## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted Sells Engineering, Inc. and corporate officers for conspiracy to defraud the United States and for tax-related offenses.
- The criminal case ended through a plea agreement: individual defendants pleaded guilty to one conspiracy count involving obstruction of an IRS investigation, and other counts were dismissed.
- After the criminal matter concluded, the Department of Justice sought disclosure of all related grand jury materials to DOJ Civil Division attorneys (and support staff and certain Defense Department experts) to evaluate and pursue a potential civil action, including under the False Claims Act.
- The district court authorized disclosure, ruling that Civil Division attorneys qualified for disclosure without a court order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(A)(i) as “an attorney for the government,” and alternatively that the government had shown “particularized need.”
- The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding Civil Division attorneys could not obtain automatic disclosure under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) and instead had to proceed under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) with a proper particularized-need showing.

## Issues

1. Whether DOJ Civil Division attorneys and their staff may obtain grand jury materials automatically under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) for use in civil litigation.
2. Whether civil-use disclosure to DOJ attorneys must instead be obtained only by court order under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) upon a showing of particularized need.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit.
- Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize automatic disclosure of grand jury materials to DOJ Civil Division attorneys for civil use.
- Civil Division attorneys seeking grand jury materials for civil litigation must obtain a court order under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) and satisfy the particularized-need standard.
- The matter was left for further proceedings applying the correct particularized-need analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Grand jury materials are presumptively secret; exceptions to secrecy are narrowly construed.
- Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) permits disclosure without court order only to government attorneys whose duties require access in conducting the criminal matters to which the grand jury materials relate.
- Government lawyers seeking disclosure for civil litigation must proceed under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) and show particularized need.
- Particularized need requires a showing that disclosure is necessary to avoid injustice in another proceeding, that the need outweighs continued secrecy, and that the request is narrowly tailored.
- Broad intra-government sharing for civil enforcement is not treated as routine access and cannot be used to bypass the Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) standard.

## Conclusion

The Court held that DOJ Civil Division attorneys are not entitled to automatic access to grand jury materials for civil litigation under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i); civil-use disclosure requires a court order and a particularized-need showing under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i), preserving grand jury secrecy and limiting repurposing of grand jury investigations for civil cases.


United States v. Sells Eng’g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (1983)