Kyle Zoellner v. Eric Losey

Background

Kyle Zoellner brought civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Arcata, city officials, and city police officers. The claims included unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, defamation, and wrongful threat of criminal prosecution.

Zoellner subpoenaed the District Attorney for Humboldt County for documents concerning a February 2019 grand-jury proceeding, including transcripts, documents, exhibits, photographs, and recordings. The District Attorney did not respond to the subpoena. Zoellner first asked the Humboldt County Superior Court to order disclosure, but that court denied the request. The District Attorney then filed a notice stating that she did not oppose Zoellner’s federal motion, while requesting protections for the materials and permission to redact certain witness names. The defendants opposed disclosure.

Legal standard

Grand-jury proceedings are generally secret. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), a court may authorize disclosure in connection with a judicial proceeding. The court applied the three factors from Douglas Oil: whether the materials were needed to avoid a possible injustice, whether the need for disclosure outweighed the need for secrecy, and whether the request was limited to the materials needed.

Although the materials came from a state grand jury, the court concluded that Rule 6(e) provided an appropriate framework for deciding whether to disclose them in this federal case. The court also considered respect for the state court’s role. It found that Zoellner had already given the state court the required opportunity to consider the disclosure request, so that concern did not weigh against disclosure.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Zoellner met the first factor because the grand-jury materials could show the strength of the evidence against him and whether defendants had unreasonably failed to investigate other leads. The court said those issues related directly to Zoellner’s claims for unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution.

The court also found that the need for disclosure outweighed the need for secrecy, subject to protective measures. The grand-jury proceeding had ended, there were no current plans to recharge Zoellner or reconvene a grand jury concerning Lawson’s murder, and the District Attorney did not object to producing the materials under the court’s procedures. The court concluded that the request was sufficiently structured because the secrecy concerns could be addressed through limited redactions and the protective order.

Production procedures and ruling

The court ordered Zoellner to prepare a list of witnesses whose identities had been disclosed through discovery in the case and to meet and confer with the District Attorney’s office. The District Attorney had to produce the grand-jury materials, redact the names of witnesses not on Zoellner’s list, and produce the names of law-enforcement witnesses without redaction. The materials were subject to the parties’ protective order.

The District Attorney also had to provide contact information for the court reporter. If Zoellner ordered transcripts, the reporter was to send them to the District Attorney’s office, which would review and redact covered witness names before producing the transcripts to Zoellner. Zoellner could later ask to reveal additional witness identities by showing good cause.

Judge Donna M. Ryu granted Zoellner’s motion to compel and ordered production of responsive documents by June 28, 2021, consistent with those procedures.