FOR OTHER THAN A GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY, OF THE ATTORNEY'S ASSISTANTS, DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY-SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS OR TESTIMONY IS PERMITTED ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND ONLY WITH A COURT ORDER. THE DELIBERATIONS AND VOTES OF A GRAND JURY MAY NEVER BE DISCLOSED. THE POLICY OF GRAND JURY SECRECY AND THE RATIONALE ARE STRONGEST WHILE THE INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING. HOWEVER, THE COURTS HAVE GRANTED DISCLOSURE IN CERTAIN INSTANCES AFTER THE GRAND JURY HAS COMPLETED ITS WORK, AS IN ILLINOIS V. SARBAUGH, 552 F. 2D 768, 775 (7TH CIR. 1977). A TWO-STEP PROCESS IS REQUIRED FOR OBTAINING GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTS, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED PURSUANT TO GRAND JURY SUBPOENA REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE PERSON PRODUCING THEM AND THEIR INSPECTION BY THIRD PARTIES MUST BE MADE PURSUANT TO THE ONWNER'S CONSENT OR A COURT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE THRESHOLD QUESTION IS WHETHER A LITIGANT HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO INSPECT THE DOCUMENTS OR REVIEW THE TESTIMONY. THIS LEGAL RIGHT MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH A DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST UNDER RULE 34 OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL RULES OF A RULE 45 SUBPOENA OR A MOTION TO OBTAIN LEAVE OF COURT FOR EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS. IF THE PARTIES HAVE A RIGHT TO ACCESS, THEN THEY MUST OBTAIN A RULE 6 (E) ORDER PERMITTING DISCLOSURE. THE COURTS HAVE TRADITIONALLY APPLIED TWO STANDARDS IN PERMITTING DISCLOSURE, ONE FOR DOCUMENTS UNDER GRAND JURY SUBPOENA AND ANOTHER, MORE DIFFICULT ONE, FOR DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. WHEN DECIDING TO WHETHER OR NOT TO PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY TO A PRIVATE LITIGANT, THE COURTS HAVE TRADITIONALLY APPLIED THE STANDARD SET FORTH BY THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES V. PROCTER AND GAMBLE, INC. IN ESSENCE, THE COURT MUST BALANCE THE POLICY THAT REQUIRES SECRECY OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WITH THE POLICY THAT REQUIRES FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AS IN TEXAS V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, 546 F.2D 626, 628 (5TH CIR., 1977). FOR RELATED ARTICLES, SEE NCJ 62048.