This Note analyzes the controversy and concludes that the latter courts are correct: Congress never intended to abrogate or modify rule 6(e)'s "particularized need" standard when it enacted section4F(b). Part I discusses whether Congress intended section 4F(b) to require the Attorney General to disclose grand jury materials to state attorneys general upon request, thereby abrogating rule 6(e)'s explicit prohibition against such disclosure. Part II examines the statutory language and legislative history of section). 4F(b) to determine whether Congress intended section 4F(b) to modify rule 6(e)'s "particularized need" standard. Finally, Part III evaluates the policies affected by liberalized disclosure of grand jury materials to state attorneys general. It concludes that liberalized disclosure will not substantially further the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act's purposes, but will undermine the grand jury's effectiveness as an aid to antitrust enforcement and impair the interests of both grand jury witnesses and targets.
Michigan Law Review,
Disclosure of Grand Jury Materials Under Clayton Act Section 4F(b),
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol79/iss6/3