Opinion
C.A. No. 00-136 (DRD).
April 23, 2001
James M. Curran, Esq., Heilman Curran, P.C., Milltown, N.J., Attorney for Plaintiff.
Lori A. Dvorak, Lynch Martin Kroll, North Brunswick, N.J., Attorney for Defendants, Keith Hahn and Fred Huth.
OPINION
Defendants Keith Hahn ("Hahn") and Fred Huth ("Huth") have moved for an order compelling the release of certain transcripts of state grand jury proceedings. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from the movants' statement of facts submitted in support of their motion. As these facts are consonant with the allegations in the second amended complaint filed by plaintiff Jorge Pitalua ("Pitalua"), and as the instant motion is unopposed, these facts shall be taken as true solely for the purposes of disposing of the motion.
This action stems from a joint investigation between the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (the "DEA") and the Narcotics Task Force of the Police Department of Edison Township, New Jersey (the "task force") that targeted two men, Michael Gomez and Guillermo Gomez (collectively, "the Gomezes"). Following the Gomezes' arrest on drug charges on October 7, 1998, law enforcement officers of the DEA and the task force executed a search warrant on October 8, 1998 at 753 Carlton Avenue, Plainfield, New Jersey. Pitalua was at that time living in the basement of a house at that address; the Gomezes were at that time living on another floor of the same house. Pitalua alleges that upon his being awakened by the execution of the warrant, which called neither for a search of Pitalua's person nor his premises, he went upstairs to find out what was happening and was assaulted by DEA and/or task force officers, causing him physical and emotional injury. Defendants Hahn and Huth were detectives with the Edison Township Police Department at the time the warrant was executed, and are among the officers alleged to have injured Pitalua.
The Gomezes were subsequently indicted by a grand jury in the County of Middlesex, New Jersey. They pleaded guilty to the charges in the indictment on February 16, 1999, and were sentenced (presumably by the Superior Court of Middlesex County, New Jersey, Law Division) on April 12, 1999. Hahn had testified before the grand jury; he and Huth now seek compulsory release of certain transcripts of grand jury testimony (presumably, Hahn's testimony) to assist them in their defense of the instant action.
The date the indictment was handed down cannot be discerned from the movants' submissions.
DISCUSSION
"[F]ederal common law accords state grand jury proceedings whose discovery is sought in civil cases the same protection afforded federal grand jury proceedings." Puricelli v. Borough of Morrisville, 136 F.R.D. 393, 397 (E.D.Pa. 1991) (citing Socialist Workers Party v. Grubisic, 619 F.2d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 1980)). Grand jury proceedings are generally secret, Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2) (1944, as amended through 1999), but disclosure of matters occuring before the grand jury may be made under the exceptions set forth in Rule 6(e)(3). Parties seeking transcripts of federal grand jury transcript under Rule 6(e)(3) must show (i) "that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding"; (ii) "that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy"; and (iii) "that their request is structured to cover only material as needed." Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops N.W., 441 U.S. 211, 222, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1674, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979).
This court cannot, at this time and on this record, determine whether Hahn and Huth's need for disclosure of transcripts of the Middlesex County grand jury proceedings outweighs the need to keep those proceedings secret, and whether their request is tailored as narrowly as it should be. "The grand jury was not supervised by this court or any court in this district, and the transcript is not in the court's possession." Puricelli, 136 F.R.D. at 399. Nowhere have Hahn and Huth indicated that they tried and failed to obtain these transcripts from their current state guardian (again, presumably the Middlesex County Superior Court) under New Jersey's substantive law and procedural rules. Hahn and Huth must, in the first instance, petition the appropriate New Jersey state court for release of the transcripts and disclosure of the Middlesex County grand jury proceedings.
"While this court ultimately has the power to obtain the transcripts and to order disclosure of the [Middlesex County] grand jury proceedings," Puricelli, 136 F.R.D. at 399 (citing Grubisic, 619 F.2d at 644-45), comity, and respect for the integrity of New Jersey's grand jury system, its courts, and its laws, "compel us to give the [New Jersey] court that supervised the county grand jury an opportunity to review plaintiffs' disclosure request." Ibid. This will "forestall unnecessary intrusion" by this court in New Jersey's grand jury proceedings, Grubisic, 619 F.2d at 644, and "ensure that the important state interest in secrecy is thoroughly considered." Ibid.
CONCLUSION
Until defendants Hahn and Huth have petitioned the appropriate New Jersey state court for disclosure of the Middlesex County grand jury proceedings against the Gomezes, this court shall decline to order such disclosure. Hahn and Huth may renew their motion in this court should they not obtain the relief they seek in the proper New Jersey forum.
An appropriate order shall enter.