Muhammad Husayn v. Gates

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSAYN (ISN #10016),

Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 08-1360 (EGS) LLOYD AUSTIN, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Respondents’ Motion for Partial

Reconsideration of the Court’s Memorandum Order Compelling

Disclosure of Documents in Unredacted Form. See generally

Resp’ts’ Mot., ECF No. 387. Upon careful consideration of

Respondents’ motion, Petitioner’s opposition, the reply thereto,

the applicable law, and for the reasons explained below, the

Court GRANTS Respondents’ motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that “any

order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer

than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the

claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the

entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the

parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The standard for determining whether or not to grant a Rule

54(b) motion is the “as justice requires” standard. Jud. Watch

v. Dep’t of Army, 466 F. Supp. 2d 112, 123 (D.D.C. 2006). Under

this flexible standard, the Court considers “whether the court

patently misunderstood the parties, made a decision beyond the

adversarial issues presented, made an error in failing to

consider controlling decisions or data, or whether a controlling

or significant change in the law has occurred.” In Def. of

Animals v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, 543 F. Supp. 2d 70, 75

(D.D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also

Montgomery v. Internal Revenue Serv., 356 F. Supp. 3d 74, 79

(D.D.C. 2019), aff’d, 40 F.4th 702 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

The moving party has the burden of demonstrating “‘that

some harm, legal or at least tangible, would flow from a denial

of reconsideration.’” In Def. of Animals, 543 F. Supp. 2d at 76

(quoting Cobell v. Norton, 355 F. Supp. 2d 531, 540 (D.D.C.

2005)). “[E]ven if justice does not require reconsideration of

an interlocutory ruling, a decision to reconsider is nonetheless

within the court’s discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted). However, this discretion is “limited by the law of the

case doctrine and ‘subject to the caveat that where litigants

have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither

be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it

2 again.’” Id. (quoting Singh v. George Wash. Univ., 383 F. Supp.

2d 99, 101 (D.D.C. 2005)).

In its October 1, 2009 Memorandum Order, the Court, among

other things, ordered Respondents to produce to Petitioner’s

counsel to share with Petitioner the Petitioner’s diaries. Mem.

Order, ECF No. 643-1 at 11. In response to the Memorandum Order,

Respondents provided, among other things, four diaries that

Petitioner wrote after his capture while in U.S. custody.

Resp’ts’ Mot., ECF No. 387 at 2. Respondents redacted

information that identifies or describes individual U.S.

Government personnel in the diaries. Id. Respondents request

that the Court modify its Memorandum Order to permit these

redactions, arguing that “[r]edaction of such identifying

information is justified in light of the Government’s paramount

interest in protecting the identities of its intelligence

personnel and protecting them from risk of harm.” Resp’ts’ Mot.,

ECF No. 387 at 1.

Petitioner objects, arguing that the identifying

information will help Petitioner, who has a defective memory, to

refresh his recollection and that “is precisely the type of

information that [P]etitioner requires to collect the

exculpatory evidence” that must be provided to him. Pet’r’s

Opp’n ECF No. 430 at 3. Petitioner also notes that the none of

3 the Central Intelligence Agency personnel involved in his

torture and interrogation provided their real names to him. Id.

The Court has previously approved redacting information

from records produced to Petitioner that identifies government

personnel. See Husayn v. Gates, Civil Action No. 08-1360, 2009

WL 544492 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2009)(ordering the production of

certain medical records with the treatment providers’

identifying information redacted); Husayn v. Gates, Civil Action

No. 08-1360, 2020 WL 3035052 (D.D.C. June 6, 2020)(noting that

the Court had agreed that it would be appropriate to redact

identifying information). Respondents have identified the harm

that could flow from the denial of reconsideration here—exposing

Government personnel to risk of physical harm. Petitioner has

neither addressed the harm nor provided any authority pursuant

to which the Court would reach a different result here.

4 For the reasons stated above, it is hereby

ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Partial

Reconsideration, ECF No. 387, is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Court’s Memorandum Order of October 1,

2009 is modified to permit the Government to redact information

identifying Government personnel as described in Respondents’

motion.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge August 25, 2023