Case 3:14-cv-00736-HTW-LRA Document 77 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
vs.

PLAINTIFF-COUNTER DEFENDANT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14cv736-HTW-LRA

CRYSTAL WISE MARTIN AND

BRANDI BARNETT

DEFENDANTS- COUNTER PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT BRANDI BARNETTS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SEAL

COMES NOW Defendant Barnett by and through counsel and serves this her
Response to Motion to Seal. In support of this response, Defendant Barnett respectfully
represents to the Court as follows:
1.

On May 29, 2015, Defendant Martin filed a motion to seal this entire case.

[Doc. 71].
2.

Prior to filing this motion Defendant Martins counsel called the Court to have

ex parte communications regarding filing her Motion to Seal under seal.

3.

The Court granted by text order the ore tenus request to file the Motion to

Seal under seal. There is no record as to the reasons Defendant Martin gave to the Court
for such a request.
4.

When filing the Motion to Seal, Defendant Martins counsel intentionally did

not select the Seal option in the electronic filing and left the text for the docket sheet blank
so no member of the public would have a clue as to what type of motion she was filing.
5.

Based on these actions it is clear Defendant Martin wants to request the

Case 3:14-cv-00736-HTW-LRA Document 77 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 5

Court to prevent the public from having access to the Court records for this case, and does
not want to give the public the opportunity to oppose her motion.
6.

This type of conduct is improper, and should not be allowed by the Court. If

Defendant Martin wants to prevent the public access to the Courts records, then she
should be required to allow the public the opportunity to respond such requests. The public
clearly has an interest in such records based on the medias publication of them.
7.

The Supreme Court has recognized a public right to judicial records and

proceedings. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); SEC v.
Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 849 (5th Cir. 1993) (recognizing a presumption of public
access to records). Although the common law right of access to judicial records is not
absolute, "the district court's discretion to seal the record of judicial proceedings is to be
exercised charily." Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Blain, 808 F.2d 395, 399 (5th Cir.
1987).
8.

Defendant Martin contends that Defendant Barnett is using the motion to

compel to publish sensitive information for no reason. Defendant Barnett could have
disclosed a lot more sensitive information in her Answer. Her counsel chose to use
constraint, and did not publish names of alleged mistresses or other sensitive information.
Even in Defendant Martins motion to compel, the filing did not contain many of the
sensitive allegations that could have been placed in the pleading. The motion to compel
was solely caused by Defendant Martins bad faith actions in discovery, and Defendant
Barnett only gave further information to the Court in her reply to make sure the Court was
fully aware of the relevant information she was seeking. Had Defendant Martin not falsely
claimed the information was irrelevant such further explanation to the Court would not have
-2-

Case 3:14-cv-00736-HTW-LRA Document 77 Filed 06/15/15 Page 3 of 5

been warranted. In fact, had Defendant Martin acted in good faith in discovery all the
alleged facts in the motion to compel and reply would not have been part of the public
record as there would be no need for such a motion.
9.

Even now Defendant Martin continues to claim in her motion to seal that

allegations of past affairs by Precious Martin are irrelevant, but completely fails to explain
why it would be irrelevant. Merely making a legal conclusion of irrelevancy is not enough.
Defendant Barnett has explained in her motion and reply why such allegations are relevant,
and Defendant Martin simply does not respond to the argument.
10.

Defendant Martin has been provided a copy of Defendant Barnetts pre-

discovery disclosures, which contain a lot more sensitive than what has been placed in the
public record. Had Defendant Barnett simply wanted to disclose embarrassing alleged
facts so the media would pick them up she could have done so a lot earlier in the case with
a lot more detail. Defendant Barnett is willing to e-mail the Court her pre-discovery
disclosures and discovery responses so they will not be part of the public record, and the
Court will be able to ascertain the restraint Defendant Barnett has used in her case. Even
without that review it is clear Defendant Barnett has only disclosed what is necessary to
make the Court fully informed of why requested information is relevant to her case.
11.

Defendant Barnett opposes Defendant Martins motion to seal as it would

place an unnecessary burden upon the parties and the Court to have to conventionally file
all documents under seal.
12.

The public has a clear right to the court record in this case just like any other

case. There is no trade secret, patent, or other private information in the current case that
would justify the sealing of an entire case. Defendant Martin had no problem filing public
-3-

Case 3:14-cv-00736-HTW-LRA Document 77 Filed 06/15/15 Page 4 of 5

documents alleging Defendant Barnett had intentionally seduced Precious Martin into
having an adulterous affair with her, and that Defendant Barnett intentionally tried to end
their marriage. However, when embarrassing allegations are filed against Defendant
Martin she files a motion to seal under seal so even the public has no idea what she is
requesting. Defendant Martin should not be allowed to use the public court record to her
benefit when she chooses, and then choose to close the public court record merely
because she does not like what she sees.
13.

If the Court were to seal the entire record merely because embarrassing

allegations were filed in the public record most civil cases would have to sealed. In most
civil cases that are filed before this Court there is some allegation that a party could claim
is embarrassing.
14.

Defendant Barnett requests that the requirement for a separate

memorandum be waived because of the straight forward nature of Defendant Barnetts

response.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Barnett respectfully requests that the Defendant
Martins Motion to Seal be denied. Alternatively, Defendant Barnett requests that the
Court allow the public the opportunity to oppose this motion before ruling on the motion.
This, the 15th day of June, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,

s/ Nick Norris
Nick Norris (MB No. 101574)
Louis H. Watson, Jr. (MB No. 9053)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
-4-

Case 3:14-cv-00736-HTW-LRA Document 77 Filed 06/15/15 Page 5 of 5

OF COUNSEL:
WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
1880 Lakeland Drive
Suite G
Jackson, MS 39216
Telephone: (601) 968-0000
Facsimile
(601) 968-0010
nick@watsonnorris.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nick Norris, attorney for Plaintiff do hereby certify that I have this day filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which sent notification of
such filing or mailed, via United States Mail, postage prepaid, on all counsel of record:

THIS, the 15th day of June, 2015.

s\ Nick Norris
NICK NORRIS

-5-