Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., In re, No. 180
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | Before KAUFMAN and MESKILL, Circuit Judges, and BONSAL; IRVING R. KAUFMAN; In considering these motions |
| Citation | 665 F.2d 24 |
| Parties | 1981-2 Trade Cases 64,377 In re: GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OF CUISINARTS, INC., State of Connecticut, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, State of Vermont, State of New York, State of Colorado, State of New Jersey, State of North Carolina, State of Maine, State of New Hampshire, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Texas, State of Wisconsin, Appellants, UNITED STATES of America, Intervenor, v. CUISINARTS, INC., Appellee. ; Docket 81-7338. |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 180 |
Page 24
of Connecticut, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, State of Vermont,
State of New York, State of Colorado, State of New Jersey,
State of North Carolina, State of Maine, State of New
Hampshire, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia,
State of Texas, State of Wisconsin, Appellants,
UNITED STATES of America, Intervenor,
v.
CUISINARTS, INC., Appellee.
Second Circuit.
Decided Nov. 19, 1981.
Page 25
Robert M. Langer, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Conn., Hartford, Conn. (Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., Steven M. Rutstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Conn., Hartford, Conn., of counsel), for appellant State of Conn.
Francis X. Bellotti, Atty. Gen., Alan L. Kovacs, Paul C. Bishop, Asst. Attys. Gen., Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Mass., of counsel, for appellant Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Dennis J. Roberts II, Atty. Gen., Patrick J. Quinlan, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Providence, R.I., of counsel, for appellant State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
John J. Easton, Atty. Gen., Jay I. Ashman, Glenn A. Jarrett, Asst. Attys. Gen., State of Vermont, Montpelier, Vt., of counsel, for appellant State of Vermont.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Lloyd Constantine, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of New York, New York City, of counsel, for appellant State of New York.
J. D. Mac Farlane, Atty. Gen., B. Lawrence Theis, Karen Hoffman Seymour, Asst. Attys. Gen., State of Colorado, Denver, Colo., of counsel, for appellant State of Colorado.
Page 26
James R. Zazzali, Atty. Gen., Laurel A. Price, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of New Jersey, Princeton, N.J., of counsel, for appellant State of New Jersey.
Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., H. A. Cole, Jr., Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Fred R. Gamin, Associate Atty. Gen., State of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C., of counsel, for appellant State of North Carolina.
James P. Tierney, Atty. Gen., Cheryl Harrington, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Maine, Augusta, Me., of counsel, for appellant State of Maine.
Gregory H. Smith, Atty. Gen., Edward E. Lawson, Antitrust Counsel, State of New Hampshire, Concord, N.H., of counsel, for appellant State of New Hampshire.
Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Charles O. Monk II, Robert W. Hesselbacher, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., State of Maryland, Baltimore, Md., of counsel, for appellant State of Maryland.
Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen., Bertram M. Long, Craig T. Merritt, Asst. Attys. Gen., Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, Va., of counsel, for appellant Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mark White, Atty. Gen., Linda Aaker, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Texas, Austin, Tex., of counsel, for appellant State of Texas.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., Michael L. Zaleski, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., of counsel, for appellant State of Wisconsin.
Frederic Freilicher, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (William F. Baxter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert B. Nicholson, Mark C. Del Bianco, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for intervenor.
Arthur M. Handler, New York City (Michael M. Meadvin, I. Joseph Gontownik, Golenbock & Barell, New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Tyrone C. Fahner, Atty. Gen., Thomas M. Genovese, Stephen P. Juech, Asst. Attys. Gen., State of Illinois, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Illinois.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., Susan Beth Farmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Alabama.
Wilson L. Condon, Atty. Gen., Louise E. Ma, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Alaska.
Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., Alison B. Swan, Chief Counsel, Antitrust Division, State of Arizona, Phoenix, Ariz., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Arizona.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., David L. Williams, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Arkansas, Little Rock, Ark., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Arkansas.
Richard S. Gebelein, Atty. Gen., Robert P. Lobue, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Delaware, Wilmington, Del., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Delaware.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Bill L. Bryant, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Florida, Tallahassee, Fla., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Florida.
Tany S. Hong, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Hawaii.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Baldwin, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Indiana, Indianapolis, Ind., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Indiana.
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., John R. Perkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa, of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Iowa.
Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., Wayne E. Hundley, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Kansas, Topeka, Kan., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Kansas.
Steven L. Beshear, Atty. Gen., James M. Ringo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort, Ky., of counsel, for amicus curiae Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Williams J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., John R. Flowers, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Louisiana, New Orleans, La., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Louisiana.
Page 27
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Edwin M. Bladen, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Michigan, Detroit, Mich., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Michigan.
Warren R. Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Stephen P. Kilgriff, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Minnesota.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Sanders, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Mississippi, Jackson, Miss., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Mississippi.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., William L. Newcomb, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Missouri, Jefferson City, Mo., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Missouri.
Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., Jerome J. Cate, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Montana, Helena, Mont., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Montana.
Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., Dale A. Comer, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Nebraska.
Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Jim Wechsler, Richard H. Levin, Asst. Attys. Gen., State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, N. M., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of New Mexico.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., Eugene F. McShane, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Ohio.
Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Okl., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Oklahoma.
Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Richard L. Caswell, Chief Counsel, Antitrust Division, State of Oregon, Salem, Or., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Oregon.
Leroy S. Zimmerman, Atty. Gen., Eugene F. Waye, Deputy Atty. Gen., John L. Shearburn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pa., of counsel, for amicus curiae Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., John M. Cox, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of South Carolina, Columbia, S. C., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of South Carolina.
Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., James E. McMahon, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of South Dakota, Pierre, S. D., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of South Dakota.
