Case Note: The Office of the Independent Counsel and Grand Jury Secrecy

In In re Sealed Case No. 99-3091, the D.C. Circuit ruled on a motion for summary reversal of an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ( District Court ), where such order required the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr ( OIC ) to provide evidence as to why the OIC should not be held in contempt for violating the grand jury secrecy rule, Rule 6(e). The alleged violation of grand jury secrecy concerned a New York Times article that contained information about the grand jury investigation of President William J. Clinton, and which named the OIC as the source of the information. In order to rule on the motion, the D.C. Circuit first had to determine whether it had authority to hear the motion filed by the OIC, which was before the court on an interlocutory appeal. Upon a determination of proper jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the collateral order doctrine, the D.C. Circuit concluded it was unnecessary to rule on the validity of the OIC\u27s federal sovereign immunity claim, and turned to the merits of the case. The merits related to whether the information contained in the New York Times article amounted to disclosures constituting a prima facie violation of Rule 6(e). In answering this question, the D.C. Circuit clarified the scope of Rule 6(e) and provided insight into the elements of a disclosure that would constitute a prima facie violation of the Rule. The D.C. Circuit then looked to the information in the New York Times article, and held that the disclosure did not constitute a prima facie violation of Rule 6(e). The court therefore, granted the OIC\u27s motion for summary reversal and remanded the case with instructions to the District Court to dismiss the Rule 6(e) contempt proceeding pending against the OIC