~c.;/ · court now believes many of the redactions to be unnecessary. on transcript page 59, the...
TRANSCRIPT
Case 1: 12-mc-0007 4-RCL Document 17 Filed 06/11/13 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILED JUN 1 1 2013
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia
IN RE: PETITION OF LUKE NICHTER ) )
ORDER
Action No. 12-mc-74 (RCL)
This Court issued, under seal and ex parte, an Order and Memorandum Opinion on May
13, 2013, directing that certain records associated with the case of United States v. Liddy be
unsealed. The Clerk of Court did not place in the docket entries of this case the filing of the
unredacted versions of the Order and the Memorandum Opinion under seal since they were both
issued ex parte. These unredacted documents should be docketed in the sealed record of this
case, but the documents should be maintained in the Court's vault, accessible only to government
counsel and the Court. The Court requested the United States to submit proposed redactions
before placing these materials on the public record. See Order, May 13, 2013, ECF No. 16. The
United States has now done so.
In addition to the proposed redactions, counsel for the United States alerted the Court to a
factual error in the Court's Memorandum Opinion. The Court has deleted the factual error in the
redacted version of the Memorandum Opinion attached to this Order.
Accordingly, the redacted versions attached hereto shall be filed on the public record of
this case, and shall be made available electronically in the "unsealed opinions" category on the
Court's public website.
SO ORDERED this I Oth day of June 2013 .
~c.;/_~ ROY E C. LAMBERTH Chief Judge United States District Court
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 19 Filed 06/11/13 Page 1 of 5
FILED JUN 1 1 2013
Clerk, U.S. Distnct & Bankruptcy 1 1~ Courts for the District of Columbia ,.;- ·
1
} I~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
f\ ~ ul '" 0 (IJf
IN RE: PETITION OF LUKE NICHTER ) ) Action No. 12~mc- (RCL)
(UNDE EAL)
EX PARTE ORDER
Now before the Court is the petitioner's Motion [lJ to unseal records associated with
United States v. Liddy, District Court docket number 1827-72. Upon consideration of the
Motion [1], the government's Opposition [10], petitioner's Reply [11], the government's ex
parte Surreply [notice of submission at docket entry 14 ], the applicable law and for the reasons
set forth in the Court's accompanying Memorandum Opinion issued this date, it is hereby
ORDERED that the government docket its sealed Surreply along with all attached
exhibits; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall, within 30 days, prepare a redacted
version of its Surreply for public release; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will release the redacted and unsealed
version of the Court's accompanying Memorandum Opinion, attached hereto; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Affidavit of Kevan T. Hunt (Box I, Folder 1)1, the
daughter of E. Howard Hunt, found behind Tab A of the government's Surreply shall be
unsealed. However, as this document contains personal information relating to the Hunt family,
the National Archives and Records Administration ("NARA") shall make appropriate redactions
to protect the personal privacy of living individuals within thirty days; it is
1 The Box and Folder numbers represent the archival label for the described document, and describe the original location of the documents in the boxes held by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 19 Filed 06/11/13 Page 2 of 5
FURTHER ORDERED that the Transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings Dated
(Box 1, Folder 2) found behind Tab B of the government's Surreply shall remain sealed; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Letter to the Honorable John J. Sirica from Charles E.
Law, Sr., M.D. (Box 1, Folder 3), found behind Tab C of the government's Surreply, which has
already been unsealed and redacted by NARA to protect the Hunt family's privacy shaH remain
redacted until such a time as NARA deems it appropriate to remove the redactions; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the January 5, 1973, Transcript of Proceeding (Box J,
Folder 6), found behind Tab D of the government's Surrcply, which has already been unsealed
but has been redacted to remove contents of the illegal wiretap, shall be modified in the
following manner: consistent with the Court's analysis, the names of those overheard on the
wiretap shall be made public, but no other information constituting "content" as defined by 18
U.S.C. § 251 0(8) shall be released; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the June 17, 1973, Transcript of Proceeding (Box 1, Folder
8), found behind Tab E of the government's Surreply, will remain partially redacted. The
transcript of the in camera hearing with Judge Sirica addressing the motion brought by aggrieved
parties to the illegal wiretap to quash the government's subpoena contains information rehited to
what Mr. Baldwin overheard during the illegal wiretap. However, the redactions shall be
modified in the following manner: consistent with the Court's analysis, the names of those
overheard on the wiretap shall be made public, but no other information constituting "content" as
defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2510(8) shall be released; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the June 17, 1973, Exhibits Band C (Box 1, Folder 9),
found behind Tab F of the government's Surreply, submitted in connection with the in camera
1 Exhibit A. a six-page summary of Alfred Baldwin's testimony in a civil suit brought by the Democratic National Committee, is publicly available on NARA 's website.
