Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury Directed to Custodian of Records, In re
Citation | 864 F.2d 1559 |
Decision Date | 06 February 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88-3807,88-3807 |
Parties | , 51 Ed. Law Rep. 118, 16 Media L. Rep. 1165 In re SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY DIRECTED TO CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, University of Florida Athletic Program. The Gainesville Sun Publishing Corporation, The Tribune Company, Campus Communications, Inc., and The University of Florida Chapter of Sigma Delta Chi, Intervenors-Appellants. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
James G. Feiber, Jr., Salter, Feiber & Yenser, Gainesville, Fla., Deborah R. Linfield, The New York Times Co., New York City, for Gainesville Sun.
Carol Jean LoCicero, Holland & Knight, Tampa, Fla., for The Tribune Co., Campus Communications, University of Florida, etc.
Kenneth W. Sukhia, Lyndia Barrett, Asst. U.S. Attys., Tallahassee, Fla., for U.S.
Pamela J. Bernard, General Counsel, University of Florida, James S. Quincey, Gainesville, Fla., for other respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before JOHNSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS *, Senior Circuit Judge.
This appeal involves a challenge to the district court's issuance of a closure order restraining counsel and parties from disclosing the content of pleadings and memoranda filed in connection with a continuing grand jury investigation. We affirm.
On July 22, 1988, a federal grand jury subpoena was served on the Custodian of Records of the University of Florida Athletic Program to release certain University records. The University resisted compliance with the subpoena. During the course of the proceedings to determine whether the University had to comply with the subpoena, the University felt itself compelled by the Florida Public Records Law, F.S.A. Sec. 119.01 et seq., to release to the press copies of motions and other documents filed with the district court in connection with this subpoena. Various newspapers published portions of these motions and reported on the information contained in the documents.
Because of the publication of sensitive information, the United States filed a motion for closure of the grand jury proceedings. On August 26, 1988, the district court issued a closure order that provides in part: "the parties, counsel thereto and the Clerk of the Court are instructed not to reveal any information contained in such pleadings or memoranda, or any other information relating to the subject Grand Jury investigation, including but not limited to any documents produced pursuant to a Grand Jury subpoena, or testimony or other information obtained as a result of the subject Grand Jury investigation."
Four newspapers moved to intervene, 1 seeking reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the district court's closure order restricting access to the grand jury proceedings. On September 23, 1988, the district court simultaneously granted the motion to intervene and denied the motion to reconsider, modify, or clarify its order. It is from the September 23 order that the intervenors appeal.
This court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order of September 23, 1988, conclusively determines a disputed question; the order resolves an issue completely separate from the merits; and the order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 797 F.2d 676 (8th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 479 U.S. 1013, 107 S.Ct. 661, 93 L.Ed.2d 714 (1986).
The United States argues that the press has no standing because this case involves a grand jury proceeding and the press does not have access to such proceedings. The intervenors argue that the closure order extends beyond the scope of the grand jury proceedings to cover matters independently discoverable. The intervenors have standing to appeal the scope of the order even though they are not parties to this action. See In re Application of Dow Jones & Co., 842 F.2d 603, 607 (2d Cir.1988) () (citing Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 377, 102 L.Ed.2d 365 (1988); cf. Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir.1983).
Intervenors assert that as members of the press, they have a First Amendment right of access to the grand jury proceedings. Intervenors argue that these proceedings are "criminal proceedings," and that therefore they have a right of access absent a compelling state interest to the contrary. See generally Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) ( ); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (plurality) ( ).
Intervenors fail to appreciate the fundamental difference between criminal trials and grand jury proceedings. The press's right of access to criminal trials and the proceedings connected with such trials is based on at least two considerations. First, criminal prosecutions historically have been open to the public. Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 448 U.S. at 573, 100 S.Ct. at 2825 ( ). Second, an open criminal trial helps to assure the fairness of the proceedings. Press-Enterprise Co., 478 U.S. at 7, 106 S.Ct. at 2740 (). Public access thus has a positive role in the functioning of the criminal prosecution process. Id. at 8, 106 S.Ct. at 2740.
