UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA IN RE: GUANTANAM O BAY DETAINEE LITIG ATION Misc. No. 08-0442 (TFH) Civil Act ion Nos. 02- cv- 0828 , 04- cv- 1136 , 04- cv- 1164 , 04- cv- 1194 , 04- cv- 1254 , 04- cv- 1937 , 04- cv- 2022 , 04- cv- 2046 , 04- cv- 2215 , 05- cv- 0023 , 05- cv- 0247 , 05- cv- 0270 , 05- cv- 0280 , 05- cv- 0329 , 05- cv- 0359 , 05- cv- 0392 , 05- cv- 0492 , 05- cv- 0520 , 05- cv- 0526 , 05- cv- 0569 , 05- cv- 0634 , 05- cv- 0748 , 05- cv- 0763 , 05- cv- 0764 , 05- cv- 0877 , 05- cv- 0883 , 05- cv- 0889 , 05- cv- 0892 , 05- cv- 0993 , 05- cv- 0994 , 05- cv- 0999 , 05- cv- 1048 , 05- cv- 1124 , 05- cv- 1189 , 05- cv- 1220 , 05- cv- 1244 , 05- cv- 1347 , 05- cv- 1353 , 05- cv- 1429 , 05- cv- 1457 , 05- cv- 1490 , 05- cv- 1497 , 05- cv- 1504 , 05- cv- 1506 , 05- cv- 1555 , 05- cv- 1592 , 05- cv- 1601 , 05- cv- 1607 , 05- cv- 1623 , 05- cv- 1638 , 05- cv- 1645 , 05- cv- 1646 , 05- cv- 1678 , 05- cv- 1971 , 05- cv- 1983 , 05- cv- 2088 , 05- cv- 2104 , 05- cv- 2185 , 05- cv- 2186 , 05- cv- 2199 , 05- cv- 2249 , 05- cv- 2349 , 05- cv- 2367 , 05- cv- 2371 , 05- cv- 2378 , 05- cv- 2379 , 05- cv- 2380 , 05- cv- 2384 , 05- cv- 2385 , 05- cv- 2386 , 05- cv- 2387 , 05- cv- 2479 , 06- cv- 1668 , 06- cv- 1684 , 06- cv- 1690 , 06- cv- 1761 , 06- cv- 1765 , 06- cv- 1766 , 06- cv- 1767 , 07- cv- 1710 , 07- cv- 2337 , 07- cv- 2338 , 08- cv- 0987 , 08- cv- 1101 , 08- cv- 1153 , 08- cv- 1207 , 08- cv- 1221 , 08- cv- 1224 , 08- cv- 1228 , 08- cv- 1232 , 08- cv- 1233 , 08- cv- 1235 , 08- cv- 1236 , 08- cv- 1237 , 08- cv- 1238 , 08- cv- 1360 , 08- cv- 1440 , 08- cv- 1789 , 08- cv- 1805 , 08- cv- 1828 , 08- cv- 1923 , 08- cv- 2019 , 08- cv- 2083 , 09- cv- 0745 MEMORAN DUM OPINION P ending befor e the C our t is the gover nment’s M otion to Amend the S eptember 11, 2008 P r otective Or der and C ounsel Acc ess P r ocedur es and the Januar y 9, 2009 Amended T S / S C I P r otective Or der and C ounsel Acc ess P r ocedur es (“ M otion to Amend” ) (D kt. N o. 1684, 08-mc-0442)

. T he gover nment asks the C our t to amend the pr otective or der s enter ed in the above- captioned case s in or der to pr event petitioner s fr om viewing their own statements, if those statements have been designated as classified or pr otected. U pon consider ation of the motion, petitioner s’ opposition, and the gover nment’s r eply, the C our t will deny in par t and gr ant in par t the motion.BACKGROUND T he impetus for the gover nment’s motion is two Januar y or der s that per mitted a par ticular petitioner to view a document containing por tions of his statements that wer e included in his classified fac tual r etur n. In those or der s, the C our t inter pr eted one of the pr otective or der s enter ed in the habea s case s for the detainee s at the U nited S tates N aval B ase in Guantana

mo B ay, C uba (“ Guantana mo B ay” ) to allow petitioner s to view documents containing their own statements, even if those statements ar e classified. T he gover nment’s motion is the latest salvo in an ongoing dispute betwee n the gover nment and petitioner s over what infor mation the C our t intended to allow counsel for a petitioner to shar e with that petitioner

