UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STRI CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

__________________________________________) SAI FULLAH PARACHA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti onNo. 04 -20 22 (P L F) ) BA RACK OBA MA, et al., ) ) Re sp on de nts . ) __________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER The pa rties appe are d befor e the Court for a status conf

ere nce a nd motions hearing
on Au gus t 26 , 2 00 9. Cur

re ntl y pe nd ingbe fo rethe Court arese ve ra l mo tio ns by

pe tit ion e r: a motion for discovery

[299] ; a motion for a more definite stateme nt, to provide a prope r re turn and/or to strike the f

actua l return [314/315] ; a motion to unseal responde nts’ ex parte submissi on of Jul y 10, 2009 [306] ; and a motion for r elea se on bail [319] . The status conf ere nce r esolved
c e rt a in a re a s o f d isa gre e me nt o r c on fu sio n b e tw e e n c ouns e l and re su lte d in

a pla n f or thi s habeas petition to procee d. After car eful c onsideration of the parties’ paper s and ora l statements befor e the Court as we ll as the proce dural fr amewor k of the Gua

ntanamo habeas case s, it is hereby ORDE RED that pe tit ion e r’ s mo tio n f or a mor e de fi nit e state me nt [3 14 /31 5] is DENI ED. The Court f

inds that the “nar

rative” included in re spondents’ ame nded fa ctual re turn is adequate to put the petitioner on notice of the re spondents’ fa ctual basis for detaining petitioner. In addition, counsel for responde nts repre sented that at the point that this case rea ches briefingand/or a

hearing on the merits, they will rely only on the amende d fac tual return —2

inc lud ingbo th t

he na rr ativ e se c tio n a

nd a ll a c c omp anyingdo c ume nts — o r w ill mov e to
su pp le me nt t

he ame nd e d f

a c tua l r e tur

n; t he y wi ll n ot re ly

on any prior fa c tua l r e tur

ns a s th e ba sis for de taining pe titioner. Whi le petitioner re quests that he be pe rmitted to share a dditional
mate ri a l in

the c la ssi fi e d f

a c tua l r e tur

n w ithinv e sti g ator s o ve rs e a s, to p e rm it h im t o d o s o w ou ld vio late the te rm s o f t

he Pr ote c tiv e Or de r e nte re d a ft e r c are fu l c on sid e ra tio n b y Judg e Ho g an in the mis c e lla

ne ou s c a se . It is FURTHE R ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for discove ry [299] is DENI ED without prejudice. Petitioner’ s motion was filed befor e this Court issued its C ase Ma nag ement Orde r on Jul y

16, 2009, which ame nded ce rtain discover y proce dures se t forth in J udg e Hog an’s Case Mana g ement Or der a nd made some of

petitioner’s re quests moot. In addition, petitioner’s mot ion do e s n ot c omp ly

wi th t he pr oc e dura l f

ra me wo rk fo r d isc ov e ry

in t he se ha be a s c a se s, either unde r Judge Hog an’s CMO or this Court’s amendme nts to it , beca use it does not identify specific discovery

due under

the CMO. Instead pe titioner makes broa d reque sts for discover y akin to reque sts one would make in norma l civil lit iga tion, rather tha

n followingthe dictates of Sections I .D and I .E. of the CMO. As Judge Collyer r ece ntly stated, “[a] discovery

reque st that starts with ‘any

and all’ is almost ce rtainly in trouble under the CMO. . . .” See Sadkha n v. Obama, 608 F . Supp. 2d 33, 39 (D.D.C. 2009). Petitioner’s motion is no ex ception.

Petitioner will, however, r ece ive additional discover y from re spondents. As repr esente d by

counsel for

responde nts, they

will produce me dical re cords to petitioner’ s counsel within approxi mately

two wee ks. Moreove r, re spondents are eng ag ed in ong oing T ask F orce discovery related to petitioner, and r espondents’ c ounsel has represe nted to the Court that
re sp on de nts wi ll w or

k d ili g e ntl y

to c omp le te thi s r e vie w a nd wi ll p ro du c e the do c ume nts to3

pe tit ion e r’ s c ouns e l w ith in s ixty to n ine ty da y s. Ac c or din g ly , it

is FURTHE R ORDERED that the parties a ppear at a status conf

ere nce to discuss the status of dis c ov e ry

and do c ume nt p ro du c tio n o n O c tob e r 3 0, 20 09 at 10 :00 a .m. It is FURTHE R ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to unseal responde nts’ e xpa rte submissi on of Jul y

10, 2009 [306] is denied. See O baydullah v. Obama, Civil Action No. 08 -1 17 3, Min

ute Or de r ( July

13 , 2 00 9) . And

it i s FURTHE R ORDERED that the g overnme nt file a re sponse to petitioner’s motion for r elea se on bail on or be fore October 20, 2009; petitioner may reply on or bef ore O ctober

27, 2009. The Court will hear oral a rgument on this mot ion at the status confe renc e sche duled on Oc tob e r 3 0, 20 09 at 10 :00 a .m.

SO ORDERED. _/s/________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: August 28, 2009