Abdallah Al Ansi v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided August 25, 2009·No. Civil Action No. 2008-1923·Published

Opinion

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED It/'''H CCURT sr-<

MUHAMMAD AHMAD ABDALLAH AL-ANSI, et al.,

Petitioners,

v. Civil Action No. 08- 192 3 ( GK)

BARACK H. OBANA, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER

A Motions Hearing was held in this case on August 17, 2009,

which took place in a sealed courtroom due to the discussion of

classified information. Upon consideration of Petitioner AI-Ansi' s

Motion to Compel Discovery and Production of Classified Information

[Dkt. Nos. 99/100J, the Opposition, Reply, representations of the

parties, and the entire record herein, it is hereby granted in part

and denied in part.

Because of the very large number of discovery requests made by

Peti tioner, counsel were asked to focus their arguments on the

following major substantive issues in dispute: 1) the status of the

Guantanamo Review Task Force ("GRTF") I 2} the scope of

certifications of provision of exculpatory information provided by

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

the Government, 1 -

3) medical records of Petitioner and his accusers,

4) bounties, 5) two depositions sought by Petitioner, 6) statements

of Petitioner as well as his accusers, 7) photographs of

Petitioner, and 8} the relevance of Petitioner's allegations of

torture, and documentation relevant to those allegations. Counsel

fully addressed these issues and were given the opportunity to

raise any other issues, including those which had been covered in

their pleadings.

Based upon the arguments of counsel, the Case Management Order

("CMO") of February 12, 2009, the persuasive decisions of other

judges on this District Court, and the applicable case law from the

Supreme Court and our Court of Appeals for this Circuit, the Court

reaches the following conclusions.

T. Automatic Discovery

As to Petitioner's requests under § I.E.1 of the CMO, it is

hereby

ORDERED, that Request No. 1 is denied. Petitioner requests

" raJ ny documents or obj ects in the Government's possession that are

referenced in the factual return. II The request sweeps far too

Despite the Government's representations at the hearing about the completeness of its certifications, it is still less than clear to the Court whether it has certified that it has complied with many of the discovery requests made by Petitioner. The Government should feel free to inform the Court as to any of the orders contained herein which it believes it has already certified compliance with.

-2­

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

is further -

broadly, and does not fit under the parameters of § I.E.l; and it

ORDERED, that Request No. 2 is denied as formulated.

Petitioner requests "[alll statements, in whatever form, made or

adopted by Petitioner that relate to the information contained in

the factual return." Petitioner is entitled to all statements, "in

whatever form," that he made or adopted, which relate to any

information contained in the Factual Return upon which the

Government relies to justify his detention. See Zaid v. Bush, 596

F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009) i and it is further

ORDERED, that Request No. 3 is denied as formulated.

Peti tioner requests" [i] nformation about the circumstances - -whether

coercive or not--in which such statement[s] of the Petitioner were

made or adopted." The Government is required to produce

"circumstances information" only for those statements upon which

the Government relies.

II. Additional Discovery and Requests for Additional EXC\llpatory Evidence

As to Petitioner's requests under §§ I.D.l and I.E.2 of the

CMO, it is hereby

ORDERED I that Request No. 4 is granted in part a.nd denied in

part. Petitioner requests " [a] 11 reports [, ] interviews,

interrogations, and statements (including tapes, transcriptions[,]

-3­

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

referenced in the factual -

and original notes) referring to or discussing Petitioner, whether

return or not." The Government is

required to disclose all reports, interviews, interrogations, and

statements--including tapes, transcripts, and original notes--that

refer to or discuss Petitioner, provided that these items contain

information that the Government relies on to justify detention.

This requirement covers negative identifications provided by

any other detainees who could not identify Petitioner as an al­

Qaida bodyguard, a participant in battle at Tora Bora or elsewhere,

or an individual who fled or was captured with a group of alleged

al-Qaida bodyguards. Such fai lures to identi fy, if made, would

constitute exculpatory information under § I.D.l; and it is further

ORDERED f that Request No. 5 (" raj 11 prior and subsequent

reports, interviews f interrogations f and statements (including

tapes, transcriptions[,] and original notes) of any witness

identified in response to Request No. 4 (whether referenced in the

factual return or not)") is denied as over-broad; and it is further

ORDERED f that Interrogatory No. 1 and Request No. 6 are

denied, as Petitioner has withdrawn them; and it is further

ORDERED, that Request No. 7 is denied. Petitioner requests

"[alII information concerning whether the declarants in the

interviews and statements sought in Requests No[s]. 4 and 5 have

been released or are subject to plans for release." Under § 1.E.2,

-4­

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

demonstrate that his detention is unlawful. -

Petitioner has not adequately explained how such evidence would

Second, under § I.D.I,

the link between the information sought and the justification for

Petitioner's detention is too attenuated to constitute exculpatory

evidence. Finally, under § I.E.2(4), the requested discovery would

unduly burden the Government and very possibly interfere with

delicate negotiations with other countries; and it is further

ORDERED, that Request Nos. 8-10 are granted in part and denied

in part. 2 Request Nos. 8 and 9, and the portion of No. 10 that

refers to audio or video tapes of CSRT and ARB proceedings, are

denied. Under § I.E.2, the disclosure sought is too broad, and not

narrowly tailored. Moreover, Petitioner has already been given a

significant number of documents pertaining to the CSRT and ARB

proceedings. While the Government is absolutely required to

disclose, under § I.D.l, any exculpatory evidence to be found in

those proceedings, comprehensive disclosure of all of those

proceedings is unjustified because the conclusions reached in those

proceedings are not relevant to what must be decided in this

Request No.8: "All classified information reviewed by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal in making the determination that Petitioner was an 'Enemy Combatant.'" Request No.9: "All classified information reviewed by the Administrative Review Board in making the determination that the continued detention of Petitioner is necessary." Request No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Abdallah Al Ansi v. Bush, (D.D.C. 2009).

Abdallah Al Ansi v. Bush (Abdallah Al Ansi v. Bush) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zaid v. Bush
596 F. Supp. 2d 11 (District of Columbia, 2009)