UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
WALEED S AID BN SAID ZA ID, P etitioner ,
v . Ci vil Ac ti on N o. 05 -1 64 6 ( JD B)

BARACK

H. OBAMA, et al., Re spo nde nt s.
OR DE R B e fo re the Court

are pe tit ion e r' s mo tio ns to c omp e l c omp lia nc e wi th § I .D of

the Ca se Manag ement Or der in this case and for an orde r re quiringresponde nts to show cause r eg arding the use of inf

ormation desig nated a s "pr otected." The motions are fully briefe d and we re addre ssed at a status confer ence befor e the Court on May 7, 2009. I. Motion to Com pel Com plian ce with § I.D of the CM O Se c tio n I .D of

the CMO re qu ir e s r e sp on de nts to p ro du c e e xcu lpator y e vid e nc e a s f

oll ow s: Th e g ov e rnme nt s ha ll d isc los e to t he pe tit ion e r a ll r e a so na

bly ava ila ble e vid e nc e in i ts p os se ssi on that te nd s mate ri a lly

to un d erm i n e t h e i n fo rm at i o np re s en t edt o s u p p o rtth e go v ern m en t 's justification for deta ining the pe titioner. In this contex t, the term "r easona bly available evidenc e" means e vidence contained in a ny information re viewed by

any attorney prepa ringfac tual returns f

or any detainee ; it is not limi ted to evidenc e discove red by the attorney s prepa

ringthe fa ctual re turn for the petitioner. The te rm a lso inc lud e s any

oth e r e vid e nc e the g ov e rnme nt d isc ov e rs wh ile lit ig atin gha

be a s c or pu s p e tit ion s f

ile d b y de ta ine e s at Gua

nta namo Ba y . Pe tit ion e r a

rgue s th at " re a so na

bly ava ila ble e vid e nc e " sh ou ld b e int e rp re te d to inc lud e mate ri a ls g ather ed pursua

nt to Ex ecutive O rder

No. 13,492, 74 Fe d. Reg . 4897 (Jan. 27, 2009), whichPetitioner also seeks pr oduction of exculpatory evidenc e that has be en withheld on the 1 basis that it is cumulative. Respondents rec og nize that the CMO does not contain an e x ception fo r " c umu lativ e ne ss" and re pr e se nt t

hat th e y are pr od uc inge xcu lpator

y e vid e nc e e ve n if

it i s cumulative. Resps.' Opp. to Pet'r ' s Am. Mot. to C ompel at 11 n.10. The pa rties appe ar to have resolved this dispute, and he nce the Court will not address this issue further he re. -2- require d the Attorney

Gene ral to asse mble "a ll information in the possession of the Fe dera l Gover nment that perta ins to any individual curre ntly

detained at Guantanamo and that is releva nt to determiningthe prope r disposition of any such individual." Petitioner a lso contends that

" re a so na bly ava ila ble e vid e nc e " sh ou ld b e int e rp re te d to inc lud e c e rt a in e vid e nc e ava ila ble to
c ouns e l r e pr e se nti ngde ta ine e s at mi lit ary c omm iss ion

pr oc e e din g s. F ina lly , p e tit ion e r s e e ks to compel the pr oduction of " neg ative re sponses to interrog ators' eff orts to place [petitioner] at Tora Bor a." Pet'r ' s Am. Mot. to C ompel at 5. 1 The Court will not, at this ti me, construe "r easona bly available evidenc e" to include inf or matio n g athe re d p ur su ant t o E xec uti ve Or de r 1 3, 49 2. Re sp on de nts have fi le d a se pa rate motion seekingto establish how information g ather ed pursua nt to the Ex ecutive O rder may be
us e d in the se Gu anta

namo h a be a s p ro c e e din g s. Se e Re sp s. ' Mo t. f or Or de r R e g ard ingTa sk For ce D iscovery , May

