Opinion
06 Civ. 2059 (LTS) (KNF).
January 30, 2007
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
In this action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff alleges the defendants: (a) violated his civil rights; (b) arrested him falsely, and without probable cause; (c) assaulted him; (d) imprisoned him; and (e) prosecuted him maliciously.
Before the Court is an application by the plaintiff for an order directing that the transcript of the minutes generated during a grand jury proceeding(s) that led to his indictment in New York County, for sexually assaulting a minor to whom he is related, be unsealed. The charges made against the plaintiff, through the indictment, were dismissed in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, shortly before the matter was to proceed to trial, because the alleged crime victim, who suffers from a mental health impairment, could not remember sufficiently the facts and circumstances that prompted her to accuse the plaintiff of criminal conduct. The plaintiff, who had no contact with the criminal justice system prior to the allegation made by his relative, was incarcerated for nine months until the indictment was dismissed. The defendants have advised the Court that they do not oppose the instant application. However, the defendants have transmitted to the Court an affirmation, prepared by an assistant district attorney in New York County, who opposes the plaintiff's application.
The district attorney for New York County is not a party to this action and has made no application to the Court to be heard in connection with the plaintiff's request, that the transcript of the pertinent grand jury proceeding(s) be unsealed and disclosed to him. Therefore, the affirmation referenced above was not considered by the Court.
In July 2006, the plaintiff made a motion in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, for the identical relief that he seeks through the instant application. The judicial officer who dismissed the indictment that had been lodged against the plaintiff in that court entertained the motion and, in August 2006, denied the plaintiff's request. Thereafter, undeterred, the plaintiff brought the request to this forum.
The plaintiff maintains the relief he seeks should be granted to him because information about the grand jury proceeding(s) is needed to assist him in overcoming the presumption, that probable cause for his arrest existed, that is created whenever a criminal suspect is indicted by a grand jury. See Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 82, 468 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455 (1983). "[That] presumption may be overcome only by evidence establishing that the police witnesses have not made a complete and full statement of facts either to the Grand Jury or the District Attorney, that they have misrepresented or falsified evidence, that they have withheld evidence or otherwise acted in bad faith." Id. at 82-83, 468 N.Y.S. 2d at 455-456. In addition, the plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to the relief he seeks, through the instant application, because, although the records of a grand jury's proceedings are typically secret, they "are sometimes disclosed, especially in the context of a civil rights proceeding stemming from a dismissed criminal action such as [the one at bar]."
When an application is made to unseal the transcript of the minutes generated during a state grand jury proceeding(s), the applicant must demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for the material before a court would be warranted in granting the application. See United States v. Procter Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S. Ct. 983, 987 (1958); Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222-23, 99 S. Ct. 1667, 1674-75 (1979); Palmer v. Estate of Stuart, No. 02 Civ. 4076, 2004 WL 2429806, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2004). A particularized need may be established by showing "that (a) the material sought is needed to avoid a possible injustice, (b) the need for disclosure is greater than the need for secrecy, and (c) the request is structured to cover only material so needed."Scheiner v. Wallace, No. 93 Civ. 0062, 1995 WL 753931, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 1995) (quoting Cullen v. Margiotta, 811 F.2d 698, 715 [2d Cir.] cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1021). Moreover, "[a] review of grand jury minutes is rarely permitted without specific factual allegations of government misconduct." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 233 (2d Cir. 1990).
In a circumstance where a request is made to unseal a transcript of the minutes generated during a grand jury proceeding(s), solely to rebut the presumption of probable cause that attaches when a person is indicted on criminal charges, the particularized need standard has not been met. See Barnett v. Dillon, 890 F. Supp. 83, 87-88 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). Furthermore, where a request for information concerning the proceeding(s) before a grand jury is not narrowly tailored but is simply a wholesale request for disclosure, made in a civil action, the request, typically, should be denied. See In Mtr. of Grand Jury Minutes in United States v. Tam, No. 96 CV 2810, 1997 WL 21369, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan 9, 1997).
As indicated above, in the case at bar, the plaintiff seeks an order unsealing the transcript of the minutes generated during the grand jury proceeding(s) that resulted in criminal charges being lodged against him. The plaintiff's request is not narrowly tailored to obtain a particular portion(s) of the transcript. Rather, it is a wholesale request for disclosure of the transcript. Furthermore, the reason for the request to unseal the transcript is the plaintiff's desire to attempt to rebut the presumption of probable cause which arose as a result of his indictment. Such reasoning is not in consonance with the particularized need standard addressed above. Therefore, having considered the submissions made by the plaintiff and the policy, acknowledged by him, that favors keeping secret the proceedings that occur before a grand jury, as well as the submissions made by the plaintiff that do not: (a) establish a particularized need for the disclosure sought; (b) contain specific factual allegations of government misconduct; or (c) seek other than a wholesale disclosure of the pertinent transcript, the Court finds that, in the circumstance of the instant case, granting the plaintiff the relief he seeks would be inappropriate. Consequently, the instant application is denied.