. On S eptember 11, 2008, the C our t enter ed the P r otective Or der and P r ocedur es for C ounsel Acc ess to the D etainee s at Guantana mo B ay (D kt. N o. 409, 08-mc-0442) (“ P r otective Or der ” and “ C ounsel Acc ess P r ocedur es, ”

r espec tively). T he par ties disagr ee whether , under the P r otective Or der and C ounsel Acc ess P r ocedur es, statements made by a petitioner to someone other than counsel ar e “ pr ovided by” the petitioner , and ther efor e may be shar ed with the petitioner

. T he r eleva nt por tion of the P r otective Or der r eads, “ P etitioner s’ counsel shall not disclose to a petitioner -deta inee classified infor mation not provided by that petitioner -deta inee. ” P r otective Or der ¶ 29 (empha sis added)

. T he C ounsel Acc ess P r ocedur es ar e simil ar ly ambiguous, instr ucting that

“ [c] ounsel may not divulge classified infor mation not lear ned fr om the detainee to the detainee

. ” C ounsel Acc ess P r ocedur es ¶ 31. On Januar y 15, 2009, pur suant to a motion filed by a single petitioner , the C our t enter ed an or der interpre ting the above pr ovisions to per mit the petitioner to view the statements he made to U nited S tates gover nment agents that wer e included in his classified

2fac tual r etur n. See Or der (D kt. N o. 109, 05-cv- 1244) (Jan. 15, 2009). C ounsel was per mitted

to shar e with the petitioner a document containing por tions of such statements. 1 T wo wee ks afte r the C our t’s or der , the gover nment filed a Motion to Vacate the J anuar y 15, 2009 Orde r. The g overnme nt indicated that the de classification review of the petitioner’s c lassified statements wa s now complete. The Court’s order was moot, the g overnme nt arg

ued, bec ause pe titioner’s counsel c ould reviewthe dec lassified ver sion of the statements with the petitioner. Alter natively , the g overnme nt rec ommended that the Privileg e Review Te am re view the doc ument cre ated by counsel a g ainst the dec lassified mater ial and reda ct any

information that re mained cla ssified. Noting that the g overnme nt’s motion was filed only four da y s (two business day s) bef ore c ounsel was sc heduled to visit the petitioner, and ther efor e ther e was insufficient time for the C our t to identify and r eview the r edac ted infor mation, the C our t denied the motion. See Or der (D kt. N o. 122, 05-cv- 1244) (Jan. 30, 2009). In the Or der of Januar y 30, 2009, the C our t also clar ified the gover nment’s obligation under the P r otective Or der and C ounsel Acc ess P r ocedur es in case s wher e counsel compiles a petitioner ’s classified statements into a new document and seeks to shar e that document with the petitioner

. In such case s, any classified statements in the document must be r edac ted if the gover nment completes a decla ssification r eview of the classified statements befor e the petitioner ’s counsel is schedule d to visit the petitioner and ther e is sufficie nt time for the appr opr iate M er its Judge to r eview the r edac tions. T her efor e, if the gover nment failed to

Eac h petitioner’s c lassified fa ctual re turn includes exhibits , many of which de tail 1 statements made by

the petitioner to g overnme nt ag ents. Counsel was only permitted to extract from those e x hibits t he petitioner’ s statements and the dates the statements we re ma de. See Or der (D kt. N o. 109, 05-cv- 1244). 3decla ssify the petitioner ’s classified statements in a timely manner , his counsel could r eview

those still -cla ssified statements with him. T his compr omise balanc ed the gover nment’s inter est in pr otecting classified infor mation with petitioner s’ r ight to “ a prompt habe as cor pus hear ing,” Boumedie ne v. B ush , 128 S.Ct . 2229, 2275 (2008). The a fore mentioned J anuar y order s prompted the g overnme nt to file the Motion to Amend at issue he re, on Ma rch 11, 2009. With few ne w ar g uments and little additional substance, the g overnme nt asks the Court to vacate the January order s beca

