Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., Matter of, s. 81-2077

Citation687 F.2d 1079
Decision Date03 September 1982
Docket Number81-2115 and 81-2407,Nos. 81-2077,s. 81-2077
PartiesIn the Matter of GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, MILLER BREWING COMPANY. Appeals of MILLER BREWING COMPANY; Harlan Woyahn, Thomas Hoover, James Doherty and Ernest Anschutz; and United States of America.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Thomas J. Donnelly, Quarles & Brady, Stanley P. Gimbel, Gimbel, Gimbel & Reilly, Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.

Deborah A. Wright, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before WOOD, Circuit Judge, FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge, and ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge. *

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge.

All parties appeal from the decision and order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In two written opinions, the district court held, inter alia, that 1) the Miller Brewing Company ("Miller") was not entitled to an adversary hearing regarding the government's use of the grand jury; 2) since Miller did not demonstrate particularized need, its counsel could not inspect certain grand jury documents; 3) the government demonstrated particularized need for the requested grand jury documents and therefore, disclosure of the requested documents to the civil division of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") was proper; 4) the government did not demonstrate particularized need to permit the court to disclose certain grand jury transcripts; and 5) the proper procedure regarding the requested grand jury transcripts was to transfer the transcripts to the "court before which the tax litigation (would) proceed" to facilitate that court's in camera inspection in light of any renewed petition for disclosure. Petition of the United States for the Disclosure of Grand Jury Matters (Miller Brewing Company), 510 F.Supp. 585 ("Miller I "); 518 F.Supp. 163 (E.D.Wis.1981) ("Miller II "). We affirm, in part; reverse, in part; and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background

In 1979, the government began a grand jury investigation into the tax affairs of Miller. The grand jury subpoenaed documents from Miller and others, and took the testimony of numerous witnesses. In June, 1980, the government terminated the grand jury investigation without the return of an indictment.

In October, 1980, the United States petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to disclose certain grand jury materials to the IRS for civil tax investigation purposes. 1 Fed.R Crim.P. 6(e). These materials included seven categories of documents and notes subpoenaed by the grand jury and an eighth category including transcripts of the testimony of four grand jury witnesses who are current or former employees of Miller. Disclosure was sought "solely for furthering said civil tax examination of the Miller Brewing Company, a subsidiary of Philip Morris, Inc."

Miller moved to intervene in the disclosure proceedings. It also petitioned for an order allowing its counsel to inspect some of the requested grand jury materials, 2 alleging that inspection was necessary to demonstrate "that the grand jury proceeding was not conducted solely for the purpose of a good faith criminal tax investigation." Four grand jury witnesses whose testimony was recorded in the requested transcripts also moved to intervene. The witnesses opposed both Miller's request to inspect the transcripts and the government's disclosure petition.

In March, 1981, the district court addressed the government's petition, as well as the motions to intervene and inspect. Miller I, 510 F.Supp. 585. First, the court permitted Miller and the four grand jury witnesses whose testimony was recorded in the requested transcripts to intervene in the proceeding. 3 State of Illinois v. Sarbaugh, 552 F.2d 768, 772-73 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 889, 98 S.Ct. 262, 54 L.Ed.2d 174 (1977). Second, the district court denied Miller's motion to inspect the grand jury materials, without prejudice to Miller's right to raise its allegations regarding the government's abuse of the grand jury investigation for the court's consideration in reaching a decision on the merits. Third, the district court postponed its decision regarding disclosure to the IRS, in order to give Miller a chance to respond to the government's position. Fourth, the district court rejected the government's contention that Miller should have addressed the propriety of the government's use of the grand jury at the time of the grand jury proceedings, or at a future time when the government attempts to introduce any disclosed material into evidence at a subsequent judicial proceeding. The district court found that the government was "required to demonstrate its bona fides prior to obtaining a Rule 6(e) ... order .... particularly ... where a grand jury fails to return an indictment." Miller I, 510 F.Supp. at 589 (citing In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, April, 1978, at Baltimore, 581 F.2d 1103, 1110 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 971, 99 S.Ct. 1533, 59 L.Ed.2d 787 (1979)). The district court requested to view in camera the items which the government was seeking to disclose to the IRS. Finally, the court reserved ruling on the need for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of grand jury abuse.

After the district court's first decision and while the government's petition for disclosure was still pending, the IRS issued a statutory notice of deficiency, for the years 1971 through 1976, against Philip Morris, Inc., Miller's parent corporation. Miller then urged the district court to dismiss the government's petition on the ground that disclosure could no longer be for "a continuing tax investigation" as stated in the petition since the civil tax investigation ended when the government issued its notice of deficiency.

