8/21 Motions Session #6: More Motions to Compel And Miscellany

A mish-mash-y discussion follows on motions to compel, the mish-mash being necessary for many reasons: because many substantive motions overlap, and thus call for interrelated but separate compulsion requests; because of changes in the commissions’ docketing conventions since the case’s initiation; and because certain motions were filed in connection with prosecution filings, rather than defense filings.

An extensive summation of the resultant back-and-forth could stun an elephant.  But thankfully, the issues are quickly handled by court and counsel. Some of our motions present essentially the same facts as before, like AE144H, regarding the guard force; the need (or not) for their presence has been fleshed out a bit already.  Others concern still-hanging-but-not-quite-done motions, like AE008H.  There, the parties talk only about the particular requirements for a stipulation as to what the evidence would and wouldn’t say.  Still others have to do with additional, non-guard personnel we’ve discussed extensively thus far---Breslin, and his predecessor as Convening Authority legal advisor, Mr. Chapman.  We know who they are, and what the defense seeks from them.

At last there’s some order: we turn to motions to compel discovery in connection with AE032, the defense’s motion to preclude invasions into attorney-client relationship.  CDR Ruiz is first to speak here, about one more motion to compel access to---surprise---the guard force.  Thus the factual predicate is the same and familiar to the court, Ruiz says, and that enables him to move swiftly to two other motions in the AE032 series.  One seeks a judicial order compelling interference-free delivery of attorney-client materials (some DVDs, apparently) to his client; another seeks unspecified discovery.  At least one of these, however, might call for classified discussion, and the possibility precludes Ruiz from speaking in great detail.

That limitation applies to defense and prosecution alike, and makes for minimal rebuttal from Ruiz’s opponent.  But Maj. Robert McGovern can respond to some of Ruiz’s claims, of course---and he does so.  With respect to the guards, the prosecutor says their testimony is unnecessary, given what’s in the record already.  With respect to the DVDs, another prosecutor, Robert Swann, asks for more time in handling the matter; entry of a written communications order pursuant to AE018, regarding written communications, and the creation of a privilege team, both will enable the DVDs to be delivered, says Swann.  Ruiz, for his part, is skeptical, but doesn’t take much time making a reply argument.  Nor does Cheryl Bormann, who delivers a broadside against McGovern’s position.  The guards’ testimony is absolutely necessary, she argues: there’s been a claim that material seized from her client, by the guards, wasn’t privileged.  But that’s not true, as Bormann herself discovered during her review.  She wants to hear from the guards---or guard?---who took the material personally.