# United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 2, 1958 · 356 U.S. 677

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421636

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES v. PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 2, 1958
- **Citations:** 356 U.S. 677; 1958 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,046; 78 S. Ct. 983; 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077; 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1873
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Whittaker
- **Judges:** Douglas, Whittaker, Hablan, Frankfurter, Burton
- **Cited by:** 1,263 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421636

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the “indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings ... must not be broken except where there is a compelling necessity. There are instances when that need will outweigh the countervailing policy. But they must be shown with particularity.”
- stating that the “ ‘indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings’ must not be broken except where there is a compelling necessity,” and that instances where the need outweighs the countervailing policy must “be shown with particularity”
- explaining that the liberal discovery provisions of the Federal Rules are designed to make “trial less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”
- explaining that liberal discovery provisions of Federal Rules are designed to make “trial less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair context with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practical extent.”
- holding that, although Government suggested dismissal as a sanction for its refusal to comply with a challenged court order, Government could challenge that underlying order in ensuing appeal of dismissal

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Whittaker,
concurring;
Believing that appellees did not make a sufficient showing of such exceptional and particularized need for the grand jury minutes as justified wholesale invasion of their secrecy in the circumstances of this case, I concur in the Court’s decision, but desire to add a word.
Although a “no true bill” was voted by the grand jury in this case — and, hence, the Government’s attorneys, agents and investigators were then through with the grand jury proceedings, if they were conducted for lawful purposes — the Government admits that it has used the grand jury minutes and transcripts in its preparation, and that it intends to use them in its prosecution, of this civil case. Appellees suggest, principally on the basis that no indictment was prepared, presented to or asked of the grand jury, that the Government’s purpose in conducting the grand jury investigation was to obtain, ex parte, direct or derivative evidence for its use in this civil suit which then was contemplated. But the District Court made no finding of such a fact. However, it is obvious that such could be, and probably has often been, the real purpose of grand jury investigations in like cases. The grand jury minutes and transcripts are not the property of the Government’s attorneys, agents or *685 investigators, nor are they entitled to possession of them in such a case. Instead those documents are records of the court. And it seems clear that where, as here, a “no true bill” has been voted, their secrecy, which the law wisely provides, may be as fully violated by disclosure to and use by the government counsel, agents and investigators as by the defendants’ counsel in such a civil suit.
In order to maintain the secrecy of grand jury proceedings; to eliminate the temptation to conduct grand jury investigations as a means of ex parte procurement of direct or derivative evidence for use in a contemplated civil suit; and to eliminate, so far as possible, fundamental unfairness and inequality by permitting the Government’s attorneys, agents and investigators to possess and use such materials while denying like possession and use by attorneys for the defendants in such a case, I would adopt a rule requiring that the grand jury minutes and transcripts and all copies thereof and memoranda made therefrom, in cases where a “no true bill” has been voted, be promptly upon return sealed and impounded with the clerk of the court, subject to inspection by any party to such a civil suit only upon order of the court made, after notice and hearing, upon a showing of such exceptional and particularized need as is necessary to establish “good cause,” in the circumstances, under Rule 34. Surely such an order may still be made by the trial court in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421636. Public record. Not legal advice.