## Facts

- A federal insurance-fraud investigation led to indictment of Rick Daniels and relatives; they were later acquitted.
- Joseph Jaskolski, an investigator for the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), assisted federal prosecutors during the investigation.
- A federal prosecutor determined Jaskolski’s assistance was necessary and, with the supervising federal judge’s knowledge, provided him access to certain grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).
- After acquittal, Daniels sued Jaskolski and NICB in Indiana state court for malicious prosecution and sought discovery of documents Jaskolski/NICB asserted were protected “matters occurring before the grand jury.”
- The state court ordered production notwithstanding the asserted Rule 6(e) secrecy objection.
- Jaskolski and NICB filed a federal action seeking to prevent state discovery from compelling disclosure of grand jury matters and to require that disclosure requests be presented to the federal judge who supervised the grand jury.
- The federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Daniels from pursuing the state-court discovery and directing that disclosure requests be made to the supervising federal judge.

## Issues

1. Whether a private NICB investigator given access to grand jury material because a federal prosecutor deemed him necessary assistance qualifies as “government personnel” (or otherwise falls within Rule 6(e)’s secrecy coverage) and is bound not to disclose grand jury matters.
2. Whether a federal district court may enjoin state-court discovery to ensure that any disclosure of potential grand jury matters occurs only through the supervising federal judge under Rule 6(e), consistent with limits on federal interference with state proceedings.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held that when a prosecutor invokes Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) to disclose grand jury matters to personnel deemed necessary to assist federal law enforcement, and disclosure is approved in the grand jury’s supervising court, the recipient is subject to Rule 6(e) secrecy restrictions.
- The court upheld channeling all determinations about whether requested material constitutes grand jury matter, and whether it may be disclosed, to the supervising federal judge rather than allowing state discovery orders to compel production.
- The court concluded the injunction was a permissible means to protect federal grand jury secrecy and maintain federal judicial control over Rule 6(e) disclosures in collateral state litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 6(e) secrecy attaches to persons within the rule’s listed categories, including recipients of disclosures made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii); such recipients may not disclose “a matter occurring before the grand jury” without authorization.
- Under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii), a federal prosecutor may disclose grand jury matters to personnel the prosecutor considers necessary to assist in enforcing federal criminal law, subject to the rule’s limits and the supervising court’s control.
- Decisions about what constitutes a grand jury matter and whether disclosure is permitted must be made through the federal court supervising the grand jury; state discovery mechanisms cannot override Rule 6(e).
- A federal injunction may be used to prevent state-court discovery from compelling disclosure of protected grand jury matters where needed to preserve the federal court’s authority over grand jury secrecy and disclosure.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction that blocked state-court discovery aimed at potentially protected grand jury materials and required litigants to seek any disclosure from the supervising federal judge, reaffirming that Rule 6(e) secrecy and disclosure decisions remain under federal judicial control even when the materials are sought in state tort litigation.


Jaskolski v. Daniels, 427 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2005)