Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a decision that some believe may have massive implications for the release of the Mueller Report, the D.C. Circuit recently ruled that courts lack discretion to release documents provided to grand juries.
The split 2:1 decision dealt with an investigation from 1957, that of the disappearance of a political activist and Columbia University professor, Jesus de Galidez. Mr. Galindez's disappearance and death is the subject of an upcoming book by Stuart McKeever, a former attorney turned non-fiction writer. Mr. McKeever sought the documents from the initial grand jury investigation into Mr. Galindez's case for use in his next publication, and petitioned a lower court for their release. The release had been denied for being overly broad in its scope. In denying the request, however, the district court noted that it had the inherent authority to disclose these and other grand jury records in cases of historical significant. The Justice Department Appealed.
In ruling for the Justice Department, the D.C. Circuit asserted that courts are bound to maintain the secrecy of grand juries unless the federal rules of civil procedure explicitly allowed for disclosure. Cautioning against district courts making decisions based on their own interpretations of public policy and historical significance would “render the detailed list of exceptions merely precatory and impermissibly enable the to 'circumvent' or 'disregard' a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure”, wrote Judges Ginsburg and Katsas. Judge Srinivasan however, disagreed, citing precedent allowing for the release of Watergate documents based on the district court's exercise of discretion.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?