Muhammad Husayn v. Gates

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSAYN (ISN #10016),

Petitioner, v. No 08-cv-1360 (EGS) LLOYD AUSTIN,

Respondents

ORDER

Respondent filed an Ex Parte Motion to Withhold from

Disclosure Sensitive Classified Information in CIA Documents

Containing Petitioner’s Medical Records (“Ex Parte Mot.”) on

September 22, 2022. See Ex Parte Mot., ECF No. 612; Public

Version Ex Parte Mot., ECF No. 672. Thereafter, Petitioner filed

a motion seeking to prevent Respondent from proceeding on an ex

parte basis. See Motion For An Order: Barring Respondent From

Proceeding With His Original Motion Ex Parte; and (2) Requiring

Him To Re-File His Motion in Conventional Form Pursuant to Local

Rules 7(a)-(d), So That Petitioner May Assist the Court By

Asserting His Position On the Redactions Unilaterally Taken In

the CIA’s Medical Records, ECF No. 617; which Respondent

opposed, see Opp’n, ECF No. 620; and to which Petitioner

replied, see Reply, ECF No. 624. On December 1, 2022, Respondent filed a redacted version of

the Ex Parte motion at the SECRET//NOFORM level and served a

copy on Petitioner’s counsel at the secure work facility. See

Notice, ECF No. 625. Thereafter, the Court directed the parties

to propose a schedule for Petitioner’s response to the Ex Parte

motion and for Respondent’s reply, see Minute Order (May 26,

2023); and the Court set a briefing schedule, see Minute Order

(July 25, 2023).

Before reviewing the redacted version of the Ex Parte

motion, counsel for Petitioner claimed that the provision of the

redacted version did not undermine his request for full access

to the Ex Parte motion because “neither the Court nor the

Petitioner has any information on the extent of the redactions .

. . .” Petitioner’s Notice, ECF No. 626 at 2. After reviewing

the redacted version, however, Petitioner provided objections to

Respondent’s redactions, see Petitioner’s Supplemental Report,

ECF No. 656-1; and Respondent replied to those objections, see

Respondent’s Reply, ECF No. 660-1. Specifically, Petitioner

provided both “[g]eneral criticisms,” 1 Petitioner’s Supplemental

1 Petitioner has not responded to Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s contention that he was not provided the sample set of documents showing Respondent’s proposed redactions, and so apparently concedes that his contention is incorrect. See Petitioner’s Supplemental Report, ECF No. 656-1 at 2-3; Respondent’s Reply, ECF No. 660-1 at 4; and generally the docket for this case.

2 Report, ECF No. 656-1 at 2-3; and criticisms of specific

redaction examples, see id. at 3-4. The parties’ briefing will

enable the Court to take Petitioner’s objections and

Respondent’s reply into consideration when ruling on the Ex

Parte motion. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the parties’

briefing on the Ex Parte motion has mooted the relief Petitioner

seeks in the instant motion because Petitioner was provided with

a redacted version of the Ex Parte motion at the SECRET//NOFORM

level and Petitioner has provided his objections to Respondent’s

redactions.

For these reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion For An Order: Barring

Respondent From Proceeding With His Original Motion Ex Parte;

and (2) Requiring Him To Re-File His Motion in Conventional Form

Pursuant to Local Rules 7(a)-(d), So That Petitioner May Assist

the Court By Asserting His Position On the Redactions

Unilaterally Taken In the CIA’s Medical Records, ECF No. 617, is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge October 8, 2024