Court Opinion

ID: 9468393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:13:49.286558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:51.096667
License: Public Domain

EAST, Senior District Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The major purpose or goal of § 4F(b) is to put the several states more readily into the antitrust business by lending them the federal investigative work product regarding antitrust violations.1 It is arguable whether congressional intent to open the grand jury’s investigative record to a requesting and proper state is directly stated in the legislation. Nevertheless such congressional intent is readily implied.2
*809The secrecy of the grand jury proceedings so reverently kept may be adequately preserved by an appropriate protective order of the District Court granting the release of any of the grand jury’s record.
I am persuaded by the interpretation of the legislation in United States v. Colonial Chevrolet Corp., 629 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1352, 67 L.Ed.2d 337 (1981), and United States v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 619 F.2d 798 (9th Cir. 1980), notwithstanding the majority’s view to the contrary. In order to resolve the conflict between the circuits which has now arisen, I would urge Congress to enact appropriate legislation clearly setting forth its intention in the premises.

. Notwithstanding remarks made during the Senate debate, the House Committee Report states that the Act provides
‘a new federal antitrust remedy which will permit the State attorneys general to recover monetary damages on behalf of State residents injured by violations of the antitrust laws. The [Hart-Scott-Rodino Act] is intended to compensate the victims of antitrust offenses, to prevent antitrust violators from being unjustly enriched, and to deter future antitrust violations.’ H.R.Rep.No.94-499, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, reprinted in [1976] U.S.Code Cong, and Admin.News, p. 2572.
* * * * * *
These statements and the Act itself indicate that Congress intended to make grand jury materials available to State attorneys general except where specifically prohibited and without a showing of particularized and compelling need. ... [The] Act was intended to create effective state antitrust enforcement and places the State attorneys general on a different footing than private parties seeking redress for antitrust violations.
United States v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 619 F.2d 798, 800-01 (9th Cir. 1980).

. Section 4F(b) was included in the final enactment of Title III of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 at the instance of the House conferees. See 122 Cong.Rec. at 29, September 7, 1976. The House expressed its intent in a report on an earlier, substantially similar version of the Act:
Section 4F promotes parens patriae actions as a major aspect of antitrust enforcement by encouraging Federal-State cooperation. The section provides that whenever the United States has brought suit in its proprietary capacity under § 4A of the Clayton Act, and the U. S. Attorney General believes that the same antitrust violation may have given rise to potential parens patriae claims, he shall notify the appropriate State attorneys general. Whenever a State attorney general so requests, in order to evaluate the notice from the U. S. Attorney General or in order to bring a parens patriae action, section 4F(b) requires the U. S. Attorney General to make the Justice Department’s investigative files available to the State attorneys general ‘to the extent permitted by law.’ This means that the files are to be made available except where specifically prohibited.

Section 4F(b) reñects the committee’s desire that the Federal Government cooperate fully with State antitrust enforcers.

The benefits of increases in Federal-State cooperation and coordination of antitrust en*809forcement are obvious, and are achieved in H.R. 8532 without the expenditure of additional Federal funds.
H.R.No.94 — 499, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 17 (1975), reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News, at pp. 2586-87. (Emphasis added.)
The need for access to grand jury materials is greater for states than for ordinary individuals because of the important place State attorneys general occupy in Congress’s scheme for antitrust enforcement. This need is met by section 4F(b) which, in our view, impliedly directs the Attorney General of the United States to disclose grand jury materials to State attorneys general without the showing of particularized and compelling need which is normally required by Rule 6(e).
B. F. Goodrich Co., 619 F.2d at 801.