William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen., William J. Haynes, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Tennessee, Nashville, Tenn., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Tennessee.
David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Peter C. Collins, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Utah.
Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., John R. Ellis, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Washington, Seattle, Wash., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Washington.
Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Atty. Gen., Charles G. Brown, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of West Virginia, Charleston, W. Va., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of West Virginia.
Steven F. Freudenthal, Atty. Gen., Gay Vanderpoel, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Wyoming, Cheyenne, Wyo., of counsel, for amicus curiae State of Wyoming.
Judith W. Rogers, Corp. Counsel, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Timothy J. Shearer, Asst. Corp. Counsel, District of Columbia, Washington, D. C., of counsel, for amicus curiae District of Columbia.
Before KAUFMAN and MESKILL, Circuit Judges, and BONSAL, District Judge. *
IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:
The long shadows of history enshroud the precise moment when the first grand jury was established in an English-speaking community. It appears, however, that a rudimentary ancestor of our modern grand jury was an integral element of the system of justice in medieval England over eight hundred years ago. Our forefathers carried
Page 28
this tradition to America and embedded its inherent powers in the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution. As this institution evolved over the centuries, its proceedings were cloaked with secrecy to guard against injury to reputations of the innocent to protect witnesses from retaliation or intimidation, and to promote the grand jury's effectiveness as an investigative device. This time-honored policy of secrecy has been the most essential, indeed indispensable, characteristic of grand jury proceedings.Today, we are asked to lift this veil of secrecy. The States of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, Colorado, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maine, New Hampshire, Maryland, Texas, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia ("States") would have us determine whether section 4F(b) of Title III of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. § 15f(b), 1 permits the disclosure of grand jury materials to a state attorney general without the traditional showing of compelling and particularized need. 2 The Fourth 3 and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., Matter of, Nos. 81-2077
...not all the policies underlying the need for grand jury secrecy are eliminated. In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 665 F.2d 24, 33 (2d Cir. 1981); Sobotka, 623 F.2d at 766-67; In re April 1956 Term Grand Jury, 239 F.2d at 272; Annot., 52 A.L.R.Fed. 411, 416 (1981). (1) The ......
-
Comm. on the Judiciary v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (In re Comm. on the Judiciary), No. 19-5288
...(7th Cir. 2016) ; Standley v. Dep’t of Justice , 835 F.2d 216, 218 (9th Cir. 1987) ; In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc. , 665 F.2d 24, 31 (2d Cir. 1981) ; United States v. Penrod , 609 F.2d 1092, 1097 (4th Cir. 1979). "The grand jury minutes and transcripts are not the prope......
-
Carlson v. United States, No. 15–2972
...Cir. 1987) (“grand jury materials are records of the district 837 F.3d 759court”); In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc. , 665 F.2d 24, 31 (2d Cir. 1981) (“Cuisinarts ”) (same); United States v. Penrod , 609 F.2d 1092, 1097 (4th Cir. 1979) (same). And because they are records o......
-
Harry Fox Agency, Inc. v. Mills Music, Inc., No. 80 Civil 6993.
...77, 91, 101 S.Ct. 1571, 1580, 67 L.Ed.2d 750 (1981); Connecticut v. Cuisinarts, Inc. (In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc.), 665 F.2d 24, 32 (2d Cir. 37 17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(6)(A) (emphasis added). 38 Fifteen sound recordings were both prepared and licensed before termination. A......
-
Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., Matter of, Nos. 81-2077
...not all the policies underlying the need for grand jury secrecy are eliminated. In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 665 F.2d 24, 33 (2d Cir. 1981); Sobotka, 623 F.2d at 766-67; In re April 1956 Term Grand Jury, 239 F.2d at 272; Annot., 52 A.L.R.Fed. 411, 416 (1981). (1) The ......
-
Comm. on the Judiciary v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (In re Comm. on the Judiciary), No. 19-5288
...(7th Cir. 2016) ; Standley v. Dep’t of Justice , 835 F.2d 216, 218 (9th Cir. 1987) ; In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc. , 665 F.2d 24, 31 (2d Cir. 1981) ; United States v. Penrod , 609 F.2d 1092, 1097 (4th Cir. 1979). "The grand jury minutes and transcripts are not the prope......
-
Carlson v. United States, No. 15–2972
...Cir. 1987) (“grand jury materials are records of the district 837 F.3d 759court”); In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc. , 665 F.2d 24, 31 (2d Cir. 1981) (“Cuisinarts ”) (same); United States v. Penrod , 609 F.2d 1092, 1097 (4th Cir. 1979) (same). And because they are records o......
-
Harry Fox Agency, Inc. v. Mills Music, Inc., No. 80 Civil 6993.
...77, 91, 101 S.Ct. 1571, 1580, 67 L.Ed.2d 750 (1981); Connecticut v. Cuisinarts, Inc. (In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc.), 665 F.2d 24, 32 (2d Cir. 37 17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(6)(A) (emphasis added). 38 Fifteen sound recordings were both prepared and licensed before termination. A......
-
No-Poach, No Precedent: How DOJ's Aggressive Stance on Criminalizing Labor Market Agreements Runs Counter to Antitrust Jurisprudence.
...Med. Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373, 405 (1911). (157) See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 665 F.2d 24, 29-30 (2d Cir. (158) Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 551 U.S. at 886-87; see also Howard P. Marvel, The Resale Price Maintenance Controv......
-
Monsanto: Great Expectations Unfulfilled
...directed more at the lawonproofofa conspiracy. Its petition did pointoutthe problems48 See In reGrandJuryInvestigationofCuisinart, Inc., 665 F.2d 24(2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1068 (1983).49 See infra note 53andaccompanying text.50 See Posner, The Next Step in the Antitrust Treat......