Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1279 (D.C.Cir.1992) (recognizing in dicta that evidence admitted at trial does not necessarily make it part of the public domain and that merely because material has been made public at one time does not necessarily place it within the public domain). The bare assertion that portions of the grand jury materials may have been used as exhibits at trial or that plaintiff received a copy of Mr. Kamiyama's grand jury testimony is insufficient to establish that this information is in the public domain. Plaintiff has failed to establish specifically which portions of this exempt information were disclosed at trial or how release of a transcript via discovery or through representation of Mr. Kamiyama puts this material in the public domain. See Davis, 968 F.2d at 1279 (<HOLDING>). Since plaintiff has not adequately met his
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that because plaintiff could not establish which portions of the tapes had been played in court plaintiff failed to meet his burden holding district court order of restitution failed for lack of proof when government failed to meet burden holding that because plaintiff could not demonstrate that his conviction had been reversed or set aside on grounds of innocence plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for any potential recovery under 28 usc  1495 and 2513 holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job