use, hy pothetically , they will allow other petitioners to re view cla ssified information. Specific ally , it now asks the Court to amend the Protec tive Orde r and Counsel Ac cess Proc edure s to ensure that petitioners do not view their own c lassified statements. I ts proposed ame ndments would permit counsel “ to share with a detaine e only classified infor

mation counsel lea

rn fr om the detainee during the

course of communications with t he deta inee via le g al mail or leg al visits.” Mot. to Amend 4. A petitioner would not be a llowed to view his statements cited in his classifie d fac tual return. Rather, “ the proposed a

mendments would allow disclosure of such statements only

if they wer e taken f rom dec lassified mater ials or if the a ppropriate national sec urity ag encie s approve d the disclosure.” Id. at 3-4. Thoug h not at issue in the J anuar y decisions, the g overnme nt also seeks to amend the Ame nded Protec tive Orde r and Counsel Ac cess Proc edure s for c ases involving Top Secre t/Sensit ive Compartmented Information (“ TS/S CI ”) ( D kt. N o. 1496, 08-mc-0442) (Jan. 9, 2009) (“ T S / S C I Protective Or der” and “T S/S CI Counsel Acce ss Procedure s,” re spectively ), since they too contain the disputed provisions. See T S / S C I Protective Or der ¶ 30; TS/S CI Counsel Acce ss Procedure s ¶ 34. As for a dea dline by

when a decla ssified revie w of pe titioners’ statements would be c ompleted, and ther efor e ava ilable for disc losure to petitioners, the g overnme nt reque sts that the Court “allow the Gove rnment’s de classification process to run its

4course .” Mot. to Amend 6. The g overnme nt further

moves to amend the Protec tive Orde r and Counsel Ac cess Procedur es, and the ir TS/SC Icounter parts, to limit petit ioners fr om viewing protec ted information. “Protec ted” infor mation is un classified infor mation that may

never theless pose a threat to national security if publicly

disclosed. See Protective Or der 1- 2. Under the g overnme nt’s proposed a mendments, counsel c ould only share a petitioner’ s protecte d statements with the petitioner if counse l learne d the information duringthe cour se of c ommunications with the petitioner or if

the appr opriate national security ag encie s approve d the disclosure. Mot. to Amend 4. Pursuant to a minute order , petitioners filed a consolidated opposition on May 11, 2009. All but two petitioners oppose the motion. The g overnme nt filed a re ply on May 22, 2009. 2 DISCUSSIO N The g overnme nt seeks to withhold statements from petitioners that have bee n desig nated as either classified or

protec ted. These two classification categ ories pre sent disparate sec urity

conce rns and a

re g overne d by

disparate case law. The ref ore, the Court will separate ly assess the g overnme nt’s motion with respect to classifie d statements and pr otected statements. A. Classif

ied Statem ents Wit h respe ct to petitioners’ stateme nts that have be en desig nated a s classified, the g overnme nt’s motion is premised on two a rg uments: (i) the Court misinterpreted the Protective Orde r and Counsel Ac cess Proc edure s, and (ii) the g overnme nt has the discre tion to withhol d classified material fr om petitioners. The Court re jects the fir st arg ument, but acc epts the sec ond.

Acc ording to the g overnme nt, counsel for Petitioner Alkhadr Abdullah A l Yafie 2 (I SN 34) and Petitioner Tofiq Na sser Aw ad Al B ihani (I SN 893) “indicated that their c lients would consent to the motion.” Mot. to Amend 3 n.3. 5There fore , the Court will decline to amend the Protective Or der a nd Counsel Acce ss Procedure s, but will clarify

the options available to the g overnme nt if it objects to a court orde r to provide a petitioner’s c lassified statements to that petitioner. i. A petitioner may re view his classified statements The Court, for

