2. All progress reports and requests for extensions of such interceptions; 3. The diary of AUSA Roberto Martinez reflecting contacts with Judge Hastings; 4. Tapes and transcripts where any of the 5. Reports of interviews by law enforcement representatives of Clark, Gordon, and Bonehill. The Committee further requests that the Court authorize former AUSA Roberto Martinez and FBI agents Chris Mazzella and Geoffrey Santini to discuss any information they have concerning Judge Hastings' role in connection with these matters. The Subcommittee wishes to examine these materials in furtherance of its inquiry as to whether impeachment proceedings are warranted with respect to Judge Hastings. A proposed Order is attached. on Letter from Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman, House Committee the Judiciary, to the Honorable John D. Butzner, Jr. (Sept. 25, 1987). The second Committee letter requested that: the Court make available for inspection and The Subcommittee wishes to examine these enclosed. Letter from Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, to the Honorable John D. Butzner, Jr. (Sept. 25, 5. By letter dated September 25, 1987, the Justice supported the Committee's requests. Although both of these letter requests were ex parte, Judge Butzner again, as he had done in Hastings I, notified Judge Hastings of these requests and gave him an opportunity to be heard.3 With minor exceptions not here relevant, Judge Butzner granted all of the Committee's requests. Although Judge Butzner carefully and at length considered each of Judge Hastings' contentions, his holding can be briefly summarized. On the electronic surveillance issues, he concluded that Judge Hastings had nostanding and, even if he did, Title III authorizes disclosure --under these circumstances, On the grand jury issue, Judge Butzner rejected the contention that since the grand jury grew out of the Title III proceedings, the Committee should not have access to them since, consistent with Judge Hastings' contentions, should not have access to Title III materials. Judge Butzner also found that the Committee had demonstrated a particularized need for disclosure sufficient to satisfy Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e).4 3The court and the parties did not have our opinion in Hastings I at the time of this second hearing. "Our opinion in Hastings I was released on November 24, 1987, and, therefore, was available to Judge Butzner when he issued his opinion on December 2, 1987. As a result, Judge Butzner was able to dispose of some of Judge Hastings' other contentions by 6. On appeal, Judge Hastings challenges the correctness of all of the district court's rulings. After careful consideration of the record and the arguments made on appeal, we conclude that the requested should be disclosed to the Committee and materials affirm. I. THE GRAND JURY ISSUE In Hastings 1, a considerable portion of Judge Merritt's opinion was devoted to a discussion of the "particularized need" required to satisfy of Rule 6(e). We find that the discussion and the conclusion reached in Hastings I to be equally applicable--here. Although Judge Hastings has attempted to distinguish the two situations, his arguments are unpersuasive. As in Hastings 1, the grand jury is no longer investigating this matter; much of the substance of what was before the grand jury has already been made public, including references to persons other than Judge Hastings; and the limited material sought is needed in connection with the impeachment inquiry. Thus, the requirements of Douglas O116 have been met and the concerns of Proctor and Gamble Co. 7 are not implicated. We note also, as a factor חו Spart of the public disclosure is attributable to Judge Hastings himself who referenced these proceedings as part of his arguments in Hastings 1. 6Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (1979). 7United States v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (1958). performing the balancing required between the need for disclosure and the need Tor grand jury secrecy, that the Department of Justice supported the request for disclosure. Since we reject Judge Hastings' arguments as they relate to either Title III taint or disclosure, we similarly reject his argument that the grand jury proceedings should not be disclosed since they grew out of the Title III proceedings. We also reject Judge inquiries are beyond the scope of the original impeachment resolution. The Committee has an interest in all materials inculpatory or exculpatory that bear on the question of Judge Hastings'-commission of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Hastings' arguments that these the resolution which would give it the suggested by Judge Hastings. We find nothing in temporal limitations II. THE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MATERIALS As noted earlier, the district court concluded that Judge Hastings did not have standing to contest the Title III disclosures.. Notwithstanding this conclusion, the court decided that even if standing were present, the requirements for Title III disclosure have been met. Since we agree with this latter conclusion, we could avoid any discussion of standing because it is not necessary to a resolution the Title III issue. However, our view of the standing issue differs somewhat from that of the district court; therefore, a brief discussion is warranted. 8. Judge Hastings constructs a novel argument on the standing issue. He effectively avoids a discussion of his standing under Title III and, instead, concentrates on the issue of standing to challenge the disclosure of grand jury materials. He essentially argues that since this matter ultimately went before a grand jury, the grand jury proceeding somehow subsumes the Title III proceedings and, thus, the only relevant standing inquiry concerns grand jury standing. The motivation for making this argument is obvious since Hastings I establishes that Judge Hastings does have standing grand jury disclosure matters and theCommittee does not contest this. Although this is an interesting --argument, we decline to decide this issue for a number of reasons. חו חו We know from the record that Mayor Clark and FBI agent Chris Mazzella testified before the grand jury; however, we do not have their testimony as part of this record. Nor do we have the exhibits, if any, which may have been presented to the grand jury. Judge Butzner's camera inspection in the district court was limited to the electronic surveillance materials which were under seal and which we have examined in connection with this appeal. In any event, even if we assume all of the electronic surveillance materials were before the grand jury, Judge Hastings has had his opportunity to argue against grand jury disclosure and did not prevail.8 See Hastings 1. It is unlikely that all of the electronic surveillance materials were before the grand jury since this would have required an order to unseal which does not appear in this record. |