Skip to main content

Murphy v. EOUSA, No. 14-5044, 2015 WL 3688318 (D.C. Cir. June 16, 2015) (Henderson, J.)

Date

Murphy v. EOUSA, No. 14-5044, 2015 WL 3688318 (D.C. Cir. June 16, 2015) (Henderson, J.)

Re: Request for grand jury information for two criminal cases

Disposition: Affirming district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment

  • Exemption 3:  The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit holds that defendant correctly withheld certain grand jury information.  First, the court finds that "EOUSA has demonstrated how disclosing the specific dates and times of day a grand jury met to consider a particular 'matter' makes it more likely that a witness's identity can be discovered."  The court explains that "exemption 3 is not limited to circumstances that are certain to reveal a witness's identity."  "Instead, the exemption is properly invoked if 'the disclosed material would tend to reveal some secret aspect of the grand jury's investigation, including the identities of witnesses.'"  The court finds that defendant's position is strengthened by defendant's "reasonab[e] belie[f] that a criminal suspect or defendant not only wants to discover a grand jury witness's identity but that he may also want to retaliate against that witness."  Second, the court finds that, "[b]ecause disclosing the day-and-time information [plaintiff] sought would tend to reveal the complexity and 'scope, focus and direction of the grand jury investigations,' that information is protected from disclosure by Rule 6(e) even if no disclosure of witness identity or risk of retaliation exists."  The court explains that "[d]isclosing the days and times a grand jury met to consider evidence and hear testimony would also reveal the content of grand jury deliberations by disclosing how long a particular 'matter occurr[ed] before the grand jury,' . . . how much or how little evidence was weighed and which witnesses most occupied the grand jury's time."  "That information could shed light on the nature of the grand jury's investigative and deliberative processes."
Court Decision Topic(s)
Court of Appeals opinions
Exemption 3
Updated August 21, 2015