the third time, decla

res that a petitioner may

view his own cla ssified statements. The g overnme nt submit s that the “languag e of the Protective Or der a nd Counsel Acc ess Proce dures did not sug g est that petitioners’ c ounsel would be pe rmitted to share w ith petitioners classifie d information not lear ned fr om their respe ctive clients.” Mot. to Amend 12. The g overnme nt is mi staken. I n acc ord with Boumedie ne , the Protective O rder and Counsel Acc ess Proce dures pe rmit a petitioner to viewhis statements, even if the y are classified. D iscussing the defic iencies of the Combatant Status R eview T ribunals (“ CSR T”), the Supreme Court in Boumedie ne isolated one for pa rticular r ebuke: “ the constra ints upon the detainee ’s ability to rebut the fa ctual basis for the Gover nment’s asser

tion that he is an ene my

combatant.” Boumedie ne , 128 S.Ct . at 2269. For example, the Supreme Court continued, dur ing the CSR T proce eding s the detaine e only has

acc ess to the “unc lassified portion” of the information on which the g overnme nt relies, and there fore he “ma

y not be awa

re of the most critical alleg ations that the Gover nment relied upon to order his de tention.” Id. (citations omitted)

. I n these ha beas pr ocee dings, a

petitioner’s classified f

actua l return – “ the fa ctual basis upon which [the g overnme nt] is detaining the petitioner” – is based, in par t, on that petitioner’s cla ssified statements. The g overnme nt thus 3 ag ain see ks to deny

petitioners ac cess to cr itical classified infor mation. The Court hee ds the Supreme Court’s dire ctive that in orde r be a war e of “ the most critical alleg ations” re lied upon by

Case Mana g ement Or der ( Dkt. No. 940, 08-mc- 0442) (Nov. 6, 2008) 1. 3 6the g overnme nt, petitioners may be per mitted to view classified infor mation. Wi thout acce ss to their statements, the Court fa ils to see how petitioners ca n eff ectively rebut the a lleg ations in the fac tual returns. N o one is better positioned to cha lleng e the g overnme nt’s relianc e on a petitioner’s stateme nts than the petitioner himself. The Court was not, and is not, inclined to adopt the g overnme nt’s narr ow interpre tation of the Protective O rder and Counsel Acc ess Procedur es, which w ould effe ctively spurn one the f

ew pr ocedur al re quirements enume rate d in Boumedie ne . The Court does r ecog nize that, under the g overnme nt’s proposal, a pe titioner’s counsel would still have a cce ss to that petitioner’s statements. Counsel, howeve r, ca nnot be expected to rebut a lleg ations stemming fr om those statements without the assistance of the petitioner himself. The g overnme nt itself conce des that “pe titioners should have ac cess to their ow n statements to the extent respondents re ly upon such statements to justify detention.” Reply

in Support of Mot. to Amend (Dkt. No. 1771, 08- mc-0442) 4. Mor eover , the sec urity risk from providing petitioners ac cess to their own statements is not compara ble to the risk from disclosing other classified infor

mation. Presumably , petitioners ar e fa miliar with their own statements. With 4 minimal security

risk and maximum litigation bene fit to petitioners, the Court intended to provide pe titioners acc ess to their own stateme nts, even if they are classified. There fore , the Court declines to amend the Protec tive Orde r and Counsel Ac cess Procedur es, or its J anuar

y interpre tation of them. Petitioners are permitted to revie w their own The Court does not trivialize the g overnme nt’s conce rn that providing a petitioner 4 acc ess to his own statements could ale rt him to the significa nce of details that he pre viously thought inconse quential. See Mot. to Amend 16. The g overnme nt’s conce rn, howe ver, a ppear s to be the conte x t, not the content, of the pe titioner’s words. Such c oncer ns can be addre ssed by providing a petitioner w ith alternatives to the a ctual docume nts that contain the petitioner’ s statements. See infra