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 19 Filed 06/11/13 Page 3 of 5
proceedings of that date, be dealt with as follows: Exhibit B, a partially redacted FBI form
documenting an interview with Alfred Baldwin, be WlSealed but will remain redacted as it
contains information obtained from illegally intercepted conversations. However, the redactions
shall be modified in the following manner: consistent with the Court's analysis, the names of
those overheard on the wiretap shall be made public, but no other information constituting
"content" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2510(8) shall be released. Exhibit C, consisting of portions
of~nd jury testimony, shall remain under seal; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Transcript of Alfred Baldwin's interview with the Los
Angeles Times (Box 1, Folder 13), found behind Tab G of the government's Surreply, shall be
minimally redacted in accordance with Title III. Chief Judge Bryant unsealed the transcript in
1980, but left certain portions redacted. See United States v. Liddy, Order, Oct. 3, 1980. The
Court now believes many of the redactions to be unnecessary. On transcript page 59, the marked
section should only be redacted as follows:
We had picked up that on Friday, we didn't know who but from listening to the conversation we knew it was -- McCord had it tuned to 118. He said: this is it. He said, you listen for a while and I listened and heard the first indication that whoever was talking was having - · On page 61, the section marked should only be redacted as follows:
~ecretarics would get on the phone and say-----· I guess everybody thought - had the only private phone in the while place --- after listening to several conversations I immediate [sic] wanted to go across the street and -----we started as soon as I got up in the morning.
On page 62, the section marked should only be redacted as follows:
Yes. we were concerned about McGovern because we will get into some other stuff that occurred about the telephone lines--but the main thing, the problem, it is hard to really say because when - name would be mentioned, you know----this was in the paper, there was a conflict between McGovern and
Case 1:12-mc-0007 4-RCL Document 19 Filed 06/11/13 Page 4 of 5
O'Brien------ you see, what I mean -----the information we were getting didn't appear to be, you know, there was some strategy some personal ----- the other unit was shielded and they gave up on that. That is why they went back in June to get that unit.
The redactions appearing on pages 71 thru 72 should be removed; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the December 15, 1972 Transcript of Proceeding (Box 1,
Folder 16}, found behind Tab H of the government's Surreply, which is unsealed and open, shall
remain partially redacted to protect the privacy of Mr. Hunt's living children; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the January 8, 1973 Transcript of Proceeding (Box 1,
Folder 17), found behind Tab I of the goveffiment's Surreply, which is unsealed and open, shall
remain partially redacted to protect the privacy of Mr. Hunt's living children; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the January 9, 1973 Transcript of Proceeding (Box 2,
Folder 18), found behind Tab J of the government's Surreply, which is unsealed and open, shall
remain partially redacted to protect the privacy of Mr. Hunt's living children; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the January 24, 1973 Transcript of Proceeding (Box 2,
Folder 20), found behind Tab K of the government's Surreply, which has already been unsealed
and redacted by NARA to protect grand jury information in accordance with Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 6(e) shall remain redacted; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the July 24, 1973 Transcript of Proceeding (Box 2, Folder
24), found behind Tab L of the government's Surreply, shall be-if it has not already been-
unsealed, and NARA's proposed redactions, necessary to protect grand jury information in
accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), shall remain; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the September 17, 1973 Transcript of Proceeding (Box 2,
Folder 27), found behind Tab M of the government's Surreply, which has already been unsealed
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 19 Filed 06/11/13 Page 5 of 5
and redacted by NARA to protect grand jury information in accordance with Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 6(e) shall remain redacted; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Presentence Reports and Bureau of Prisons Evaluations
{Box 2, Folder 29), found behind Tab N of the government's Surreply, which contains reports on
Messrs. Barker, Gonzalez, Martinez, and Sturgis, shall be unsealed and made public. However,
NARA shall have 30 days to make appropriate redactions in order to protect the privacy of living
individuals; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Life Insurance Policy of G. Gordon Liddy {Box 3,
Folder 36), found behind Tab 0 of the government's Surreply, shall be unsealed. The policy was
assigned to the court to be applied against the criminal fine imposed as a result of his conviction.