12, 2009 (dkt. ent. # 221). B riefingand ar gument on this mot ion have been c onsolidated befor e Judge H og an and a hear ing is c urre ntly

schedule d for June 8, 2009. A rulingby this Court on t his issue would be premature. Ac cording ly , the Court will defer ruling on this aspect of pe titioner' s motion. The ne x t question is whether " rea sonably available evidenc e" under § I .D should be
con st ruedto in clu de i nfo rm ati onacces si bl e th rou gh us e of ato ol kn own as "I nt elLink ." Pe tit ion e r a

ve rs that Inte lL ink

is a va ila ble to c ouns e l r e pr e se nti ngGu anta namo d e ta ine e s in mil ita ry c omm iss ion

pr oc e e din g s. Se e Pe t' r' s A m. M ot. to C omp e l at 3- 4. Ac c or din gtoThe Court pre viously interpre ted the " automatic discove ry " pr ovisions of the CMO (i.e., 2 discovery available under § I .E.1) to re quire sea rche s of only

the " consolidated a ssemblag es of inf or matio n" c re ate d b y

the Joint Inte lli g e nc e Gr ou

p ( " JI G" ) o f t

he Joint Ta sk F or c e -Gua

nta namo (" JTF -G TM O" ) a

nd the Of fi c e fo r t he Ad min istra tiv e Re vie w o f t

he De te nti on

of En e my Combatants (" OARDEC" ). See F eb. 9, 2009 Or der at 3-4 (dkt. ent. # 146). -3- petitioner, sea

rche s using IntelL ink have y ielded exculpatory

evidenc e that ca

nnot be obtained thr ou g h s e arc he s o f O ARDE C or JTF -G TM O m ate ri a ls. Re sp on de nts e xpla in t hat Inte lL ink

is a 2 too l us e d to se arc h th e Se c re t Inte rn e t Pr oto c ol R oute r N e tw or k ( " SI PRN ET " ). Re sp s. ' Op p. to Pet'r ' s Am. Mot. to C ompel at 7-8. SI PRNET hosts several intellig ence databa ses, one of which (t he Joint De ta ine e Inf

or matio n M ana g e me nt S y ste m) wa s se arc he d to c omp ile JTF -G TM O
mate ri a ls. Al tho ugh SI PRN ET and Inte lL ink have a we b- ba se d inte rf

a c e , r e sp on de nts ma int a in that SI PRNET cannot be se arc hed like a c onventional interne t searc h eng ine. Rather, a cce ss has to be g rante d to searc h eac h databa se within SI PRNET and henc e " [i ]n m any instances . . .
sever al sepa

rate sear ches w ould be nec essar y ." See Dec laration of J ames C. KingI I , Mar. 12, 2009, at 2. Thus, re spondents conclude , SI PRNET (as made available throug h IntelL ink) is not "r easona bly available " f

or purpose s of § I .D of the CMO. Re sp on de nts ' int e rp re tatio n o f § I .D is t oo na rr ow . T hat r e sp on de nts wo uld be re qu ir e d to conduct " sever al" IntelL ink searc hes to plumb SI PRNET for exculpatory evidenc e does not mea

n that su c h e vid e nc e is n ot " re a so na bly ava ila ble ." Re sp on de nts a

pp e ar t o mi sinte rp re t § I .D to require the produc tion of "e asily available ," not " rea sonably available ," e x culpatory

evidenc e. Moreove r, re spondents do not provide any rationale why

milit ary commission defense c ounsel should rece ive ac cess to re source s -- a nd, corr esponding ly , exculpatory evidenc e -- to which ha be a s c ouns e l do no t ha

ve a c c e ss. Ac c or din g ly , to the e xtent pe tit ion e r' s mo tio n s e e ks to
re qu i re re s p o n d en t s t o s earc hS I P R NE T fo r e x cu l p at o ry

ev i d en ce p urs u an tt o § I
. D, p et i t i o n er 'sThe Court, of c ourse, is unaw are of what rec ords re spondents have in their possession. 3 T h e s e e x amp l e s ar e i n t e n d e d t o b e i l l u s tr at i v e o n l y.