. 7statements included in their r espec tive classified f actua l returns. ii. The governm ent has the discretion to withhold a petit ioner’s classified statements from that petiti oner The g overnme nt’s second a rg ument is that disclosure of c lassified information is l eft to the Executive’s discre tion. Though the Court holds that the Protective Orde r and Counsel Acc ess Proce dures pe rmit petitioners to view their cla ssified statements, it acknow ledg es that the decision to disclose cla ssified information is an Executive func tion. “[I ]t is the responsibility of [t he Executive], not that of the judiciary , to weig h the var iety of complex and subtle fac tors in deter mining whe ther disclosure of information may lead to an una cce ptable risk.” CIA v. Sims , 471 U.S. 159, 180 (1985). The g overnme nt has desig nated pe titioners’ statements in the classified f

actua l returns a s “sec ret.” The una uthorized disclosure of “ secr et” infor mation “could be expected to c ause se rious damag e to the national se curity .” Exec. Orde r No. 13,292, § 1.2(a) (2), 68 F ed. Reg . 15,315, 15,315-16 (Ma r. 25, 2003). The ref

ore, the Court may

not force the Executive to disclose a pe titioner’s statements conta ined in his classified fa ctual re turn. To the extent the Court’s interpretation of the Protective Or der a nd Counsel Acce ss Procedure s require s the disclosure of a petitioner’ s classified state ments over the g overnme nt’s objection, it must be clarif

ied. iii. If a court determ ines that a petitioner’s classified stat eme nts are material, the governm ent must provide the pe titioner wi th the statements or a sufficient alternative Dra wing from re cent c ase la

w and r eleva

nt criminal statutes, the Court finds that a district court may order the disclosure of

classified infor

mation over the g overnme nt’s objection, if

cer tain conditions are me t. The district court would f irst determine if the information is material and would help f

acilitate mea

ningf ul habea s review . I f the a nswer is a ffirmative to both questions, the court may

order the disclosure of

the classifie d information. I f the g overnme nt 8still objects to the disclosure of the classifie d information, it must provide a suffic ient alternative to the information. I f the g overnme nt fails to provide such a n alternative, the cour

t may order an assortment of r emedies. The que stion of what deter minations must be made befor e a c ourt may order the g overnme nt to disclose classified infor mation to the petitioners in these habe as proc eeding s was not answer ed in Boumedie ne and is one of f irst impression in thi s Circuit. As the Supreme Court left any rema ining que stions to “the expertise and compete nce of the District Court,” Boumedie ne , 128 S.Ct . at 2276, the Court will rely , by analog y , on the Classified I nformation Procedur es Ac t (“CI PA”), whic h g overns the pr ocedur es for handling classified infor

mation in criminal proc eeding s. The D.C. Circuit, in Al Odah v. United States , 559 F.3d 539, 544- 47 (D.C. Cir. 2009), similarly

relied on CI PA “by

analog y ” in a c ase c oncer ning pr ocedur es for

order ing the disclosure of

classified ma

terial to petitioners’ c ounsel in these habe as proc eeding s. I n Al Odah , the g overnme nt filed complete ve rsions of the cla ssified fac tual returns w ith the district court, but re dacte d some information in the copie s provided to petitioners’ c ounsel. The g overnme nt reda cted infor mation pertaining to individuals ot her tha n the petitioner at issue or information that was “e specia lly sensitive source -identifying inf ormation.” Id. at 543. Finding that the re dacte d materia l was re levant, the district cour t gr anted pe titioners’ counsel

acc ess to the unre dacte d classified f actua l returns. The D.C. Circuit, apply ing CI PA “by analog y ,” vac ated the c ourt’s orde r. Classified information is not discovera ble, the Circuit stated, “on a me re showingof theore tical re levanc e in the fa ce of the g overnme nt’s classified information privileg e.” Id. at 544 (quoting United States v. Y unis , 867 F.2d 617, 623 ( D.C. Cir. 1989)). The Circuit ordere d the g overnme nt to provide the district court with an a ssessment of whether the re dacte d information was material a nd whether

counsel’s a cce ss to it was nece ssary

9for the c ourt to conduct a meaning ful revie w of the pe titioner’s detention. See Al Odah , 559 F.3d at 544-45. I f the c ourt deter mined that the information wa s material a nd nece ssary

for meaning ful revie w, and ther efor e discove rable , it must then deter mine whether

“alter natives to

acc ess would suffic e to provide the detainee with the meaning ful opportunity [t o challeng e his detention as] require d by Boumedie ne .” Id. at 548. The Court finds that the Al Odah framework, w ith its relianc e on CI PA, is applicable here