However, NARA will make appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of Mr. Liddy, who is
still living.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of May 2013.
~c.~ ROY E C. LAMBERTH Chief Judge United States District Court
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11113 Page 1 of 14
FILED JUN 1 1 20t3
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy ~ Courts for the District of Columbl~ } 1;
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT '/'- 1 .. { f () _________ F_o_R_T_H_E_D_I_s_T_RI_c_T_~·· COLUMBIA LY w IN RE: PETITION OF LUKE NICHTER )
EX PARTE MEMORANDUM OPINION
Now before the Court is the petitioner's Motion [l) to unseal records associated with
United States v. Liddy, District Court docket number 1827-72. Upon consideration of the
Motion [1 ], the government's opposition [10], petitioner's reply [11], the government's ex parte
Surreply [notice of submission at docket entry 14],1 the applicable law and for the reasons set
forth below, the petition will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Luke Nichter, a professor at Texas A&M University, submitted a letter asking
the Court to unseal certain records associated with the Watergate scandal. Prof. Nichter would
like to determine "why the Watergate break-in occurred, who ordered it, and what the burglars
were looking for," and he believes the Court's files would resolve this historical mystery.
Nichter Ltr. 1, Sep. 6, 2010, ECF No. 1.2 He originally sought only documents at issue in United
States v. Liddy, 354 F. Supp. 208 (D.D.C. 1972), specifically records disclosing what Alfred C.
Baldwin, III, the individual tasked with monitoring the wiretap of the Democratic National
Committee, overheard. See Nichter Ltr. I, May I, 2009, ECF No. 1. Later, Prof. Nichter
1 Because the Court requested the government's Surreply ex parte and sealed, only a notice of submission appeared on the docket. 2 Professor Nichter's correspondence with the Court between May 2009 and November 2011 was consolidated and posted on the docket as ECF entry number one. When citing to Professor Nichter's various letters, the Court will use both the date of correspondence and ECF number.
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11/13 Page 2 of 14
requested that the Court to unseal the entire file in United States v. Liddy, criminal docket
number 1827-72.3 Nichter Email to Jeremy Baron, Nov. 22,2011, EFC No. 1.
The Department of Justice filed a Response to Prof. Nichter's petition agreeing that
certain files should be unsealed but objecting to the unsealing of documents in three specific
categories: (1) presentence reports and other documents implicating the privacy of living
individuals; (2) documents reflecting the content of illegally obtained wiretaps; and (3) grand
jury information. Prof. Nichter filed a Reply asking the Court to (a) immediately unseal all
uncontested materials and order the National Archives and Records Administration ("NARA") to
expeditiously review and release those records; to (b) hold in abeyance ruling on those
documents whose unsealing and release the government objected to; and to (c) order an
investigation into the extent of the breach of grand jury secrecy by Washington Post reporters
during the Watergate era. Nichter Rep\ y 1-2, ECF No. 11.
On November 2, 2012, the undersigned Judge granted in part and denied in part Prof.
Nichter's request. In rePetition of Luke Nichter, Misc. No. 12-74 (RCL), 2012 WL 5382733, at
*I (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2012). The Court's order unsealed all District Court records that the
government did not object to unsealing. !d. The Court also ordered the Department of Justice to
submit, ex parte and under seal, copies of all District Court records it believed should remain
sealed. Prof. Nichter's request that the Court order an investigation into the breach of grand jury
secrecy during the Watergate era was denied. !d.
In accordance with that order, on November 30, 2012, the NARA released and made
available online approximately 950 pages of documents. On December 10, 2012, the Justice
Department submitted the requested surreply along with copies of documents it believes should
3 Professor Nichter also requests documents associated with D.C. Circuit docket number 73-1020. See Nichter email to Jeremy Baron, Nov. 22, 2011, ECF No. I. However, this Court has no jurisdiction over the D.C. Circuit's records.
