Dokhan v. Obama

599 F. Supp. 2d 18, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16396, 2009 WL 528960
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMarch 3, 2009
DocketCivil Action 08-0987 (JDB)
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 599 F. Supp. 2d 18 (Dokhan v. Obama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dokhan v. Obama, 599 F. Supp. 2d 18, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16396, 2009 WL 528960 (D.D.C. 2009).

Opinion

*20 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

JOHN D. BATES, District Judge.

Pursuant to the status hearing held on February 26, 2009, consistent with the standards set forth in Boumediene v. Bush, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 2275, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008), and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 539, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004) (plurality), the standards referenced in the Case Management Order entered by Judge Hogan on November 6, 2008 and revised on December 16, 2008, and the standards referenced by this Court on December 22, 2008, see, e.g., Hamlily v. Obama, Civ.A. No. 05-0763, the Court enters the following Case Management Order to govern proceedings in the above-captioned case. 1

I.

A. Declassified Factual Returns. By not later than March 24, 2009, petitioner shall file a statement identifying the portions of the unclassified factual return and attachments thereto that he seeks to have declassified. Petitioner must provide a reasonable basis to assert that any item should be declassified, and under the heading “High Priority Items,” petitioner shall identify the items he considers most important to his ability to present his defense. By not later than April 24, 2009, the government shall file the declassified return. The government shall provide a justification for each item it has determined not to declassify.
B.This section intentionally left blank.
C. This section intentionally left blank.
D. Exculpatory Evidence.
1. The government shall disclose to the petitioner all reasonably available evidence in its possession that tends materially to undermine the information presented to support the government’s justification for detaining the petitioner. In this context, the term “reasonably available evidence” means evidence contained in any information reviewed by any attorney preparing factual returns for any detainee; it is not limited to evidence discovered by the attorneys preparing the factual return for the petitioner. The term also includes any other evidence the government discovers while litigating habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Disclosure of such exculpatory evidence shall occur by not later than April 3, 2009. On that date, the government shall file a notice certifying either that it has disclosed the exculpatory evidence or that it does not possess any exculpatory evidence.
2. If evidence described in the preceding paragraph becomes known to the government after the deadline for disclosure, the government shall provide the evidence to the petitioner as soon as practicable.
E. Discovery.
1. If requested by the petitioner, the government shall disclose to the petitioner (1) any documents and objects in the government’s possession *21 that the government relies on to justify detention; (2) all statements, in whatever form, made or adopted by the petitioner that the government relies on to justify detention; and (3) information about the circumstances in which any statements of the petitioner were made or adopted, including but not limited to any evidence of coercive techniques used during any interrogation or any inducements or promises made. 2 Disclosure requests shall be made in writing by not later than March 6, 2009. Disclosure shall occur by not later than April 3, 2009.
F. Classified Information. If any information to be disclosed under Sections I.D or I.E of this Order is classified, the government shall, unless granted an exception, provide the petitioner’s counsel with the classified information, provided the petitioner’s counsel is cleared to access such information. If the government objects to providing the petitioner’s counsel with the classified information, the government shall move for an exception to disclosure.
G. Traverse. In response to the government’s factual return, the petitioner shall file a traverse containing the relevant facts and evidence supporting the petition. Petitioner’s traverse shall be filed by not later than July 1, 2009. For good cause shown, the petitioner may amend or supplement a filed traverse.
H. Meet-and-Confer Requirements; Status Hearing. The parties shall meet-and-confer and file a status report by not later than July 10, 2009 for the purpose of narrowing the factual matters in dispute. A status hearing to review the factual record will then be held on July 15, 2009 at 9:00 A.M. in Courtroom 8.

II.

A. Burden and Standard of Proof. The government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner’s detention is lawful. Any argument in support of a different burden of proof shall be presented in each party’s motion for judgment on the record in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section III.
B. Presumption in Favor of the Government’s Evidence. The Court may *22 accord a rebuttable presumption of accuracy and authenticity to any evidence the government presents as justification for the petitioner’s detention if the government establishes that the presumption is necessary to alleviate an undue burden presented in this habeas corpus proceeding. If the Court determines that a presumption is warranted, the petitioner will receive notice of the presumption and an opportunity to rebut it. Argument, if any, in support of a different eviden-tiary presumption or process shall be presented in each party’s motion for judgment on the record in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section III.
C. Hearsay. Upon the request of either the petitioner or the government, the Court may admit and consider hearsay evidence that is material and relevant to the legality of the petitioner’s detention, if the movant establishes that the hearsay evidence is reliable and that the presentation of the evidence in compliance with the Federal Rules of Evidence

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

Related

Hassoun v. Searls
W.D. New York, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
599 F. Supp. 2d 18, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16396, 2009 WL 528960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dokhan-v-obama-dcd-2009.