In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation
| Decision Date | 01 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 05-cv-0994.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1048.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1360.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0999.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2186.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0569.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1487.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2249.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1646.,Civil Action No. 06-cv-1758.,Civil Action No. 09-cv-0745.,Civil Action No. 04-cv-1254.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-0987.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1592.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2104.,Civil Action No. 04-cv-2022.,Civil Action No. 04-cv-2046.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1623.,Civil Action No. 07-cv-2338.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0993.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0748.,Civil Action No. 06-cv-1684.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1678.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1353.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2387.,Civil Action No. 07-cv-1710.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0889.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2199.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0526.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1235.,Civil Action No. 04-cv-1136.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1805.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2386.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2185.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0280.,Civil Action No. 04-cv-1164.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1224.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1101.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2380.,Civil Action No. 04-cv-2215.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1506.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2378.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1971.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2385.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1124.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1923.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0023.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1221.,Misc. No. 08-0442 (TFH).,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1828.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1440.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1504.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0392.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1153.,Civil Action No. 04-cv-1937.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1601.,Civil Action No. 06-cv-1761.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0359.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1638.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1207.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-2019.,Civil Action No. 02-cv-0828.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-2083.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2479.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0764.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1232.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1237.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0520.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1983.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1645.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2349.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1555.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0270.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1230.,Civil Action No. 06-cv-1767.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1497.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2367.,Civil Action No. 04-cv-1194.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0247.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1429.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0329.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0877.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0892.,Civil Action No. 06-cv-1690.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2379.,Civil Action No. 07-cv-2337.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1347.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1490.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0492.,Civil Action No. 06-cv-1668.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1457.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1789.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1244.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1233.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0883.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2371.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2384.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1607.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1238.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0634.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-2088.,Civil Action No. 06-cv-1765.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-0763.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1228.,Civil Action No. 08-cv-1236.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1189.,Civil Action No. 05-cv-1220.,Civil Action No. 06-cv-1766. |
| Citation | 630 F.Supp.2d 1 |
| Parties | In re GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Nayef N. N. B. J. Al Mutairi, pro se.
Thomas G. Allen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, Washington, DC, for Khalid Abdullah Mishal Al Mutairi Detainee, Fayiz Mohammed Ahmed Al Kandari Detainee, Fwad Mahmoud Al Rabiah Detainee, Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah Detainee.
Abdulaziz Sayer Owain Al Shammari, pro se.
Sayer O. Z. Al Shammari pro se.
Abdullah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi, pro se.
Mesfer Saleh Ali Al Ajmi, pro se.
Mohammed Funaitel Al Dihani, pro se.
Mubara F. S. M. Al Daihani, pro se.
Adil Zamil Abdull Mohssin Al Zamil, pro se.
Walid Z. A. Al Zamel, pro se.
Nasser Nijer Naser Al Mutairi, pro se.
Saad Madai Saad Hawash Al-Azmi, pro se.
Hamad Madai Saad, pro se.
Alexander Kenneth Haas, Daniel M. Barish, John P. Lohrer, Norman Christopher Hardee, Paul Edward Ahern, Sean W. O'Donnell, Jr., Andrew I. Warden, August Edward Flentje, David Hugh White, David Hugh White, Kathryn Celia Mason, Kristina Ann Wolfe, Patrick D. Davis, Sarah Maloney, Timothy Burke Walthall, Terry Marcus Henry, U.S. Department of Justice, Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Robert D. Okun, United States Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for United States of America, George W. Bush, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Richard B. Myers, Rick Baccus Brigadier, Terry Carrico Colonel.
Julia A. Berman, Robert J. Prince, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Donald H. Rumsfeld, Rick Baccus Brigadier, Terry Carrico Colonel.
Robert J. Prince, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Donald H. Rumsfeld, Richard B. Myers, Terry Carrico Colonel.
Pending before the Court is the government's Motion to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as "Protected." The government seeks to seal every unclassified factual return disclosed in the above-captioned cases. Petitioners respond that the government's broad request usurps the Court's discretion to seal judicial records. Multiple press organizations, having been granted a right to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing the motion, aver that the government's request violates the public's right to access judicial records under the First Amendment and common law. Upon consideration of the motion, petitioners' opposition, the press's opposition, and the government's replies, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.