2
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11/13 Page 3 of 14
remain under seal. The government argues that 1 5 sets of documents, marked as exhibits "A"
thru "0," should remain sealed-in whole or in part-because they disclose private, personal
information, would constitute a breach of grand jury secrecy, or would reveal infonnation
obtained by an illegal wiretap.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Presentence Investigative Reports and Other Documents Containing Personal Information of Living Individuals
After a defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted, the Probation Office conducts a
presentence investigation and creates a Presentence Investigative Report ("PSR")4 to aid the
sentencing court in carrying out its function. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)-{d). The PSR must
contain, inter alia, an overview of the defendant's personal history and characteristics, including
any prior criminal record, the defendant's financial background, and family or personal
circumstances that might have affected the defendant's behavior. ld. 32(d)(2). In practice, PSRs
generally contain a summary of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the offense, an
assessment of the defendant's mental and physical health, and other background information
including the defendant's educational attainment, military service record, work history, history of
substance abuse, and a statement regarding the defendant's cooperation with authorities and
acceptance of responsibility. However, the PSR may not contain any confidential sources of
information, any information that, if disclosed, might result in physical or other harm to the
defendant or others, or any diagnoses that, if disclosed, might seriously disrupt a rehabilitation
program. Id. at 32(d)(3).
4 This Court uses the abbreviation "PSR" for Presentence Investigation Repons; however, other courts abbreviate the terms as "PSIR," see, e.g., United States v. Huckaby, 43 F.3d 135 (5th Cir. 1995), or "PSI," see, e.g., United States v. Gomez, 323 F.3d 1305 (lith Cir. 2003).
3
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11113 Page 4 of 14
PSRs are presumptively confidential and the Court is only required to disclose them to
the defendant, his attorney, and the government.5 Id. 32(e)(2). However, PSRs are court
documents, and the district court may release them at its discretion. See, e.g., United States v.
Gomez, 323 F.3d 1305, 1307-08 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Because PSRs contain sensitive
information and because they do not have to conform to the rules of evidence and may contain
errors, 6 courts are cautious about disclosing them to third parties. They are generally disclosed
only under limited circumstances, typically when the third-party shows a special need. See U.S.
Dep 't of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1, 12 (1988). This reluctance is rooted in common sense and
policy-courts fear that making PSRs publicly available may have a chilling effect on
individuals whose information is contained in the reports, that errors and information about
uncharged crimes contained in PSRs may needlessly harm a defendant's reputation, that PSRs
may contain information gathered by the grand jury that is otheJWise secret, and that PSRs might
include facts obtained from confidential informants. United States v. Huckaby, 43 F.3d 135, 138
(5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Iqbal, 684 F.3d 507, 510 (5th Cir. 2012) (discussing
policy considerations).
The D.C. Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, adopted a "compelling need" balancing test
to determine when third-party release is appropriate. See United States v. Colwell, 304 Fed.
App'x 885, 886 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc., 711 F.2d 1164,
1175 (2d Cir. 1983)); see also Huckaby, 43 F.3d at 138-39 (adopting the compelling need test
and noting that the district court had ''clearly balanced the desirability of publication over the
5 Of course, the court may disclose any part of or all of a PSR during the public sentencing hearing. 6 While Rule 32 allows the defendant to object to errors in the PSR and requires the Court to resolve any factual disputes concerning a PSR's accuracy, PSRs are "not usually rewritten to remove misinfonnation." United States v. Huckaby, 43 F.3d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1995). However, mandatory disclosure to defendants was not codified in Rule 32 until 1974, after the presentence reports at issue here were created. United States v. Schlette, 842 F.2d 1574, 1580 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Thus, it is very likely that defendants in this case never had the opportunity to review their presentence reports and object to any misinformation they might contain.
4
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11/13 Page 5 of 14
need for confidentiality"); United States v. Corbitt, 879 F.2d 224, 239 (7th Cir. 1989) (holding
that PSRs should only be released where a "compelling particularlized need for disclosure is
shown"). This test requires the party seeking disclosure to show a "compelling need for
disclosure to meet the ends of justice" that outweighs the privacy interests of the defendant and
the policy interests of the court. Colwell, 304 Fed. App'x at 886.