Neither of these elements is present in assessing access to grand jury proceedings. First, grand jury proceedings are historically and presumptively secret. See Phillips v. United States, 843 F.2d 438, 441 (11th Cir.1988) () . That secrecy has been codified in Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), which limits disclosure of grand jury proceedings and materials. Second, secrecy of grand jury proceedings is essential to maintaining the effectiveness of the grand jury. 2 See Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1672, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979) (). This is in direct contrast to the advantages public access provides to criminal proceedings. Press-Enterprise Co., 478 U.S. at 8-9, 106 S.Ct. at 2741 () (quoting Douglas Oil Co., 441 U.S. at 218, 99 S.Ct. at 1672.)
This is not a case of a prior restraint of protected First Amendment activity. See, e.g., Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976) ( ). It is the disclosure of grand jury materials that invokes the judicial process. In order to justify lifting the secrecy that normally surrounds the grand jury proceedings, courts must find a "particularized need" for the disclosure that outweighs the benefits of maintaining the secrecy. United States v. Liuzzo, 739 F.2d 541, 544 (11th Cir.1984). Even when the person requesting such disclosure has shown a particularized need for the materials, access is limited and covers only those materials actually needed. Id. at 545.
It is clear that the district court had authority to issue this closure order under Rule 6(e)(5). See Advisory Committee Notes to the 1983 Amendment ("Two other kinds of hearings at which information about a particular grand jury investigation might need to be discussed are those at which the question is whether to grant a grand jury witness immunity or whether to order a grand jury witness to comply fully with the terms of a subpoena directed to him."). The intervenors had no right of access to these proceedings. This order was necessary to maintain the secrecy of the grand jury investigation. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court in issuing this order.
Intervenors claim that the district court could not have issued this closure order without first granting them a hearing and without articulating reasons for the order. A court must hold a hearing and give reasons for its closure of criminal proceedings. See Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir.1983) ( ); accord, United States v. Kooistra, 796 F.2d 1390 (11th Cir.1986). This is because those proceedings are presumptively open, and because that openness benefits the criminal justice system itself. See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986). In the case of grand jury proceedings, however, the reverse is true.
The district court did hold a hearing involving the government and the University to determine whether the closure order should issue. That hearing was closed under Rule 6(e)(5). See Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(5) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
News-Journal Corp. v. Foxman
...that there was no less restrictive means of safeguarding the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights. See In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury, 864 F.2d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir.1989) (This court upheld a district court's order restraining counsel, parties, witnesses, and the clerk of court f......
-
Doe v. Ashcroft
...("No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with [Rule 6]."). 61. See In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury, 864 F.2d 1559, 1563-64 (11th Cir.1989); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 797 F.2d 676, 681-82 (8th Cir.1986) (permitting secrecy......
-
Ex parte Birmingham News Co., Inc.
... ... to object to a motion to 'seal' court records that would otherwise be a matter of public ... grand jury sitting in Montgomery County returned an ... before this Court on the morning of March 30, 1993 ... Press, and The Advertiser Company, directed to Montgomery County Circuit Judge H. Randall ... F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir.1984); In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury, 864 F.2d 1559, 1563 ... ...
-
John Doe, Inc. v. Mukasey
...before grand juries, see Hoffmann-Pugh v. Keenan, 338 F.3d 1136, 1140 (10th Cir. 2003); In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury Directed to Custodian of Records, 864 F.2d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir.1989), and judicial misconduct proceedings, see Kamasinski v. Judicial Review Council, 44 F.3d ......
-
Grand jury practice
...or influenced witnesses if aware of investigation). • In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury Directed to Custodian of Records , 864 F.2d 1559, 1563-64 (11th Cir. 1989) (closure order prohibiting witnesses from disclosing materials prepared for, or testimony given in, grand jury proceed......
-
Trials
...of access to documents related to grand jury proceedings); In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury Directed to Custodian Records, 864 F.2d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1989) (press has no 1st Amendment right of access to grand jury proceedings because grand jury proceedings historically kept s......