Dunn v. Schmitz et al

Filing 13

OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiff Kenneth Dunn's Motion to Compel Production of Certain Documents 11 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 16 November, 2017 02:08:30 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
KENNETH DUNN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEO P. SCHMITZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-cv-3308

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kenneth Dunn’s Motion to
Compel Production of Certain Documents (d/e 11) (Motion). For the reasons set
forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Dunn is a Lieutenant in the Illinois State Police (State Police). Dunn
alleges that in September 4, 2014, he was placed on restricted duty because the
State Police asserted that he was under criminal investigation. Dunn alleges that
he is not under criminal investigation and the State Police have no basis for
concluding that an investigation is ongoing. Dunn alleges that the Defendants
violated his right to due process by not providing him with a hearing to challenge
his continuing placement on restricted duty. Dunn also alleges that Defendant
Isaiah Vega violated his rights to due process by falsely stating to the Illinois
Page 1 of 4

Gaming Board (Gaming Board) that he was under ongoing criminal investigation.
Dunn was assigned to the (Gaming Board) at the time. Dunn alleges Vega’s
unconstitutional disclosure of false information resulted in the loss of Dunn’s
assignment to the Gaming Board and damage to his reputation and to his ability
to work in law enforcement. Dunn seeks injunctive relief against all Defendants
and damages against Defendants Leo Schimtz and Vega in their personal
capacities. See Complaint (d/e 1).
During discovery, Dunn served a request for production of documents on
Defendant Vega. Dunn’s request included “all documents that support the
proposition that he is under a criminal investigation.” Motion, ¶ 2. Vega objected
to producing certain documents because he could not produce the documents
pursuant Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Vega withheld certain
documents and produced redacted versions of certain other documents. Dunn
moves to compel production of these withheld documents.
ANALYSIS
Criminal Rule 6(e) prohibits disclosure of information presented to a federal
grand jury, subject to certain exceptions. One exception allows disclosure to
state personnel if the information presented to the grand jury may disclose a
violation of state criminal law. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(iv). The information

Page 2 of 4

may be disclosed “so long as the disclosure is to . . . an appropriate state . . .
official for the purpose of enforcing the law.” Id.
Vega objected to producing to Dunn documents presented to a grand jury
because Vega received a copy of those documents pursuant to a federal court
order under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(iv). Vega produced a redacted copy of the court
order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division (Order). Motion, attached Redacted Order.
The Plaintiffs provided the Court with an unredacted copy of the Order.
The Order authorized the federal prosecutors to disclose information to certain
State Police personnel for the limited purpose of enforcing state criminal law
under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(iv). Vega received these documents only to enforce state
criminal law. He was not authorized to disclose the information to anyone for any
other purpose. The Defendants’ objection to production, therefore, is sustained.
The Motion is denied.
If Dunn wishes to view these documents, he must file a petition under
Criminal Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) for disclosure in connection with this judicial
proceeding. Dunn must file such a petition in the court where the grand jury is
convened, in this case the Northern District of Illinois. Fed. R. Crim. P.
6(e)(3)(F). Dunn may not secure the material through a request to produce
documents.
Page 3 of 4

Dunn argues that a party may disclose in a civil proceeding the information
in documents presented to the grand jury under appropriate circumstances.
Dunn relies on United States v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 280 F.2d 52 (2d
Cir. 1960). The court in Interstate Dress Carriers allowed disclosure of grand jury
materials to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for the purpose of
auditing a trucking company subject to ICC jurisdiction. A federal grand jury had
subpoenaed the records of the trucking company and had possession of the
records. The ICC secured disclosure of the information by persuading federal
prosecutors to petition the court supervising the grand jury to allow the
disclosure. Interstate Dress Carriers, 280 F.2d at 53. Rule 6(e)(3)(F) was
subsequently added to Rule 6 to allow parties such as Dunn to petition the court
supervising the grand jury directly to request disclosure. If Dunn wishes to see
these documents he should file a petition under Criminal Rule 6(e)(3)(F) in the
Northern District.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff Kenneth Dunn’s Motion to
Compel Production of Certain Documents (d/e 11) is DENIED.
ENTER: November 16, 2017

s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 4 of 4