Ms. Martin’s counsel have now filed an opposition to the United States’ motion to file its opposition (with supporting documents) to the preliminary injunction motion under seal.  We’ve posted it here

The opposition provides some limited information about what is in the four exhibits to the opposition. 

Exhibit A, the opposition to the motion to file under seal indicates, includes Defendant LtCol Sean Sullivan’s declaration concerning “two subjects: (1) a general description of the contents of the Law Center at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (“MCRD”) San Diego and (2) statements that Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents and an Assistant United States Attorney informed Sullivan that Plaintiff is under criminal investigation.”

Exhibit B is a letter to Ms. Martin apparently signed by a Marine Corps colonel acting in his official capacity.  (I think we can all make a good guess as to the content of that letter.)

Exhibit D is described as “a heavily redacted transcript of testimony from an apparently completely public criminal proceeding in South Carolina.”  And Exhibit C is described as “cumulative of the public information in Exhibit D.”

3 Responses to “Martin v. NCIS update”

  1. Phil Stackhouse says:

    I don’t know Ms. Martin – but doesn’t this entire matter seem like extreme overreaching by the government? Sour Grapes too? Regarding the filing under seal – ridiculous. Let the sun shine in – maybe we’ll see that it really is overreaching sour grapes.

  2. Not a zombie says:

    or perhspas we’ll see what led to her debarment. In my experience, base C.O.s are usually loathe to debar someone with an i.d. or credential absent some very disturbing evidence. Any SJA who tells the base C.O. to just sign a debarment letter is going to get raked over the coals. And regarding the layout of the offices, let’s face it, MCRD has been a joke as far as security goes for years. When I did a tour there, there were no cypher locks anywhere in the buidling and anyone could simply walk straight into the SJA and counsel spaces. Don’t know if security is why they want it sealed, but it could be.

  3. John O'Connor says:

    I don’t know anything about this case, but my experience has been that federal judges hate disputes over what can be sealed and generally are pretty lenient when a party wants to have something sealed. That is, unless the party seeking to seal is really overreaching, judges tend to take disputes out on the party opposing sealing.