## Facts

- Independent gasoline dealers filed civil antitrust suits in the District of Arizona against several large oil companies, including Douglas Oil.
- While the civil cases were in pretrial stages, a federal grand jury in the Central District of California investigated alleged gasoline price-fixing involving many of the same companies.
- The grand jury investigation led to an indictment; the corporate defendants later pleaded nolo contendere.
- After unsuccessful discovery efforts in the Arizona civil litigation, the civil plaintiffs sought disclosure of specified California grand jury transcripts under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).
- The Department of Justice did not oppose disclosure.
- Over the oil companies’ objections, the California district court ordered disclosure subject to protective limits on use in the Arizona antitrust litigation.

## Issues

1. What showing of “particularized need” is required to obtain disclosure of federal grand jury transcripts under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) for use in separate civil litigation.
2. Whether a court supervising the grand jury may order disclosure for out-of-district civil cases based on generalized assumptions about usefulness, particularly where the grand jury has ended.
3. How responsibility should be allocated between the court supervising the grand jury and the court presiding over the related civil litigation in assessing need and secrecy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment affirming disclosure and remanded.
- The Court reaffirmed that Procter & Gamble’s “particularized need” test governs Rule 6(e) disclosure requests.
- The Court held that the lower courts misapplied the test by approving disclosure on a thin record and speculative claims of usefulness in the Arizona civil suits.
- The Court ruled that secrecy interests can remain substantial even after a grand jury ends and cannot be discounted categorically by the passage of time or prior disclosure to some parties.
- The Court indicated that, when the grand jury and civil cases are in different districts, the requesting party ordinarily should first seek the civil court’s assessment of need, which can inform the grand jury court’s ultimate Rule 6(e) decision.

## Legal Principles

- Grand jury materials may be disclosed under Rule 6(e) only upon a strong, fact-specific showing that:
  - the material is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding,
  - the need for disclosure outweighs the need for continued grand jury secrecy, and
  - the request is narrowly structured to cover only the material needed.
- Courts must identify and weigh concrete secrecy interests, including protecting witness candor and safety and shielding unindicted persons from reputational harm; these interests may persist after the grand jury concludes.
- Speculation that transcripts will aid civil litigation is insufficient; the moving party must provide a concrete explanation tied to the posture and evidentiary needs of the related proceeding.
- In cross-district situations, the civil trial court is generally better positioned to evaluate whether denial of disclosure risks injustice in that case, but the supervising grand jury court retains authority to decide disclosure under Rule 6(e).

## Conclusion

The Court held that disclosure of grand jury transcripts for use in related civil antitrust litigation requires a rigorous, fact-based showing of particularized need that outweighs continuing secrecy interests, and it vacated the disclosure order because the record did not support that showing.


Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)