DOJ-OGR-00015146.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 Filed 08/11/25 Page 14 of 31

(v) how long ago the grand jury proceedings took place;

(vi) the current status of the principals of the grand jury proceedings and that of their families;

(vii) the extent to which the desired material—either permissibly or impermissibly—has been previously made public;

(viii) whether witnesses to the grand jury proceedings who might be affected by disclosure are still alive; and

(ix) the additional need for maintaining secrecy in the particular case in question.

Id.

The doctrine is to be applied only in “exceptional circumstances,” and it does not justify granting “garden variety” petitions for disclosure unauthorized by Rule 6(e). Id. at 103 (citation omitted). The burden is on the requestor to demonstrate that disclosure is appropriate, and “the baseline presumption [is] against disclosure.” Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11, 43 F.4th at 285 (alteration in original). “[T]he discretion of a trial court in deciding whether to make public the ordinarily secret proceedings of a grand jury investigation is one of the broadest and most sensitive exercises of careful judgment that a trial judge can make.” In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 104; see also Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11, 43 F.4th at 285–86.

IV. Discussion

A. The Government’s Basis for Claiming “Special Circumstances”

No Rule 6(e)(3) exception authorizes the disclosure the Government proposes here: of, subject to redactions, all testimony and exhibits before the two grand juries that indicted Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government’s motion to unseal does not contend otherwise. It does not argue that these materials would aid federal, state, military, tribal, or foreign law enforcement; or would be relevant to national security officials, another grand jury, or another judicial proceeding. Nor does the Government (or Maxwell) argue that the materials could reveal a

14

DOJ-OGR-00015146