UNCLASSIFIEOIIFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 

FILED WITH THE 

COURT SECURITY OFfiCER 

esO:	 dJZ~:tt(,~" DATE:	 : 7Z,/(~;! ,/ 

UNITED STATES 

-

DISTRICT COURT
 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 

HAMID AL RAZAK, et al., 

Petitioners, 

v.	 Civil Action No. 05-1601 (GK) 

BARACK	 H. OBAMA, et al., 

Respondents. 

ORDER 

A Motions Hearing was held in this case on July 21, 2009, 

which took place in a sealed courtroom due to the discussion of 

classified information. Upon consideration of Petitioner Razak's 

Motion to Compel Compliance With the Court's Case Management Order 

[Dkt. No. 206], the Opposition, Reply, representations of the 

parties, and the entire record herein, it is hereby granted in part 

and denied in part. 

As to Section IV of Petitioner's Motion, it is hereby 

ORDERED, that Request No. 1 is granted in part. The 

Government is required to search for the names of the anonymous 

sources,l and then search for exculpatory evidence related to those 

names, including credibility assessments pertaining to the 

Said	 names are not required to be produced to Petitioner. 

UNCLASSIFIEOIIFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 
UNCLASSIFIED/IFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 

.­

statements they gave upon which the Government relies; and it is 

further 

ORDERED, that Request No.2 is denied without prejudice. The 

document request must be viewed in the context of the Government's 

certification that it has complied with its obligations under § 

I.D.1 of the Court's Case Management Order ("eMO"). Given this 

fact, the request sweeps too broadly, creates a substantial burden 

on the Government, and is based on a premise of pure speculation. 

This request is properly brought, if at all, under § I.E.2 of the 

CMO; and it is further 

ORDERED, that Request No. 3 is denied without prejudice; and 

it is further 

ORDERED, that Request No. 4 is denied without prejudice. The 

timeline requested, if it exists, does not tend to materially 

undermine allegations brought by the Government. This request is 

properly brought, if at all, under § I.E.2 of the CMO; and it is 

further 

ORDERED, that Request No. 5 is denied without prejudice. The 

requested information does not fall within the confines of § I. D.1; 

and it is further 

ORDERED, that Request No.6 is granted, pursuant to § I.D.l of 

the CMO. See Order at 3-4, Abdah v. Obama, Civ No. 04-1254 (HHK) 

(D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2009) [Dkt. No. 477]; and it is further 

-2­

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 

ORDERED, that Request No.7 -
is denied without prejudice. This 

request is properly brought, if at all, under § I.E.2 of the CMO; 

and it is further 

ORDE.RED, that Request No. 8 is denied. The requested 

information does not tend to materially undermine allegations 

brought by the Government, and therefore does not fall within the 

confines of § I.D.I; and it is further 

ORDERED, that Request No. 9 is granted, pursuant to the 

Court's Order with respect to Request No.1; and it is further 

ORDERED, that Request No. 10 is granted in part. The 

Government shall first determine whether any such "action reports" 

were created regarding Petitioner's arrest. If they were, the 

Government shall then conduct a search of such reports for 

exculpatory evidence, pursuant to § I.D.1 of the CMO. 

As to Section V of Petitioner's Motion, it is hereby 

ORDERED, that Request Nos. 1-52 are granted. These requests 

all deal with the issue of what information the Government actually 

"relies" on to justify Petitioner's detention. The Petitioner 

maintains that particular underlying documents referenced in 

already-produced intelligence reports are the foundation of certain 

2 Petitioner erroneously double-designated Request No.4. 

The request pertaining to "records of interrogations where 

Petitioner allegedly provided inconsistent information" is properly 

designated as No .. 5. The Court will re-number this and subsequent 

requests appropriately. 

-3­

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 

claims against the Petitioner. The Government argues that those 

underlying documents are not the "documents or objects," under § 

I.E.l(l), that it relies on to justify detention; rather, it 

argues, the already-produced intelligence reports are being relied 

on, and any internal references to other documents are not 

automatically discoverable. 

The CfJlO requires the Government to produce, if requested, "any 

documents or objects in its possession that the Government relies 

on to justify detention." CMO at § 1.8.1(1). These five requests 

involve scenarios where the Government has produced an intelligence 

report that references the substance of another particular document 

or object (e.g. an intelligence report that references a photograph 

identified by the Petitioner) in order to justify its detention of 

the Petitioner. In these scenarios, therefore, the Government does 

indeed rely on the substance of the underlying documents and 

objects. It is not enough that the Government produce intelligence 

reports that merely describe or reference the underlying items; it 

must produce the particUlar documents relied on in those 

intelligence reports; and it is further 

ORDERED, that Request No.6 is granted, pursuant to § I.8.1(2) 

of the CMO. See Order, Zaid v. Bush, 596 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 

2009) (JDB); and it is further 

-4­

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 
UNC-LASSIFIED/IFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 

ORDERED, that Request No. 7 is denied. In light of the 

Government's representation that the referenced intelligence report 

does not contain any statement by Petitioner upon which the 

Government relies to justify his detention, the request does not 

fall within the confines of § 1.8.1(1) of the CMO; and it is 

further 

ORDERED, that Request No. 8 is denied. The requested 

information does not fall within the confines of § I. E.1 of the 

CMO; and it is further 

ORDERED, that Request No. 9 is denied. The requested 

information does not fall within the confines of § I.E.l(2) of the 

CMO. 

As to Section VI of Petitioner's Motion, it is hereby 

ORDERED, that Petitioner's request that the Court review 

redacted documents in camera and ex parte is denied. The 

Government has certified that none of the documents in question 

support "a determination that Petitioner is not an enemy 

combatant." Gov. Opp'n to Pet's. Mot. to Compel at 38. Moreover, 

the Government also represents that it does not rely upon any 

information redacted from those documents. Consequently, the 

information does not fall within the confines of § I.E.1(1) of the 

CMO. In addition, Al Odah v. United States, 559 F.3d 539 (D.C. 

Cir. 2009) / upon which Petitioner relies, addressed a very 

-5­

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC USE ONLY 

different factual and legal -
scenario, and is therefore 

distinguishable from this case. 

Kessle~

States District Judge 

July bi'A' 2009 

Copies to: Attorneys of Record via ECF 

-6­

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFQR PUBLIC USE ONLY