In RE Petition of Luke NICHTER
253 F. Supp. 3d 160
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Professor Luke Nichter petitioned to unseal District Court records related to United States v. Liddy (Watergate), seeking in particular the contents of conversations monitored by Alfred C. Baldwin III on an illegal DNC wiretap and grand jury materials.
- DOJ agreed some files could be unsealed but objected to: (1) presentence reports and private-documents, (2) substance of illegally obtained wiretaps, and (3) grand jury information.
- The Court previously unsealed non-contested records and ordered DOJ to submit under seal documents it sought to keep sealed; NARA released ~950 pages; the Court later ordered additional limited unsealing (names of those overheard and certain PSRs) but kept wiretap contents and grand jury records sealed.
- Nichter moved under Rule 59(e) to alter that judgment, proposing narrow/redacted release of wiretap contents and arguing changed circumstances (support for disclosure, deaths of some Watergate figures, later authority).
- The Court treated the June 24, 2013 letter as a Rule 59(e) motion and denied it, finding no intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error warranting amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may unseal substance of illegally obtained wiretap communications | Nichter: release content with precise redactions for historical value, minimal privacy harm | DOJ: Title III bars dissemination of wiretap contents; privacy and statutory prohibition persist | Denied — Title III prohibits disclosure of wiretap contents; only identities (not substance) may be released under statutory definition change |
| Whether court may unseal grand jury materials under a "special circumstances" exception | Nichter: historical importance, changed circumstances, support from figures and historians justify disclosure | DOJ: Rule 6(e) grand jury secrecy and privacy interests of non-indicted persons outweigh disclosure | Denied — no special circumstances shown to overcome Rule 6(e); privacy and secrecy interests persist |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Am. Airlines, 389 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standards for Rule 59(e) motions)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (standard for altering judgment)
- Chandler v. U.S. Army, 125 F.3d 1296 (9th Cir. 1997) (Title III applies to private dissemination of intercepted communications)
- Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 F.3d 211 (This citation in text is to U.S. Supreme Court doctrine on grand jury secrecy) (grand jury secrecy and Rule 6(e) background)
- In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d 489 (2d Cir. 1973) (historical tradition of grand jury secrecy)
- In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997) (formulation of "special circumstances" test for grand jury disclosure)
- Carlson v. United States, 837 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2016) (recognition of courts' inherent authority to release grand jury material in exceptional cases)
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (1958) (grand jury secrecy protects privacy of unindicted persons)
- Center for Nat. Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (mosaic theory justification for withholding sensitive information)