Judge Block entered a second order directing the United States Attorney and the FBI to produce the invention for inspection.
The United States once again removed the case. Both the United States and Markarian have filed a motion to vacate the state court's order, only Markarian further moves this court to retain jurisdiction after it vacates the order. This court directed the government to produce a copy of the transcript of proceedings before the state court which resulted in that court's order against United States officials in order to find a basis for Judge Block's order. No transcript was provided because the proceedings were apparently not recorded. There is nothing before this court from which the court can glean the legal authority upon which Judge Block relied when issuing his order.
Rule 6(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure emphatically prohibits the disclosure of matters occurring before a federal grand jury. Many cases recognize and uphold this necessity for secrecy in grand jury proceedings and proclaim that the stricture of Rule 6(e) is essential for secrecy's sustenance. See, e.g., Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222, 60 L. Ed. 2d 156, 99 S. Ct. 1667 (1979); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Special Sept., 1986, 942 F.2d 1195, 1198 (7th Cir. 1991); State of Illinois v. Sarbaugh, 552 F.2d 768, 772 (7th Cir. 1977). The secrecy of grand jury proceedings is so important that it cannot be broken absent the showing of a particularized need for the material in order to avoid injustice that is commensurate with both the need for continued secrecy and the policy reason that justifies protecting that secrecy. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 942 F.2d at 1198; Hernly v. United States, 832 F.2d 980, 985 (7th Cir. 1987); Sarbaugh, 552 F.2d at 774.
Because the secrecy of a federal grand jury is essential, jurisdiction over matters proceeding before the grand jury is vested in the United States district court that supervises the grand jury. Sarbaugh, 552 F.2d at 773. The exclusive manner in which to accomplish the disclosure of grand jury matters supervised by this district court, for their use in a civil action, is through an order from the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(C)(i); Local Criminal Rule 1.04(e). Moreover, such disclosure order is obtained solely through a petition filed before the Chief Judge. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(D); Local Criminal Rule 1.04(e). Accordingly, the Circuit Court of Lake County is without jurisdiction to order any federal governmental official to disclose or release any federal grand jury material, including the invention that is the subject of the present litigation. Given the authority on this issue, the court does not expect to face a third order requiring production of grand jury material.
For reasons stated above, the court grants both motions to vacate. The August 30, 1993 order is vacated in so far as it requires the United States Attorney and the FBI to produce the invention.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHARLES RONALD NORGLE, SR., Judge
United States District Court
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.