The Fifth Circuit in Huckaby determined that clarifying the public record justified
releasing a defendant's PSR. Huckaby, a state district judge in Louisiana, came under
investigation for tax evasion. Huckaby, 43 F. 3d at 136. His case received considerable local
publicity and the community was deeply divided over whether he should have been prosecuted at
all. /d. at 137. Some in the community, including civic leaders, felt that Huckaby was being
prosecuted because he was African-American. See id. After reading a portion of the PSR into
the record, Huckaby's sentencing judge concluded: "Because of the widespread misconceptions
about this case, I'm going to take the unusual step of filing the presentence report, together with
your objections, into the record, for anyone who is interested in the truth." Id. Notably, the PSR
included information related to uncharged crimes. /d. at 136 (although Huckaby was only
charged with one misdemeanor tax evasion count, his PSR stated that he failed to file federal and
state income tax returns for at least twelve years). Calling the district judge's actions "bold" and
"extraordinary," the Fifth Circuit blessed the district court's balancing of the competing interests
and noted that the district court acted in the best interest ofthe community. /d. at 139-40.
In the present case, the government argues that Prof. Nichter "has not demonstrated why
disclosure of ... [the PSRs in Liddy are] required to meet the ends of justice, or provided any
other reason why the public interest requires unsealing." Gov't's Resp. 8-10, ECF No. 10. The
Court disagrees. Prof. Nichter stated that his interest in the documents emanates from the fact
5
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11/13 Page 6 of 14
that he is "an American citizen and a stakeholder in our democracy." Nichter Reply 2, ECF No.
11.
The subject of Watergate has attracted enormous attention over the past 40 years. Some writers have been labeled anti-Nixon. Some worked for President Nixon. Some have been called conspiracy theorists. Other have been labeled revisionists.
The simple fact remains that-even some forty years after the break-in arrests led to the demise of the Nixon presidency. . . historians still have no definitive answers as to the rationale for the Watergate break-in .. . .
ld. It is clear to the Court that knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
Watergate break-in, an event that led to the imprisonment of numerous Nixon administration
officials and the only resignation of a President of the United States, will help correct
misinformation and dispel myths and baseless conspiracy theories surrounding this sad episode
of American history. See id.
Releasing the PSRs also serves another compelling public interest required to meet the
ends of justice--publicizing actions that threatened the very nature of our democratic system of
government. Holding democratic office is a privilege of citizenship and shows society's trust in
the office holder; when that trust is broken, our democratic system of government suffers as a
consequence. Our history of open criminal trials and public identification of defendants puts
society on notice that crimes do not go unpunished and illegal acts cannot be hidden from the
community. In high profile public corruption cases in particular, the publication of court
records, even those that would normally remain under seal, places politicians and their allies on
notice that they will be held responsible for their actions.
The Liddy file contains four PSRs: those of Virgilio Gonzalez, Engenio Martinez,
Bernard Barker, and Frank Sturgis.7 These are found behind "Tab N" in the government's ex
7 The Court has asked the Probation Office to search its records for Messrs. Liddy, Hunt, and McCord's PSRs. The Court will consider releasing those PSRs if they become available.
6
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11113 Page 7 of 14
parte submission. 8 After examining the PSRs in camera, the Court can find no obvious
information implicating grand jury secrecy or the identity of confidential sources. See Huckaby,
43 F.3d at 138. Messrs. Barker and Sturgis are deceased; therefore, the release of their PSRs
does not transgress upon their privacy interests. See United States v. Schlette, 842 F.2d 1574,
1580--81 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that privacy interests implicated by disclosure of PSRs may be
mitigated in a given case and do not apply when the subject of the report is deceased). While
Messrs. Gonzalez and Martinez are still living, the public's interest in clarifying the historical
record and further identifying the filets that led to the resignation of President Nixon outweigh
their individual privacy interests.
Therefore the Court will order NARA to release all PSRs contained in the Liddy file.
