308 F. Supp. 3d 314
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- In 1994 Kenneth W. Starr was appointed Independent Counsel; in 1998 his investigation expanded to probe alleged false statements and obstruction relating to President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, producing the multi‑volume Starr Report that quoted and cited grand jury material.
- CNN and journalist Katelyn Polantz sought unsealing of eleven Miscellaneous dockets from the D.D.C. files connected to the 1998 OIC (Independent Counsel) investigation; some docket contents were already summarized or reproduced in the Starr Report but the case numbers and many filings remained under seal on PACER/CM/ECF.
- The Court ordered initial unsealing of docket numbers and asked DOJ to review the eleven sealed dockets and propose redactions or continued sealing; DOJ submitted in camera proposals and notified affected individuals; President Clinton intervened and identified three additional related dockets.
- The legal question centered on disclosure of grand jury materials protected by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), balanced against (a) prior public disclosure in the Starr Report, (b) the court’s inherent supervisory authority to unseal, and (c) privacy and other secrecy interests (including documents related to a separate judicial‑misconduct inquiry).
- Applying the Second Circuit’s multi‑factor test (Craig factors), the court largely granted CNN’s petition: ten of the eleven dockets were unsealed in whole or in part, with two documents in each docket tied to a separate judicial‑misconduct probe retained under seal and other narrow redactions preserved for privacy/grand‑jury secrecy.
- The opinion stayed the unsealing briefly to permit DOJ to decide whether to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may unseal grand jury materials beyond Rule 6(e) exceptions | CNN: court has inherent supervisory authority to unseal when secrecy no longer required; public historical interest justifies release | DOJ: unsealing is limited to Rule 6(e) exceptions; court lacks authority to release on public‑interest grounds alone | Court: district courts have inherent authority to unseal; may consider Craig factors and order disclosure outside enumerated Rule 6(e) exceptions |
| Whether prior disclosure in the Starr Report removed Rule 6(e) protection for related docket materials | CNN: Starr Report already disclosed much grand jury material, reducing secrecy need | DOJ: some items discussed in Starr still leave other grand jury matter protected; seek to limit unsealing to material already public | Court: prior public disclosure weighs heavily toward unsealing; materials substantially reproduced in Starr may be unsealed; limited redactions allowed for still‑protected details |
| Treatment of documents tied to a separate judicial‑misconduct investigation | CNN: seek full unsealing of related filings | DOJ & court: those records implicate statutory confidentiality for judicial misconduct files and privacy; should remain sealed | Held: two documents in each docket that relate to the separate misconduct inquiry remain sealed |
| Handling of privacy and grand‑jury‑specific items (witness names, transcripts, subpoenas) | CNN: generally seeks unsealing, but accepted DOJ’s proposed redactions | DOJ: requests redactions to protect living witnesses, matters not disclosed in Starr, and specific subpoena details | Court: ordered narrow redactions where information was not previously public or implicated privacy/grand‑jury secrecy; otherwise unsealed the dockets and judicial opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 493 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir.) (explains loss of Rule 6(e) protection when once‑secret grand jury material becomes sufficiently widely known)
- Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1979) (recognized policy reasons for secrecy to protect grand jury process)
- Carlson v. United States, 837 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2016) (endorses district court discretion and inherent authority to release grand jury materials beyond enumerated Rule 6(e) exceptions)
- In re Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997) (articulates multi‑factor test courts may apply when exercising discretion to disclose grand jury records)
- Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (upheld district court’s exercise of inherent authority to disclose grand jury materials)
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958) (treats grand jury minutes as records of the court and explains court’s supervisory role over grand jury secrecy)