Tasked by the Supreme Court with balancing the government's "interest in protecting sources and methods of intelligence gathering" against a detainee's need "to find or present evidence to challenge the Government's case against him," Boumediene v. Bush, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 2269, 2276, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008), the Court implemented a Protective Order governing the storage, handling and control of documents and information in the cases of detainees at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ("Guantanamo Bay"). The Protective Order covers both classified and unclassified information.1 Recognizing that some unclassified information, if publicly disclosed, may pose a threat to national security, the Protective Order permits the government to ask the Court to designate unclassified information as "protected," thereby shielding such information from the public. See September 11, 2008, Protective Order and Procedures for Counsel Access to Detainees at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Dkt. No. 409, 08-mc-0442) ("Protective Order") ¶ 35. The Protective Order instructs that the ultimate decision to deem information protected is left to the Court:
Should government counsel in these consolidated cases wish to have the Court deem any document or information "protected," government counsel shall disclose the information to qualified counsel for petitioners—i.e., counsel who have satisfied the necessary prerequisites of this Protective Order for the viewing of protected information—and attempt to reach an agreement about the designation of the information prior to filing a motion with the Court. Petitioners' counsel shall treat such disclosed information as protected unless and until the Court rules that the information should not be designated as protected.
Following this procedure, on December 29, 2008, the government filed a motion requesting that the Court "confirm designation of the Unclassified Factual Returns served on petitioners' counsel" through January as protected. Respondents' Motion to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as "Protected" (Dkt. No. 1416, 08-mc-0442) ("Gov't Mot."). The government has subsequently filed identical motions to protect every unclassified factual return filed after January in the above-captioned cases.2 The unclassified returns are the unclassified versions of the classified factual returns, which contain "the factual basis upon which [the government] is detaining the petitioner." Case Management Order (Dkt. No. 940, 08-mc-0442) (Nov. 6, 2008) 1. According to the government, due to the expedited pace of the review to develop unclassified returns, "inadvertent errors" were made—in other words, classified information was released in the unclassified returns. Gov't Mot. 6-8. Complicating matters, the government is unaware of how much classified information is contained in the unclassified returns. The government stresses that its concern is the "totality" of the classified information that would be publicly disclosed, as opposed to the risk of disclosing any specific document. Id. at 6. The government requests that the Court designate the returns protected until it can "produce versions of the returns that may be publicly disclosed." Id. at 2. The motion does not provide a date as to when such versions will be produced.
Pursuant to the Court's December 30, 2009 Minute Order, petitioners filed a consolidated opposition to the government's motion on January 7, 2009. Petitioners characterize the government's motion as a request for a "blanket designation" of the unclassified returns as protected. See Petitioners' Opposition to Respondents' Motion to Confirm Designation of Unclassified Factual Returns as "Protected" ("Pet'rs Opp.") 2. The D.C. Circuit, petitioners...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Ass'n of Waterfront Employers v. Solis
...and records." See In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 624 F.Supp.2d 27, 35 (D.D.C.2009) (collecting cases); In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 630 F.Supp.2d 1, 9 (D.D.C.2009) (same). The Court does not reach the issue of whether the interest in access to administrative decisions and or......
-
Leigh v. Salazar
...723 F.Supp.2d 526, 530–31 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (settlement records in property damage litigation); In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 630 F.Supp.2d 1, 10 (D.D.C.2009) (habeas corpus proceedings); ACLU v. Holder, 652 F.Supp.2d 654, 662 (E.D.Va.2009) (sealed qui tam complaints); Chase v. Pub. Ut......
-
Aristotle Int'l Inc. v. Ngp Software Inc.
...to a protective order, it is not necessary for the Court to find an independent basis for jurisdiction”); In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 630 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D.D.C.2009); see generally Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Hassoun v. Searls
...the contrary, it is well-established that "[a] petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a civil proceeding." In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig. , 630 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2009) ; see also Dhiab v. Trump , 852 F.3d 1087, 1092 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ("[T]he writ of habeas corpus is a civil......