-4- mot ion is G RA NT ED
. F ina lly , p e tit ion e r r e qu e sts that r e sp on de nts pr od uc e " re c or ds of

any ne g ativ e re sp on se s to interrog ators' eff

orts to place [petitioner] at Tora B ora." Pet'r ' s Am. Mot. to C ompel at 5. Respondents argue that " [t ]he information Petiti oner r equests is simply not exculpatory , and P eti ti on er ha s m ade n o at tem ptto ex pl ain ho w or why any res po ns iv e evi den ce wo ul d b e." Re sp s. ' Op p. to P e t' r' s A m. M ot. to C omp e l at 10 . B ut s e ve ra l ki nd s o f " ne g ativ e re sp on se s"
wo uld pla inl y fa ll w ith in t

he sc op e of

§ I .D be c a

us e re sp on de nts jus tif

y pe tit ion e r' s d e te nti on , in pa rt , o n th e a sse rt ion

that he wa s p re se nt i n th e To ra B or a re g ion of Af g ha nis tan b e fo re his captur e. F or example, if other de tainees w ere asked whether petitioner wa s prese nt at Tora B ora
and re sp on de d th at he wa s n ot, and if re c or ds of

su c h n e g ativ e re sp on se s a re re a so na

bly ava ila ble to r e sp on de nts , th e n s uc h r e c or ds " te nd [] mat e ri a lly to u nd e rm ine the inf

or matio n p re se nte d to
su pp or t th e g ov e rnme nt' s ju sti fi c atio n f or de ta ini ngthe pe tit ion e r. " Se e CMO § I .D . Si mil arl y , if other de tainees w ere shown photog raph a rra y s that included petitioner a nd wer e aske d to identify which individuals were at Tora Bor a, and if

petitioner then wa s not positi vely identified, the
rec ords of such a

response (if re asonably

available ) would fa ll within t he scope of § I .D. But to the e x tent petitioner see ks to use § I .D to compel produc tion of evidenc e unlike the examples above, or to the extent petitioner seeks to re quire sea rche s beyond what the Court has 3 construed a s "r easona

bly available ," his re quest falls outside of the sc ope of § I .D. Requests for additional discovery

are g overne d by

the four- part standa

rd set for th in § I .E.2 -- a

standard petitioner does not attempt to meet he re - - and in a ny event the date for disc overy reque sts under-5-

§ I .E.2 has longsince pa ssed. II. Motion for Order Concer nin g Use of "Prot ect ed" In form ation P et i t i o n er s ee k s ano rd er

re qu i ri n g re s p o n d en t s t o s h o w c au s e w h y a c ert ai nm et h o d o l o gy dis c us sin gde c la ssi fi e d in fo rm atio n w ithno n- re sid e nt t hir d p art ie s is no t w or

ka ble . Pe t' r' s Mo t. for Or der at 5-6. In their opposition, respondents note that they intended to " produce decla ssified pu bli c ve rs ion s [of

pe tit ion e r' s st ate me nts ] on o r b e fo re Ma y 14 , 2 00 9, that w ill be ava ila ble to pet it io ner t o u se w it h t hi rd- part y andex pertwi tn ess es w ho are o ut si de t he U ni tedS tat es. " Re sp s. ' Op p. to P e t' r' s Mo t. f or Or de r at 8. Thus , it

a pp e ars that th e pa

rt ie s h ave re so lve d th is i s s u e . A c c o r d i n g l y, i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D that the par

ties submit a jointstatus report - - by not late r t ha n Jun e 3, 20 09 -- inf

or min gthe Court

wh e the r t his mot ion

may be de nie d a s mo ot. SO OR DE RE D
. / s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Date: Ma

y 27, 2009