In June, 1981, the district court rendered its decision and order which is the subject of this appeal. Miller II, 518 F.Supp. 163. The district court found that there was no abuse of the Miller grand jury, and ordered disclosure of the requested documents to IRS personnel, to be designated by the government, for use in connection with litigation relating to Miller's civil tax liabilities. The court, however, denied disclosure of the requested transcripts without prejudice to a renewed petition for disclosure upon a showing of particularized need. The district court ordered transfer of the transcripts to "the court before which the tax litigation shall proceed" 4 to facilitate that court's determination on any future petition for disclosure. Id. at 170. The transferee court turned out to be a tax court, rather than another district court. In July, 1981, the government designated IRS District Counsel, Manhatten, to receive the documents for use in "the Miller audit and/or any legal proceedings had in conjunction therewith."

All parties appeal from the district court's decision and order. 5 Miller appeals from all portions of the decision and order, while the four intervenors only appeal from that part which would transfer the transcripts of their grand jury testimony to the tax court. The United States filed a cross-appeal from that part of the district court's order which denies disclosure of the requested transcripts.

II. Appealability

Although not raised as an issue by the parties, there is the threshold question as to whether this is an appealable order. Some courts have found that an order granting or denying disclosure, or directing transfer of federal grand jury materials to another court, relates only to pretrial discovery and is interlocutory and nonappealable. See, e.g., In re 1975-2 Grand Jury Investigation of Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 566 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 905, 98 S.Ct. 3092, 57 L.Ed.2d 1135 (1978); Baker v. United States Steel Corp., 492 F.2d 1074 (2d Cir. 1974). But see In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Alpha Portland Industries, Inc.), 649 F.2d 387 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 453 U.S. 946, 102 S.Ct. 17, 69 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1981). The courts' reasoning is that a party can challenge admission of improperly obtained evidence after final judgment. Moreover, releasing materials to another court is merely a mechanical step and not an order of disclosure.

Where litigation of the disclosure motion is the only pending federal proceeding, however, an order granting or denying the motion is appealable. See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 630 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1081, 101 S.Ct. 865, 66 L.Ed.2d 805 (1981); United States v. Sobotka, 623 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. 1980). The court where the current tax litigation is proceeding would have no authority to review a discretionary action by a federal district court judge. Therefore, the only opportunity for review would be an appeal of the district court order to this court. Moreover, review is necessary in light of the damage which may be created by unwarranted breaches of secrecy and the cost of relitigating trials tainted by admission of grand jury transcripts later held to have been improperly disclosed. 6 8 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, P 6.05(7)(c) (2d ed. 1981). The disclosure and transfer order here is a "final decision." See In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 78-184 (Sells), 642 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. granted sub nom. United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 2034, 72 L.Ed.2d 483 (1982).

III. Adversary Hearing

Miller argues that it "raised substantial questions regarding the good faith of the grand jury investigation" 7 and that an evidentiary or oral hearing is necessary to allow it to demonstrate that the grand jury investigation was conducted in bad faith. 8 The government suggests that Miller should have addressed this issue at the time of the grand jury investigation or at a future time when the government attempts to introduce any disclosed material into evidence at a subsequent judicial proceeding. The district...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Kluger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 11 September 1984
    ... ... upon information obtained from certain grand jury proceedings pursuant to an order of an ... the Grand Jury's investigation of this matter are necessary to establish, assess and collect ... Fidelity Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 4 B.T.A. 411, 423 (1926). The ... in Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079 (7th Cir. 1982), ... ...
  • U.S. v. Warren
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 25 October 1984
    ... ... Kansas City, Missouri, was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of mail fraud in violation ... defendant's motion for disclosure of proceedings before the grand jury. We disagree with all of ... , however, unless the government's acts, no matter how outrageous, had a role in inducing the ... Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681, 78 S.Ct. 983, 986, 2 L.Ed.2d ... 1983); Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing ... ...
  • NATHAN DIRECTOR v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 13 June 1988
    ... ... "evidence or other matters attending a grand jury proceeding" in violation of New York law ... of 55 TCM (CCH) 1060 grand jury proceedings; and (2) assuming such information was improperly ... disclosure of grand jury evidence or other matter attending a grand jury proceeding by a public ... TCM (CCH) 1066 423-424 (1983); Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, ... In the Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings (Miller Brewing Company), 687 F.2d 1079, 1089-1090 (7th ... ...
  • US v. Finley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 29 November 1988
    ... ... motion for disclosure of transcripts of the grand jury proceedings, Hutchinson's motion to dismiss ... Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 400, 79 S.Ct. 237, 1241, 3 L.Ed.2d 1323 (1959); Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • 1 January 2013
    ...Cir. 1988), 182 Grand Jury Proceedings, In re , 995 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1993), 22 Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., In re , 687 F.2d 1079 (7th Cir. 1982), 189 Grand Jury Subpoena, In re , 836 F.2d 1468 (4th Cir. 1988), 22 Grand Jury Subpoena, In re , 62 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 1995),......
  • Obtaining Documents and Testimony Presented Before A Grand Jury
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • 1 January 2013
    ...injustice and that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for secrecy). 45 . In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Miller Brewing Co., 687 F.2d 1079, 1093 (7th Cir. 1982); In re Corrugated Container , 687 F.2d at 57; Ill. v. Borg, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 96, 100 (N.D. Ill. 1983). 46. United St......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT