United States v. Blume, 5:18-cr-00026

Six of twelve defendants (HOPE Clinic employees/operators) were indicted in 2018 on multiple Controlled Substances Act felony counts; several superseding indictments were returned (original through third superseding).
Defendants moved for production of all materials presented to Grand Jury 2016-2 (testimony, Government attorney/agent statements, instructions) relevant to the indictments, focusing on Counts 1 (attempt/conspiracy re: prescribing) and 37 (money laundering conspiracy).
Defendants contend the Government’s theory materially changed across superseding indictments (e.g., characterizing recipients as "customers" earlier, then "patients" later) and seek grand jury materials to determine if misleading or prejudicial statements were presented that could warrant dismissal.
The Government invoked grand jury secrecy and the strong presumption of regularity, arguing defendants failed to show the required "particularized need" under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii).
The magistrate judge denied the motions, finding defendants’ claims speculative and insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity; the court also declined to conduct an in camera review and ruled no hearing was necessary.
The order advised that Rule 72(a) objections to the district judge may be filed within 14 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants demonstrated a particularized need under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) to obtain grand jury materials to seek dismissal	Need materials to show misleading/prejudicial statements or lack of factual support that changed government theory	Strong presumption of regularity; defendants offer only speculation, not particularized, fact-based grounds	Denied — defendants failed to show particularized need; requests speculative
Whether grand jury secrecy interest had sufficiently diminished to permit disclosure	Superseding indictments and concluded grand jury reduce secrecy interest	Secrecy interest persists after grand jury ends; defendant must still overcome presumption	Denied — secrecy interest not eliminated; presumption not overcome
Whether the court should conduct an in camera review of grand jury materials as an alternative	If disclosure denied, request in camera review to test assertions	No basis shown to warrant even in camera review	Denied — court declined in camera review
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve the motion	(implicit) defendants did not show need for hearing	Government: pleadings suffice; no evidence required	No hearing held — resolved on pleadings

United States v. Wallace, 528 F.2d 863 (4th Cir.) (particularized-need standard for grand jury disclosure)
United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453 (4th Cir.) (limits on grand jury disclosure; no fishing expeditions)
United States v. Loc Tien Nguyen, 314 F. Supp. 2d 612 (E.D. Va.) (defendant must show particularized and factually based grounds)
United States v. Abcasis, 785 F. Supp. 1113 (E.D.N.Y.) (explaining heavy burden to overcome presumption of regularity)
United States v. Lisinski, 728 F.2d 887 (7th Cir.) (unsupported speculation insufficient for disclosure)
Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (1979) (grand jury secrecy interests remain after conclusion of grand jury)
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395 (1959) (trial court has broad discretion on grand jury disclosure)