However, because medical and psychological information of living individuals, including
Messrs. Gonzalez and Martinez, are included in the reports, and disclosure of this information
would provide no benefit to the public, the Justice Department, working with NARA, will have
thirty days to redact this information before releasing the PSRs. See Corbitt, 879 F.2d at 299
("(T]he court should limit disclosure to those portions of the report which are directly relevant to
the demonstrated need.").
Other documents containing personal correspondence and information relating to the
health and family circumstances of one or more of the defendants shall be unsealed. However,
NARA shall make appropriate redactions in order to protect the personal privacy of living
individuals.
8 Tab N also contains B=u of Prisons evaluations for Messrs. Barker, Gonzalez, Martinez and Sturgis. Those reports were prepared pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4208(B) (repealed 1984). All four reports have been partially redacted to protect family and medical history infonnation and have been released. Gov't's Reply 10-11, Notice at ECFNo. 14.
7
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11/13 Page 8 of 14
B. Release of Illegally Intercepted Wiretap Information
Mr. Nichter asks the Court to unseal records containing descriptions of information
obtained through Alfred C. Baldwin III's monitoring of the illegal wiretap placed at the
Democratic National Committee. Nichter Ltr. 2, May 1, 2009, EFC No. 1; Nichter Reply 4. He
argues that much of this information is likely already public, that Earl Silbert, the Assistant
United States Attorney who served as the prosecutor in Liddy, attempted to introduce this
material during trial, and that the public interest will be served by completing the historical
record. The government maintains that the Court may not release any information that discloses
the contents of an illegal wiretap. Gov't's Resp. 10-18.
The Court agrees with the government. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 ("Title III"), codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520, prohibits disseminating the
contents of an illegal wiretap. This prohibition applies to private conduct as much as to the
conduct of the government. Chandler v. U.S. Army, 125 F.3d 1296, 1298 (9th Cir. 1997). Under
the statute, wiretap "contents" include "any information concerning the substance, purport, or
meaning of that [intercepted] communication." § 251 0(8). No public or historical interest
exception allowing disclosure exists. Nor does Prof. Nichter or the public have a First
Amendment right to access documents containing illegally obtained wiretap information.9
9 Professor Nichter cites Judge Rako.trs opinion in In the Matter of Application of the New York Times Company 10
Unseal Wiretap & Search Wa"ant Materials ("Spitzer f'), to support his application for the release of documents. Nichter Letter 1-2. However, Spitzer I is inapposite. In that case, Judge Rakoff acknowledged that Title III governed access to wiretap applications, but found that the right of access to judicial records-records related to the government' s investigation of the Emperor's Club V.I.P. , a prostitution and money laundering ring whose clientele included former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer-<>utweighed the government's competing interests. Spitzer I, 600 F. Supp. 2d. 504, 505--09 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). However, the Second Circuit reversed Judge Rakoff, holding that Title lll supersedes any conunon law or First Amendment right of access to judicial records. In the Matter of Application of the New York Times Company to Unseal Wiretap & Search Wa"ant Materials ("Spitzer II"), 577 F.3d 401,405, 411 (2d Cir. 2009). Moreover, Spitzer 1 dealt with access to a legally submitted wiretap application as opposed to the contents of an illegal wiretap.
8
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11113 Page 9 of 14
However, the names of those overheard on the illegal wiretap may be released. Section
2510 was specifically amended in 1986 to "exclude from the definition of the tenn 'contents' the
identity of the parties or the existence of the communication." S. Comm. on Judiciary,
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, S. Rep. No. 99-541, at 13 (1986), reprinted in
1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3555, 3567. The Senate report noted that the change "distinguishes between
the substance, purport or meaning of the communication and the existence of the communication
or transactional records about it" Jd. Therefore, to the extent wiretap information is not
otherwise sealed because it appears in grand jury documents, the names of those overheard on
the illegal wiretap shall be released. 10
Absent future congressional action allowing the disclosure of illegally obtained wiretap
infonnation that is historically significant, this Court bas no authority to release any information
that would identify the contents of the wiretaps in question. Therefore, Prof. Nichter's request
for documents identifying the contents ofthose wiretaps will be denied.
