I agree the order of the district court should be affirmed. Accordingly, I concur in the result only.

. I also reject the government’s argument based upon § 1109 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (RFPA), 12 U.S.C. § 3409, and the definition of the term “witness” in Fed.R. Crim.P. 6. In view of the analysis of the panel decision, it was unnecessary for the court to reach these issues. However, I write separately to set forth why I believe the government’s arguments on these issues are without merit.
The government’s first argument that the district court has the authority to issue protective orders imposing secrecy upon bank officials pursuant to § 1109 of the RFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 3409, is not persuasive. The RFPA generally requires a governmental authority seeking production of financial records from a financial institution to provide notice to the financial institution’s customer. Section 3409 permits a court to order that the required notice may be delayed under certain circumstances (where there is reason to believe that notice will result in endangering life or physical safety of any person, flight from prosecution, destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, or otherwise seriously jeopardizing on-going investigation). Id. § 3409(a)(3).
The RFPA expressly states that it does not apply to "any subpoena or court order issued in connection with proceedings before a grand jury.” Id. § 3413(i) (exception for § 3415 (cost reimbursement) and § 3420 (limited use of financial information obtained pursuant to grand jury subpoena)); see, e.g., In re Swearingen Aviation Corp., 486 F.Supp. 9, 11 n. 1 (D.Md.), pet. for mandamus denied, 605 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1979) (per curiam). In addition, the RFPA imposes a series of requirements on the "government authority” seeking financial records. See [id.] §§ 3405-3408. Nothing in the [RPFA] imposes a duty on the financial institution other than compliance with subpoenas. See [id.] § 3411. Section [3409] only relieves the Government, and not the institution, from an obligation to serve copies of subpoenas and requests on customers.
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 575 F.Supp. 1219, 1221 (E.D.Pa.1983).
The government also argues that the bank is not necessarily a grand jury "witness” for purposes of Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2) because the bank can comply with the subpoena by delivering the documents to the government agent and thus need not actually appear before the grand jury. If the bank is not a "witness,” then Rule 6(e)(2) does not apply and the district court can order the bank not to notify its customer of the subpoena. Compare In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Castiglione), 587 F.Supp. 1210, 1212 (E.D.Cal. 1984) (RFPA requires personal appearance and delivery of documents to grand jury by records custodian), with United States v. A Residence Located at 218 3rd St., 622 F.Supp. 908, 914-15 (W.D.Wis.1985) (RFPA does not require personal appearance and delivery of documents to grand jury by records custodian). I believe the government’s argument is superficial. The bank is a "witness” whether or not it can comply with the subpoena without personally appearing before the grand jury. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena (East National Bank), 517 F.Supp. 1061, 1066 (D.Colo.1981).