ize[d] that a court called upon to determine whether grand jury transcripts should be released necessarily is infused with substantial discretion," Douglas Oil, 441 U.S. at 223. The Supreme Court has "made it clear that the concerns that underlie the policy of grand jury secrecy are implicated to a much les

uch lesser extent when the disclosure merely involves Government attorneys." United States. John Doe, Inc. I, 481 U.S. 102, 112 (1987). Nothing in Douglas Oil, however, requires a district court to pretend that there are no differences between governmental bodies and private parties. The Douglas Oil stand

crecy are greater in some situations than in others. Hence, although Abbott and the legislative history foreclose any special dispensation from the Douglas Oil standard for government agencies, the standard itself accommodates any relevant considerations, peculiar to government movants, that weigh for or a

ize[d] that a court called upon to determine whether grand jury transcripts should be released necessarily is infused with substantial discretion," Douglas Oil, 441 U.S. at 223, and may view disclosures to the Civil Division in a less stringent light. Indeed, the Supreme Court has "made it clear that the co

crecy are greater in some situations than in others. Hence, although Abbott and the legislative history foreclose any special dispensation from the Douglas Oil standard for government agencies, the standard itself accommodates any relevant considerations, peculiar to government movants, that weigh for or a

h lesser extent when the disclosure merely involves Government attorneys." United States v. John Doe, Inc. I, 481 U.S. 102, 112 (1987). Nothing in Douglas Oil, however, requires a district court to pretend that there are no differences between governmental bodies and private parties. The Douglas Oil stand