DOJ-OGR-00015144.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 Filed 08/11/25 Page 12 of 31

Id. (quoting United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681–82 n.2 (1958))
(alterations in original); see also In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 491–92.

The rule of secrecy is today embodied in Rule 6(e), which bars disclosure of grand jury
matters by persons privy to them: grand jurors, attorneys for the Government, court reporters,
operators of recording devices, and interpreters. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e)(3)
defines narrow exceptions. It authorizes disclosures:

• to other Government personnel assisting in the enforcement of federal criminal
law, id. at 6(e)(3)(A)–(B);

• to another federal grand jury, id. at 6(e)(3)(C);

• to law enforcement or national security officials, where the disclosures involve
foreign-intelligence or counter-intelligence information and assist in the
performance of official duties, id. at 6(e)(3)(D); and

• to persons as authorized by a court in the district where the grand jury convened,
id. at 6(e)(3)(E)–(F), provided the disclosure is: “preliminar[y] to or in
connection with a judicial proceeding,” id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(i); “at the request of a
defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because
of a matter that occurred before the grand jury,” id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(ii); “at the
request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use
in an official criminal investigation,” id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(iii); “at the request of the
government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian
tribal, or foreign criminal law,” provided that the disclosure is to an appropriate
such government official for the purpose of enforcing that law, id. at
6(e)(3)(E)(iv); or “at the request of the government if it shows that the matter
may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice,” provided that the disclosure is to an appropriate military
official for the purpose of enforcing that law, id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(v).

B. The “Special Circumstances” Doctrine

The Second Circuit has recognized that in “special circumstances,” the disclosure of
grand jury materials may be appropriate even where it is not authorized by Rule 6(e). The
Second Circuit developed this doctrine in three cases where disclosure was sought of grand jury
matters claimed to be of unusual historical or public interest. See In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 492–
93; In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 101–02; Laws.’ Comm. for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc. v. Garland, 43 F.4th

12

DOJ-OGR-00015144