In Re Petition of Kutler
800 F. Supp. 2d 42
D.D.C.2011Background
- Kutler et al. petition to unseal Nixon grand jury transcript from June 23-24, 1975 and Watergate Special Prosecution Force materials at NARA; petition framed under inherent supervisory authority, not Rule 6(e).
- Government opposes, arguing disclosure must fit Rule 6(e) exceptions; petition seeks extraordinary disclosure under special circumstances.
- Nixon testified for eleven hours; transcript content remains largely sealed; last grand jury activities concluded with the third Watergate grand jury in July 1975.
- Court considers whether courts may disclose grand jury materials outside Rule 6(e) in exceptional circumstances under the special circumstances doctrine.
- Court ultimately grants petition to unseal subject to NARA review procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may unseal grand jury material outside Rule 6(e) in exceptional circumstances | Kutler argues for inherent supervisory power with special circumstances | U.S. argues Rule 6(e) controls secrecy and exceptions are limited | Yes, in exceptional circumstances under the special circumstances doctrine |
| What factors govern the special circumstances analysis | Craig factors support disclosure given historical importance | Privacy and age of records weigh against disclosure | Craig factors apply; historical significance weighs in favor, privacy interests minimal |
| Do privacy interests of named individuals defeat disclosure here | Privacy concerns are outweighed by public historical interest | Privacy protections remain a key consideration | Privacy concerns are minimal and outweighed by public historical value |
| Does NARA review procedure sufficiently mitigate privacy concerns | NARA procedures ensure privacy review before disclosure | Unsealed records still risk privacy exposure | NARA review procedures adequately mitigate privacy concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d 489 (2d Cir.1973) (grand jury secrecy with recognized exceptions to Rule 6(e))
- Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1959) (Rule 6(e) secrecy and discretion of courts)
- In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.1997) (special circumstances test for disclosure beyond Rule 6(e))
- Hastings, 735 F.2d 1261 (11th Cir.1984) (court's inherent power to develop exceptions to Rule 6(e))
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 493 F.3d 152 (D.C.Cir.2007) (disclosure where material had become widely known; outside Rule 6(e))
- In re Report and Recommendation to release grand jury, 370 F.Supp. 1219 (D.D.C.1974) (judge's discretionary disclosure before House Judiciary Committee)
- In re Petition of Am. Historical Ass'n, 49 F.Supp.2d 274 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (historical significance justifying disclosure)
- In re Petition of Nat'l Sec. Archive, No. 08-civ-6599 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (historical significance justifying disclosure)
- In re May, No. M 11-189 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (age and historical importance supporting disclosure)