200 F. Supp. 3d 108
D.D.C.2016Background
- E.V., a civilian who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Marine Sgt. David A. Martinez in Okinawa, sought mental-health treatment there and later in Sacramento; she and her husband obtained a compassionate reassignment to California.
- Martinez was referred for court-martial; Lt. Col. Eugene H. Robinson, Jr. (the military judge) ordered disclosure of E.V.’s psychotherapy records for in camera review and later authorized production of portions to the defense.
- Judge Robinson initially did not ground his order explicitly in the updated Military Rule of Evidence 513; later he relied on Rule 513(d)(5) (a fraud/crime exception) and also cited a now-repealed “constitutional” exception.
- E.V. challenged the disclosure through the military appellate process (Navy–Marine Corps CCA and CAAF) without relief, then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging violations of Mil. R. Evid. 513, 10 U.S.C. § 806b, and the Constitution and sought injunctive relief.
- The District Court held that venue in D.C. was improper because the relevant events occurred in Okinawa and the defendants reside there; transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (where E.V. resides) was in the interest of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) | Venue is proper in D.C. because military appellate courts (CCA and CAAF) that reviewed the matter are located in D.C. and thus a substantial part of omissions occurred here | Venue is improper: operative events and the defendants’ official duties occurred in Okinawa; defendants do not perform official duties in D.C. | Venue is improper in D.C.; transfer to Eastern District of California warranted |
| Whether plaintiff may obtain immediate relief in federal court over a military judge’s discovery order | Federal court is the appropriate forum to enjoin disclosure violating Mil. R. Evid. 513 and constitutional rights | Threshold defenses (venue, jurisdiction) raised; military process and appellate avenues are relevant | Court declined to decide merits; disposed of case on venue grounds and transferred it |
| Application of Mil. R. Evid. 513 exceptions (fraud/constitutional) by military judge | E.V. contends Judge Robinson misapplied Rule 513 and relied on a now-repealed constitutional exception | Judge Robinson found the fraud exception (d)(5) justified disclosure and cited ex-constitutional exception | District court did not reach merits but noted serious challenges to the judge’s rulings |
| Whether transfer or dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) | Plaintiff preferred adjudication in D.C. | Transfer is in interest of justice to plaintiff’s residence district | Case transferred to Eastern District of California rather than dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (transfer/venue principles)
- Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir.) (district court discretion on transfer vs. dismissal)
- Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124 (D.C. Cir.) (commonsense appraisal for "substantial part" venue inquiry)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (transfer preferable to dismissal to serve interests of justice)
- Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (equitable jurisdiction and military vs. civilian court concerns)