IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 1:10-CR-27-SPM/GRJ

CARLINE CENEUS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER 

This cause is before the Court on the following motions filed by Defendant

Edouard: (1) Motion for Production of Grand Jury Transcripts in This Case (doc.

119); (2) Motion for Production of Grand Jury, Trial and Pre-Trial Transcripts in

United States v. Sou (doc. 120); and (3) Motion for Production of Transcripts of

All Grand Jury Proceedings From Any and All Cases in Which Susan French

Has Been a Member of the Prosecution Team When the Indictment Charged a

Crime Under U.S.C. §1589 (doc 134) . The Government filed an Omnibus

1

Response to Defendant’s Motions for Production of Grand Jury Transcripts (doc.

All three of these motions were adopted by Defendant Cabioch 1

Bontemps, while only the motions at docs. 119 and 120 were adopted by

Defendant Carline Ceneus.
153) and Defendant Edouard filed a reply to the omnibus response (doc. 160).2

The Court heard oral arguments on these motions on November 14, 2011.

Discussion

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(i), grand jury

materials may be disclosed “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial

proceeding.” Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) allows disclosure, “at the request of a defendant

who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a

matter that occurred before the grand jury.” Parties seeking disclosure of grand

jury materials must show a “particularized need” for that material. Douglas Oil

Co. of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979). To

demonstrate particularized need, the requesting parties must show: “(1) that the

material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial

proceeding; (2) that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for

continued secrecy; and (3) that their request is structured to cover only material

so needed.” Douglas Oil, 441 U.S. at 222. Unsubstantiated allegations of grand

jury manipulation do not satisfy the particularized need standard. United States

v. Cole, 755 F.2d 748, 759 (11th Cir. 1985).

 “It has long been a policy of the law that grand jury proceedings be kept

secret.” Aisenberg, 358 F.3d at 1346. Even when a party has established that

he has a particularized need for the materials in order to avoid injustice and this

This reply was adopted by Defendant Cabioch Bontemps. 2

-2-
need outweighs the need for secrecy, “access is limited and covers only those

materials actually needed.” Aisenberg, 358 F.3d at 1349. Therefore, a “blanket

request for all . . . grand jury materials . . . cannot be described as the kind of

particularized request required for the production of otherwise secret

information.” Id. Nor is particularized need shown “by a general allegation that

grand jury materials are necessary for the preparation of a motion to dismiss.” 

United States v. Burke, 856 F.2d 1492, 1496 (11th Cir. 1988). The district court

has “substantial discretion” in determining whether the requested materials

should be released. Id. 

Defendants have requested the production of all grand jury materials in

the above-referenced matter (doc. 119). Defendants believe Susan French, the

prosecutor formerly assigned to this case, made misleading statements that

partially led to the grand jury’s indictment. The Government has agreed to

produce the transcripts of witness testimony from the grand jury proceedings in

this case subject to a protective order limiting the use of those transcripts. 

Defendants have expressed no objection to this arrangement. Accordingly, the

Court will enter the protective order as drafted by the Government. Upon entry

of the protective order, the Government shall immediately produce to Defendants

the transcripts of the witness statements from the grand jury proceedings.

While the Government has compromised on the witness statements, it

opposes the request for non-testimonial portions of the grand jury proceeding. 

-3-
The Government argues that those materials would not otherwise be

discoverable and that the Defendants have failed to make a showing of

particularized need for those transcripts. Defendants, on the other hand, argue

that not only did Ms. French make inappropriate comments about recruitment

fees in a similar case, but the language of the indictment in this case suggests

that she improperly instructed the grand jury. Therefore, Defendants argue that

they need evidence of these statements to support a motion to dismiss. 

The Court is not convinced that Defendants have made the requisite

showing of particularized need and believes that the best way to proceed is for

the Court to review the non-testimonial portions of the grand jury proceedings in

camera. Upon review of those materials, the Court will determine whether the

materials need to be produced to Defendants. Accordingly, the Government is

hereby directed to provide the Court with the non-testimonial portions of the

grand jury proceedings by November 23, 2011. The Court reserves ruling on this

issue until such time as the Court has performed the in camera review.

Defendants have also requested all grand jury, trial, and pre-trial hearing

transcripts from the case of United States v. Sou (doc. 120) and all grand jury

transcripts from all cases in which Susan French was a prosecution team

member and the indictment charged a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (doc. 134). 

Both of these motions are denied. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

-4-
1. The Motion for Production of the Grand Jury Proceedings in this

case (doc. 119) is granted in part. The Government shall

immediately produce the transcripts of witness testimony from the

grand jury, subject to a protective order entered by the Court. With

respect to non-testimonial portions of the grand jury proceeding,

the Court reserves ruling until such time as the Court has

performed an in camera review of these materials. The

Government shall provide those materials to the Court no later than

November 23, 2011.

2. The Motion for Production of All Grand Jury, Trial, and Pre-Trial

Hearing Transcripts From the Case of United States v. Sou (doc.

120) is denied.

3. The Motion for Production of Transcripts of All Grand Jury

Proceedings From Any and All Cases in Which Susan French Has

Been a Member of the Prosecution Team When the Indictment

Charged a Crime Under 18 USC 1589 (doc. 134) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of November, 2011.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

-5-