In re Sealed Case, 192 F.3d 995 (D.C. Cir. 1999), as support for its contention that the draft indictments are not matters that occurred before the grand jury. See PL’s Opp’n at 11-13. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that In re Sealed places the burden on the agency to show that the withheld information “will reveal non-public facts known to prosecutors only because of the grand jury’s investigation, not because of [the] prosecutor’s own investigations or others’ investigations [and] non-public matters that actually occurred or were likely to occur before the grand jury.” Id. at 13. Courts must distinguish between grand jury investigations and coincidental investigations conducted by third parties, such as by independent companies, see Dresser Indus. Inc., 628 F.2d at 1382-83 (<HOLDING>), or prosecutorial investigations, In re Sealed
holding rule 6e inapplicable to documents that were created by a corporation for an independent corporate purpose even though government agency subpoenaed the documents while grand jury investigation was being conducted holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable holding that plan documents could be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment even though the complaint referred only to the plan and not its associated documents