. Al Odah repr esents one of the fe w ca ses wher e the D.C. Circuit has discusse d handling classified material for

the Guanta

namo B ay

detainee s. Moreove r, the issue in that ca se is analog ous to the issue here : the framework f or orde ring the dissemination of classified information over

the g overnme nt’s objection. I f any thing, the r edac tions at issue here a re le ss tenable tha

n the re dactions in Al Odah . There , the g overnme nt reda cted infor mation pertaining to other individuals, where as her e the g overnme nt is deny ing pe titioners’ ac cess to their ow n statements. I n applying Al Odah , the Court notes that many statements from a

g iven petitioner will be materia l. A petitioner’s fa ctual re turn, which for ms the basis of the g overnme nt’s detention decision, is based, in pa

rt, on that petitioner’s state ments. The Court questions whether the g overnme nt can de ny

the mater iality

of statements that it has chose n to rely upon to justi fy

a petitioner’s de tention. Never theless, such mate riality

deter minations should be made by the Merits J udg es on an individual basis. As for a lternatives, the g overnme nt submit s that it int ends to dec lassify some of the petitioners’ stateme nts. Mot. to Amend 25. For those state ments that the g overnme nt plans to decla ssify , decla ssification alone ma y not suffice . Timing is of the e ssence . As the Supreme Court admonished, “[w]hi le some dela y in fashioning new pr ocedur es is unavoidable, the costs

10of dela y can no long er be borne by those who ar e held in custody .” Boumedie ne , 128 S.Ct . at 2275. Petitioners, it continued, “ar e entitled to a pr ompt habeas c orpus hea ring .” Id. I f the g overnme nt cannot produc e dec lassified statements in a timely manner , petitioners should not bear the “c osts” in the form of de lay ed mer its hearing s. As for those state ments that the g overnme nt does not decla ssify , the Merits Judges would de termine if a lternatives to disclosure would eff ectively substitut e for

unreda cted a cce ss to the statements. See A l Odah , 559 F.3d at 547. For example, under CI PA, the g overnme nt may move to admit releva

nt fac ts that the specific classified infor

mation would tend to prove or pr ovide a summary of the infor

mation. See 18 U.S.C. App. I I I , § 6(c) (1). The se or other alternatives are available in these habe as ca ses if the Mer its J udg es dete rmine they “would suff

ice to provide the detaine e with ‘a meaning ful opportunity

to demonstrate that he is being held pursuant to the e rrone ous application or interpre tation of rele vant law.’ ” Al Odah , 559 F.3d a t 547 (quoting Boumedie ne , 128 S.Ct . at 2266). I f the g overnme nt fails to provide a suf ficient a lternative, a

nd continues to object to the disclosure of a

petitioner’s mate rial cla ssified statements, then the Court may order an appropr iate re medy

. Thoug h Al Odah is silent on the consequenc es if the g overnme nt fails to provide a sufficie nt alternative to material c lassified information, CI PA enumera tes a number

of re medies. Under CI PA, if the g overnme nt objects to the disclosure of materia l classified infor

mation and fails to provide a

sufficie nt alternative, the district court may dismiss counts in the indictment, make f indings a g ainst the g overnme nt on any issues as to which the e x cluded c lassified information re lates, or pr eclude part of a witness’s testimony

. See 18 U.S.C. App. I I I , § 6(e) (2). These r emedies a

re likew ise ava ilable to the Merits Judges in these pr ocee dings. A t a minimum, the g overnme nt cannot re ly on a petitioner’ s statement if it does not timely provide that pe titioner

11with a suffic ient alternative to that statement.

B. P rote cte d Statem ents The Court will also not amend the pr otective or ders a nd counsel a cce ss proce dures to preve nt counsel fr om sharing a petitioner’ s protecte d statements with that petitioner. The g overnme nt aver s that “[p] rotec ted information . . . is not suitable for disclosure . . . to protect the

secur ity of the United States a

nd other sig nificant intere sts.” Mot. to Amend 15 (quotation omitted). The Court ag ree s, g ener ally , that cer tain unclassified infor

mation may

not be suitable for disclosure . Such prec autions, howeve r, ar e not nec essar y with respec t to providing a petitioner ac cess to his own statements. The g overnme nt’s curr ent position, that a petitioner’s protec ted statements should not be disclosed to that petitioner, c annot be r econc iled with its

ear lier re prese ntation in a differ ent motion that it would permit a petitioner to view those ver y protec ted statements. See Resp’ts’ M ot. to C onfir m D esignation of U nclassified F actua l Retur ns as “ P r otected” (D kt. N o. 1416, 08-mc-0442) 2 (“the [unclassified fac tual returns] may be disclosed to the individual Petitioners”). The Court previously order ed that a pe titioner’s protec ted statements in his unclassified f actua l return must be provide d to that petitioner. See Memorandum Opinion (D kt. No. 1780, 08-mc-0442) (June 1, 2009). That dec ision remains binding. To the extent the g overnme nt’s reque st is directed towa rd petitioners’ statements not included in the uncla ssified fac tual returns, the Court ag ain dec lines to amend the prote ctive order s and counse l acc ess proc edure s. Petiti oners a re pr esumptively

permitted ac cess to their unclassified state ments. Pursuant to the Protective Or der a nd TS/S CI Protective Or der, the g overnme nt may

move to protec t a petitioner’s unc lassified statements not included in his unclassified f

actua l return, ther eby

denying the petitioner ac cess to those stateme nts. See

12Protective Or der ¶ 34; TS/S CI Protective Or der ¶ 35. Howeve r, the g overnme nt’s motion mus t include an “ explanation tailored to the specif ic information at issue,” Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834, 853 (D.C. Cir. 2008). P ROCEDURES To clar ify the implications of its analy sis, the Court below sets forth the pr ocedur es that the par ties must follow if counsel for a petitioner see ks to disclose the petitioner’s c lassified statements to that petitioner. I f a pe titioner’s counsel se eks to disclose such state ments to the petitioner, counse l must i dentify and list the classified state ments he or she seeks to shar e with the petitioner. Pursuant to L ocal Rule of Civil Procedur e 7(m), c ounsel must share the list of

5 statements with the g overnme nt and attempt to rea ch ag ree ment on which stateme nts can be decla ssified and by

what date . I f the pa

rties ar e unable to rea ch ag ree ment, counsel for a petitioner may

file, with the appr opriate Me rits J udg e, a Motion to Disclose Petitioner’s Statements to the Petiti oner, listing the petitioner’s stateme nts that counsel wishes to disclose to the petitioner a

nd explaining why

eac h statement is (i) mater ial to the petitioner’s c ase a nd (ii)

nece ssary to fac ilitate meaning ful habe as re view. Within t wo wee ks after the filing of such a motion, the gove rnment shall file a response , specific ally

addre ssing issues (i) and (ii) f or ea ch statement. I n its response, the g overnme nt must also subm it an alternative for e ach statement. See A l Odah , 559 F.3d at 548 (g ranting the district court discr etion to resolve a ll CI PA-related inquiries simult aneously

). I f the g overnme nt proposes to provide a decla ssified version of a statement, the g overnme nt must further indicate by when the de classified ve rsion can be provided.

The Court stresse s that statements are just that, a petitioner’s wor ds. Counsel may not 5 share information from c lassified docume nts containing a petitioner’ s statements besides the petitioner’s wor ds and the date the stateme nts were made. 13CONCLUSION For the re asons set for

th in this opinion, the gove rnment’s motion will be denied in par t and g rante d in part. The g overnme nt’s proposal to amend the Protective Or der, the TS/S CI Protective Or der, the Counsel Acce ss Procedure s, and the TS/SCI Counsel Acce ss Procedure s will be denied. The g overnme nt’s reque st to modi fy the proc edure s for providing petitioners

acc ess to their re spective pr otected statements will also be denied. T o the extent the g overnme nt’s motion seeks to modify the proc edure s for providing petitioners ac cess to their respe ctive cla ssified statements, it will be g rante d. An orde r ac companies this memora ndum opinion.

July 10, 2009 / s/ T homas F

. H ogan U nited S tates D istr ict Judge

14