C. Grand Jury Information
The Liddy file also includes transcripts of. and infonnation obtained during. grand jury
proceedings. Specifically, behind Tab B is the transcript ofthe grand jury's
proceeding. The 12-page transcript is a record of deleted by Court Assistant United States
Behind Tab F are documents
submitted in camera on June 17, 1973 ("Exhibits B and C"). Exhibit C consists of portions of
10 The Court recognizes that releasing the names of aggrieved parties to an illegal wiretap is unusuaL Indeed, judicial policy counsels against routinely releasing such information because the identities of individuals whose privacy was illegally breached should be protected. EV!:ll unda FOIA. 1he Court routinely allows such infonnation to be redacted. C.f. Queen v. Gonzales, Civ. No. 96-1387 (JAR), 2005 WL 3204160, at •s (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 200S) (holding that the FBI's appropriately applied FOJA Exemption 3 to withhold 1he identities of individuals o~ on a wiretap). However, given the historical relevance of the current petition combined with the fact that some if not all of 1he targets of the wiretap have been publically identified, see, e.g., Wells v. Liddy, 37 Fed. App'x 53 (4th Cir. 2002), the Court deems disclosure appropriate in this unique instance.
9
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11113 Page 10 of 14
January 24, 1973, which includes grand jury witness names. Where the fact of a witness's grand
jury testimony was introduced or made public, NARA has left that name unredacted. Gov't's
Surreply 9. However, NARA redacted portions of this document that would reveal a witness or
potential witness's appearance that was not previously public. ld. Behind Tab Lis the transcript
of a proceeding held in Judge Sirica's chambers at approximately 2:00p.m. on July 24, 1973.
This transcript contains limited redactions, which NARA believes are necessary to comply with
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). /d. at 10. Behind Tab M is the transcript of a
proceeding held in Judge Sirica's chambers at 10:00 a.m. on September 17, 1973. It contains
one very limited redaction related to grand jury testimony.
Prof. Nichter asks the Court to release this information in accordance with this Court's
decision in In rePetition of Kutler, 800 F. Supp. 2d 42, 43 (D.D.C. 2011). Nichter Reply 5.
Prof. Nichter also speculates that some of the information contained in the Court's grand jury
files has already become part of the public record. ld. at 3; see also id. Exhibits A-C. 11 The
government objects to releasing any grand jury material not used at trial, arguing that "no statute
or rule provides for disclosure of grand jury information for reasons of historical interest."
Gov't's Resp. 18.
In In re Petition of Kutler, Prof. Kutter and several major historical groups petitioned this
Court to release the transcript of President Richard Nixon's grand jury testimony and related
materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force ("WSPF"). 800 F. Supp. 2d at 43. The
Justice Department objected on the same grounds as those raised here. Id. The Court
11 Attachment A is a copy of JeifHimmelman 's article, 11re Red Flag in the Flowerpot, published in New Y Oik Magazine on April29, 2012. Attachment B is a printout of seven pages of typed notes prepared by Carl Bernstein that Professor Nichter believes were made following his contact with a grand juror. These are available at http://nvmag.com/newslfeatureslben-bradlce-z-memo-20 12-51. Attachment C comprises pages 201-210 of Jeff Hinunelman's book, "Yours in Truth, A Personal Portrait of Ben Bradlee" published by Random House in 2012.
10
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11/13 Page 11 of 14
determined that grand jury secrecy, codified by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), "is not
without exceptions."12 Id. at 44. The Court found that historical interest could trigger the
"special circumstances exception," which is grounded in the court's inherent supervisory
authority over court records. !d. at 47-48. The non-exhaustive list of factors that a court must
consider before releasing grand jury records based on the special circwnstances exception
include:
(i) the identity of the party seeking disclosure; (ii) whether the defendant to the grand jury proceeding or the government opposes the disclosure; (iii) why disclosure is being sought in the particular case; (iv) what specific information is being sought for disclosure; (v) how long ago the grand jury proceedings took place; (vi) the current status of the principals of the grand jury proceedings and that of their families; (vii) the extent to which the desired material-either permissibly or impermissibly-has been previously made public; (viii) whether witnesses to the grand jury proceedings who might be affected by disclosure are still alive; and (ix) the additional need for maintaining secrecy in the particular case in question.
!d. at 47-48 (citing In rePetition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 1997)). After balancing
these factors, the Court concluded that releasing President Nixon's grand jury testimony was
justified. See id. at 48-50.
