aspect of the grand jury’s investigation.” Lopez, 393 F.3d at 1350 (citations omitted). Therefore, because Ms. Murphy’s declarations sufficiently establish a “nexus” between disclosing the draft indictm osed based on prior disclosure, a plaintiff must show that the specific information sought is already in the public domain. Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 678 F.3d 926, 933 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (“A plaintiff asserting a claim of prior disclosure bears the burden of pointing to ‘specific information in the public domain that appears to duplicate that being withheld.’ ”); Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (stating requester must “point to ‘specific’ information identical to that being withheld”); see also In re Sealed Case, 192 F.3d at 1004 (<HOLDING>). Here, the plaintiffs attempt to demonstrate
holding rule 6e applicable because material was not coincidental to grand jury investigation but rather a direct result of it recognizing the importance of grand jury secrecy holding that usual rule 6e secrecy protecting identity of witnesses did not apply to the president because it was already widely known that he had testified in front of the grand jury holding that defendants false statement was material even though the grand jury was not certain that the defendant had lied until several weeks later when three witnesses testified contrary to the defendant holding the presence of counsel for a witness did not violate grand jury secrecy