United States v. DeNunzio, 1:14-cr-10284

Gattineri was prosecuted for alleged wire fraud and conspiracy, tried, and acquitted after a 14-day federal jury trial.
Gattineri is a member of FBT Everett Realty, which granted Wynn an option to buy land for $75M; Wynn later revalued and purchased the parcel for $35M after FBT accepted a reduced price.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission required FBT owners to sign ownership certifications; Gattineri initially refused but alleges Wynn executive DeSalvio promised to "make [him] whole" (≈$18.676M) and he then signed; Wynn later declined to pay.
Gattineri filed a civil suit against Wynn alleging breach of contract, fraud, and c.93A claims seeking the alleged promised payment.
In the related criminal case this Court entered two protective orders covering investigatory materials; Gattineri moved to amend those orders to allow disclosure of specified materials (grand jury testimony, FBI 302s, sworn interviews, IEB reports) to his civil counsel.
The Court denied the motion: it held Rule 6(e) secrecy barred disclosure of certain items and, for the remaining items, found no "good cause" to modify the protective orders after balancing reliance, changed circumstances, prejudice, and privacy interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) bars disclosure of the identified materials	Only three items are grand jury materials; disclosure is needed for impeachment in the civil case and can be authorized under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i)	All listed materials are subject to Rule 6(e) secrecy and cannot be disclosed absent a strong showing	Court found only three items arguably subject to Rule 6(e) and that Gattineri failed to show need outweighs secrecy; disclosure of those items denied
Whether there is "good cause" to modify the protective orders for the remaining materials	Materials are relevant impeachment evidence for the civil suit and disclosure would be narrowly tailored to counsel	Government relied on protective orders; no changed circumstances; Gattineri has not used civil discovery tools; third-party privacy interests weigh against disclosure	After balancing prejudice, changed circumstances, reliance, and privacy, Court concluded no good cause to amend protective orders and denied the request

Douglas Oil Co. of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (1979) (grand jury secrecy is essential and Rule 6(e) scope is broad)
Church of Scientology Intern. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 30 F.3d 224 (1st Cir. 1994) (documents created independently of a grand jury are not automatically protected; government must show disclosure would harm grand jury secrecy)
United States v. Bulger, 283 F.R.D. 46 (D. Mass. 2012) (district courts apply good-cause balancing when considering modification of protective orders)
United States v. Swartz, 945 F. Supp. 2d 216 (D. Mass. 2013) (similar approach to Rule 16/Rule 6(e) disclosure and protective-order modification)