United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 363,Docket 26166.,363 |
| Citation | 280 F.2d 52 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. INTERSTATE DRESS CARRIERS, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Louis Bender, New York City, for appellant.
Henry Geller, Washington, D. C. (Robert A. Bicks, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Richard A. Solomon, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. on the brief), for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and CLARK and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.
The single question presented by this appeal is whether Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., prohibits a government agency, authorized by statute to examine the financial records of persons subject to regulation by it, from inspecting these records when they are being held under a federal grand jury subpoena duces tecum. We agree with the district court that such inspection does not constitute a "disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury" proscribed by Rule 6(e) and we therefore affirm the order granting leave to inspect the records.
Appellant, Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc. (Interstate), is a trucking company subject to the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 301-327. Section 320(d) of that Act1 authorizes the Interstate Commerce Commission and its representatives "at all times" to inspect and copy the financial accounts and other records of persons subject to its provisions and requires such persons to submit their accounts and records for examination. Under the authority of this subsection the ICC sought access to certain of Interstate's records in connection with an investigation as to the completeness and accuracy of Interstate's reports concerning its finances and business affairs. Interstate was unable to comply with this request because the records had previously been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York and were in the custody of the Justice Department pursuant to the subpoena. In order that the ICC might inspect the records without awaiting their release by the grand jury and their return to the possession of Interstate, the Justice Department applied to the district court for leave to permit the ICC's representatives to examine and make copies of the subpoenaed records. Interstate opposed the application. It argued — unsuccessfully — that disclosure of the records to the ICC would (1) infringe upon the secrecy of the grand jury process in violation of Rule 6(e) and (2) abrogate the right of one whose records have been subpoenaed by a grand jury to object to their improper disclosure to third parties by permitting inspection of the records without the knowledge or consent of their owner.
Rule 6(e)2 embodies a long established policy of the federal courts to maintain the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. See United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 1958, 356 U.S. 677, 681, 78 S.Ct. 983, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077. Though the reasons for the policy are many, see United States v. Rose, 3 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 617, 628-629, the Rule is intended only to protect against disclosure of what is said or what takes place in the grand jury room. Documents as well as oral testimony of course may come within its proscription against disclosure. See, e. g., In re April 1956 Term Grand Jury, 7 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 263. However, it is not the purpose of the Rule to foreclose from all future revelation to proper authorities the same information or documents which were presented to the grand jury. Thus, when testimony or data is sought for its own sake — for its intrinsic value in the furtherance of a lawful investigation — rather than to learn what took place before the grand jury, it is not a valid defense to disclosure that the same information was revealed to a grand jury or that the same documents had been, or were presently being, examined by a grand jury. In the Matter of Hearings Before the Committee on Banking and Currency of the United States Senate, D.C.N.D.Ill.1956, 19 F.R. D. 410; State v. Kemp, 1928, 124 Conn. 639, 1 A.2d 761.
In the present case the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fiumara v. Higgins
...is intended to protect against disclosure of what is said or what takes place in the grand jury room. United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir.1960). "Reading Rule 6(e) to cover government investigation that may lead to a grand jury probe would raise a host ......
-
Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., Matter of
...several Rule 6(e) order cases, the hearing was adversary in nature. See, e.g., Sarbaugh, 552 F.2d at 773; United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1960); Application of California, 195 F.Supp. 37 (E.D.Pa.1961). In a case interpreting the amended rule, however, ......
-
U.S. v. Stanford
...defense to disclosure that the same documents had been, or were presently being, examined by a grand jury. United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960). Unlike testimony, documents are created for purposes other than the grand jury investigation; they are there......
-
NATHAN DIRECTOR v. Commissioner
...to a grand jury or that the same documents had been, or were presently being, examined by a grand jury. United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960); Anaya v. United States, supra at 1374; United States ex. rel. Woodard v. Tynan, supra at 1088, and cases ......
-
Privileges
...See In re Grand Jury Investigation United States v. Doe, 59 F.3d 17, 19 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960); Nat’l Ry. Utilization Corp. v. Ass’n of Am. R.R. , 1983-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 65,671 (E.D. Pa. 1983). b. Identity of grand......
-
Table of Cases
...376 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), 101 United States v. Int’l Bldg. Co., 345 U.S. 502 (1953), 254 United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1960), 125 United States v. Irvin, 682 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2012), 30, 31 United States v. Jackson, 549 F.2d 517 (8th Cir. 1977), 21 Uni......
-
Table of Cases
...18 United States v. IBM, 79 F.R.D. 412 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), 137 234 Antitrust Discovery Handbook United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, 280 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1960), 180, 183, 184 United States v. J.M. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356 (M.D.N.C. 1996), 207 United States v. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345 (7th......
-
Obtaining Documents and Testimony Presented Before A Grand Jury
...well as grand jury transcripts. SEC v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1383 (D.C. Cir. 1980); United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960). Specifically, Rule 6(e) provides that: Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a mat......