and revealing the inner workings of the grand jury process, the Court finds that the Archives has satisfied its burden of showing that the draft indictments are protected from disclosure under Rule 6(e). c. The Purpose of Rule 6(e) The plaintiff next argues that the information contained in the draft indictments is sufficiently public to warrant disclosure because the secrecy to be protected by Rule 6(e) no longer exists. “Rule 6(e) does not create a type of secrecy which is waived once public disclosure occurs.” In re North, 16 F.3d at 1245 (quoting Barry v. United States, 740 F.Supp. 888, 891 (D.D.C. 1990)). However, once information is sufficiently widely known, it has “lost its character as Rule 6(e) material!, as t]he purpose in Rule 6(e) is to preserve secrecy.” Id. at 1244-45 (<HOLDING>). To show that withheld information must be
holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error holding that an fbi agents rough notes of an interview of the defendant were not brady material because there was no independent showing that they contained evidence that was material to the defendants guilt or innocence holding the purported rule 6e material  the final report of the office of the independent counsel  no longer protected from release because the independent counsels four interim reports to congress included most if not all of the 6e material now disclosed in the final report holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel