the subject of extensive litigation, and some apparently inconsistent judicial
decisions, compare, e.g., Fund fo r Constitutional Government v. National
Archives, 656 F.2d 856, 870 (D.C. Cir. 1981) with, e.g.. United States v.
Weinstein, 511 F.2d 622, 627 n.5 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 422 U.S. 1042 (1975),
it is generally recognized that Rule 6(e) prohibits the disclosure of any material
that would reveal the strategy or direction of the grand jury investigation, the
nature of the evidence produced before the grand jury, the views expressed by
members of the grand jury, or anything else about the grand jury’s delibera
tions. See Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives, 656 F.2d
at 869; United States v. Hughes, 429 F.2d 1293, 1294 (10th Cir. 1970). The
application of this general standard, however, requires sensitive judgments
with respect to all of the documents by attorneys who are familiar with the
particular investigation. Moreover, there exists some uncertainty as to the
application of Rule 6(e) to documents which have been subpoenaed by or
presented to the grand jury, but which are sought for their own sake rather than
to learn what took place before the grand jury. See United States v. Interstate
Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960). Due in part to the
difficulty of these questions, and in response to the Supreme Court decision in
Sells and Baggot, the Department established a Working Group on Rule 6(e),
which recently published an extensive “Guide to Rule 6(e) After Sells and Baggot”
to assist our attorneys in keeping abreast of the developing case law in this area.
In light of the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements in Sells and Baggot,
we cannot overemphasize the statutory duty of government attorneys to protect
grand jury materials. It is therefore imperative that the Department screen the
documents sought by the Subcommittee’s October 5 subpoena and withhold
those which are prohibited from disclosure under Rule 6(e). Because of the
uncertainty in determining whether some documents are protected, and the
importance of the issue, steps may have to be taken to clarify the application of
Rule 6(e) to any of the open files about which there is doubt.
Members of our Office have discussed certain facts relating to the Company
B file with the Deputy Chief of the Fraud Section, Criminal Division, the
attorney responsible for supervising the investigation. The Deputy Chief be
lieves that a very high percentage of the substance of the files, perhaps 98 to 99
percent, relates to matters occurring before the grand jury. This high percent
age is explained by the fact that the investigators in this case were unable to
obtain evidence or cooperation without the assistance of the grand jury process,
so virtually the entire investigation was conducted before the grand jury. The
Deputy Chief has stated that redaction of grand jury materials would not be
feasible because little or nothing of substance would remain. Assistant Attor
ney General Trott has informed the Subcommittee of the impracticability of
redacting grand jury materials.
Although we have not as yet examined the approximately 56 documents
contained in the Company B file, and although we are not accustomed to
making Rule 6(e) determinations, we rely on the representations of the Crimi
nal Division in believing that, with regard to many of the documents, the
261