While the materials here might be of historical significance, the facts of this case are
quite different from those in KutZer and weigh against disclosurc. 13 In Kut/er, only President
12 The government disagrees with the Court's analysis in In re Kut/er and believes that Court may not look beyond the plain language of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) when deciding whether to release grand jury materials. Gov't's Resp. 18-23. For reasons expressed in In re Kutter, the Court believes that it does, indeed, have the authority to look outside Rule 6(e) and will apply the same balancing test here. See In rePetition ofKutler, 800 F. Supp. 2d 42,44-48 (D.D.C. 2011). 13 The government notes that a "consortium of historical associations and Watergate scholars" joined Professor Kutler's petition and it asserts that Prof. Nichter's petition lacks such "broad-based and unified support." Gov't's Resp. 24. The nature and number of the parties seeking disclosure is certainly an important factor for the Court to consider. However, the simple fact that Professor Nichter's request was not joined by other parties does not mean that his request lacks the support of historians and other groups interested in the Watergate scandal. The "unified support" evident in Kutler may reveal as much about Professor Kutler's personal connections and outreach efforts as it does about the "broad-based" interest in the documents. The relevant inquiry is not the number of parties seeking disclosure but the requester's association with and intended use of grand jury materials. In both these cases, the parties seeking disclosure were ultimately interested in learning and exposing as much information as possible about a scandal that rocked the foundations of American democracy.
I I
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11/13 Page 12 of 14
Nixon's testimony was at issue, the fact that he testified before the grand jury was well known,
and his death in 1994 vitiated at least some of the privacy interests protected by grand jury
secrecy. See id at 49. Although the information sought by Pro£ Nichter is more than forty years
old, at least one of the subjects of grand jury testimony---is still living and these
documents should remain sealed to protect his privacy. It is also possible that other
individuals-grand jurors and witnesses-named in the materials are still living. Revealing the
names of Watergate grand jurors and grand jury witnesses could bring these individuals or their
families unwanted media attention. If interviewed, living former grand jurors and witnesses may
divulge information constituting a further breach of grand jury secrecy. 14
Prof. Nichter speculates that at least some of the information contained in the sealed
documents "has already become part of the public record." Nichter Reply 3.
Rule 6(e)(6) requires that "[r]ecords, orders, and subpoenas
relating to grand-jury proceedings" remain sealed only "to the extent and as long as necessary to
prevent the unauthorized disclosure" of grand jury matters. Material can '"los[ e) its character as
Rule 6(e) material,"' when it has been disclosed by a party and widely disseminated by the
media. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 493 F.3d 152, 154 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting
In rc North, 16 F.3d 1234, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) ("Although not every public disclosure waives
Rule 6(c) protections, one can safely assume that the 'cat is out of the bag' when a grand jury
witness . . . discusses his role on CBS Evening News.").
14 Disclosure may be appropriate following the death of all persons named in the grand jury materials. The Court would also reconsider its ruling if it was presented with evidence that the named individuals bad consented to release.
12
Case 1:12-mc-00074-RCL Document 18 Filed 06/11113 Page 13 of 14
Thus, releasing the
Transcript of the grand jury's proceeding (found behind Tab B) would reveal
information that remains secret to this day.
Moreover, Prof. Nichter seeks information related to the motivation behind the Watergate
break-in. Nichter Ltr. 1, Sep. 6, 2010, ECF No. J. After reviewing the grand jury materials in
camera, the Court does not believe the information contained therein would help resolve any
ambiguities in the historical record or bring Prof. Nichter any closer to solving the questions he
presents. After weighing the Craig factors, the Court determines that the calculus falls in favor
of the government's position and will not unseal any grand jury materials.
III. CONCLUSION
Prof. Nichter's quest to discover the ultimate truth behind Watergate is laudable.
Unfortunately, the law does not allow the Court to release all the requested information. The
Court will unseal the PSRs and some personal documents but will allow NARA to make
appropriate redactions. Only the names of individuals overheard on the illegal wiretaps will be
unsealed. The Court will likewise order that grand jury materials remain under seal. An Order
consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall issue this date.
SO ORDERED this 131b day of May 2013.
~~ RO CE C. LAMBERTH Chief Judge United States District Court
13