Abakporo v. EOUSA, No. 18-846, 2019 WL 1046661 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2019) (Kelly, J.)

Abakporo v. EOUSA, No. 18-846, 2019 WL 1046661 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2019) (Kelly, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning dates on which term of the grand jury that returned indictment against plaintiff was extended, as well as any court orders relating to those extensions

Disposition:  Granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 3:  The court holds that "[plaintiff] is entitled to summary judgment because EOUSA has not demonstrated that the dates the grand jury's term was extended, or any court orders authorizing those extensions, 'tend to reveal some secret aspect of the grand jury's investigation' so that they are covered by Exemption 3."  "First, there is no self-evident reason why this would be so."  "The records and information at issue appear to concern the grand jury's administrative procedures, as opposed to the substance of any specific investigation."  "The specific dates the grand jury's term was extended, and any related court orders doing so, would appear to reveal little beyond that already-public information."  "Second, the declaration submitted by EOUSA in support of its invocation of Exemption 3 offers no explanation as to how these dates, or the orders reflecting them, would tend to reveal a secret aspect of the grand jury's investigation."  "Third, the limited case law on this subject does not suggest that the dates a grand jury's term was extended would tend to reveal a secret aspect of its investigation, either as a categorical matter or otherwise."