2 In its July 13, 2016 opinion, the Court observed that the Government had failed to produce redacted version of the documents released to Rad. See Rad, 2016 WL 3749405, at *3. To address this concern, the Government is providing the Court with redacted versions of the documents still at issue in this suit, as well as “see-through” versions of documents withheld in part pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E). Contrary to Rad’s arguments, see Motion to Order Production for In Camera Review (ECF No. 51) (“Pl. Mot.”) at 2-3, disclosure of grand jury materials is only permitted under very limited circumstances pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3). Should the Court direct the Government to Case 3:15-cv-02415-AET-DEA Document 56-8 Filed 09/23/16 Page 9 of 35 PageID: 557 3 Following receipt of the Court’s opinion, by letter dated July 26, 2016, the Government sought clarification from the Court as to which matters remained at issue in this case.

They are free to reveal the subpoena itself as well as all documents produced in response to it.” In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., No. C 07417 WHA, 2007 WL 2127577, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2007) (emphasis in original). Rule 6(e), moreover, does not prohibit the disclosure of otherwise discoverable documents merely because they are subject to a grand jury proceeding, but is instead “intended only to protect against disclosure of what is said or takes place in the grand jury room . . . .” United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1411 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1960)). Defendants cite Durham v. DOJ, 829 F. Supp. 428, 432 (D.D.C. 1993) in support of their Rule 6(e) argument. But in Durham the government refused to produce information that would reveal the identity of witnesses or the substance of testimony.

, see also United States V 650 F 2d 293, 315 (D C Cir 1981) Federal courts are empowered to seal or protect documents in appropriate circumstances, including to maintain the secrecy of ongoing investigations See Hubbard^ 650 F 2d at 316, n 84 (citing In re Sealed Affidavits, 600 F 2d 1256 (9th Cir 1979), Shea v Gabriel, 520 F 2d 879, 880, 882 (1st Cir 1975)), jee also In 1 Case 1:15-mj-00139-GMH Document 2 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 3 re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F 3d 1138, 1141 (D C Cir 2006) (acknowledging the need to seal court documents to avoid interfering with an ongoing investigation by special counsel), cf Fed R Civ P 5 and 5 2 (granting federal courts supervisory power over pleadings and permitting filing imder seal per court order), Fed R Civ P 26(c)(1) (allowing protective orders and sealing to avoid embarrassment during discovery), Fed R Crim P 6(e)(4) and 6(e)(6) (authorizing the sealing of indictments, as well as records, orders, and subpoenas) In this matter, there is ample reason for the Court to exercise its authority to seal the filings

Filed 01/31/2008 Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS 07-03885 CW 5 Rule 6(a) states: “When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned.” Plaintiff, however, does not simply request that a grand jury be convened, but asserts that he “has a right to present his evidence of violations of federal criminal law to the federal grand jury.” No such right exists.