IN RE APPLICATION OF COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Cite as 414 F.Supp.3d 129 (D.D.C. 2019) the plaintiffs are immediate family members, there is a ‘‘presumption that family members in direct lineal relationship suffer compensable mental anguish, TTT and testimony proving a close relationship will usually be sufficient to sustain an award of solatium damages.’’ Kaplan v. Hezbollah, 213 F. Supp. 3d 27, 38 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotations omitted and alteration adopted). The family member plaintiffs in this case are all either spouses, siblings, or children of crew members, satisfying the traditional definition of immediate family. See generally Pls.’ Mot. 8–18. The uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that North Korea’s actions were extreme and outrageous and were intended to cause— and did cause—extreme distress and terror in the families of the crew members. North Korea is liable to the family member plaintiffs and their estates. See Massie, 592 F. Supp. 2d at 76. iii. [Redacted] Wrongful Death Claim [51] As this Court has recently explained, ‘‘[a]ny deaths resulting from an act of terrorism under section 1605A are properly considered wrongful deaths.’’ Shoham v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 12-cv-0508, 2017 WL 2399454, at *18 (D.D.C. June 1, 2017). [Redacted]. See, e.g., Braun, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 83. [redacted]. See Valore, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 78. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs’ motion for partial default judgment is granted. North Korea is liable to all plaintiffs for the claims discussed above. The Court will address the plaintiffs’ damages in a subsequent opinion. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. , 129 IN RE APPLICATION OF the COMMITTEE ON the JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING the RELEASE OF CERTAIN GRAND JURY MATERIALS Grand Jury Action No. 19-48 (BAH) United States District Court, District of Columbia. Signed October 25, 2019 Background: House Judiciary Committee (HJC) submitted application for an order authorizing the release to HJC of certain grand jury materials related to the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including all portions of Special Counsel’s report that were redacted pursuant to rule prohibiting disclosure of a matter occurring before the grand jury and any underlying transcripts or exhibits referenced in portions of report that were redacted pursuant to rule, for the alleged purpose of determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed response to application, maintaining that disclosure of requested materials was prohibited. Holdings: Following hearing, the District Court, Beryl A. Howell, Chief Judge, held that: (1) possible impeachment trial in the Senate was a judicial proceeding under exception to rule providing for disclosure of grand jury information preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding; (2) HJC’s consideration of articles of impeachment was preliminary to an impeachment trial in the Senate, as