Case Citation
Legal Case Name

DOUGLAS OIL CO. v. PETROL STOPS NORTHWEST Case Brief

Supreme Court of United States1979
441 U.S. 211 99 S.Ct. 1667 60 L.Ed.2d 156

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: Civil plaintiffs sought grand jury transcripts from a concluded criminal case for use in their separate antitrust lawsuit. The Supreme Court established a two-part procedure for such requests, requiring the court overseeing the grand jury and the court hearing the civil case to cooperate in the disclosure decision.

Legal Significance: This case established the standard for disclosing grand jury transcripts to civil litigants under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). It requires a showing of “particularized need” that outweighs secrecy interests and mandates a cooperative procedure between the custodial court and the civil trial court.

DOUGLAS OIL CO. v. PETROL STOPS NORTHWEST Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Respondents, independent gasoline retailers, filed civil antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against petitioners, several large oil companies. Concurrently, a federal grand jury in the Central District of California investigated and indicted petitioners for criminal price-fixing. After petitioners pleaded nolo contendere, they obtained copies of their employees’ grand jury testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. Respondents then sought access to these transcripts for use in their Arizona civil suit. Instead of filing a motion to compel discovery in the Arizona court, respondents petitioned the California district court—the court that supervised the grand jury—for an order releasing the transcripts under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). The California court, despite acknowledging its lack of familiarity with the Arizona civil proceedings, found that respondents had shown sufficient need and ordered the disclosure, subject to a protective order. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the need for secrecy was minimal and respondents had shown a slight need for the materials. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: What is the proper standard and procedure for a district court to apply when considering a request under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) for the disclosure of grand jury transcripts for use in a civil proceeding pending in another district?

Reversed. A court considering a Rule 6(e) disclosure request must apply the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

What is the proper standard and procedure for a district court to apply when considering a request under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) for the disclosure of grand jury transcripts for use in a civil proceeding pending in another district?

Conclusion

The case establishes a crucial cooperative procedure for inter-district discovery of grand Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad mini

Legal Rule

Parties seeking disclosure of grand jury transcripts under Fed. R. Crim. P. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non

Legal Analysis

The Court reaffirmed the long-standing policy of grand jury secrecy, noting its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A civil litigant seeking grand jury transcripts must show a **“particularized
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?