FAWZ IKHAL ED A.F . AL ODAH, e t al

. , Pe tit ion e rs , v . UN I TE D ST AT ES, Re sp on de nts
. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 02-828 ( CKK)

ORDER SUP P LEMENTING THE COURT’S JA NU AR

Y 7 , 2 00 9 SC HED UL IN GOR DE R (April 7, 2009) Th e pa rt ie s h ave fi le d a

Joint Status Re po rt

ind ic atin gthe ir

a g re e me nt t

hat me ri ts he ari ng s are a

pp ro pr iate fo r e a c h o f t

he fo ur Pe tit ion e rs in t

he a bo ve -c a pti on e d c a se . A s a supplement to its J anuar

y 7, 2009 SchedulingOrde r, the Court sets for th here in additional de a dli ne s in

anti c ipatio n o f f

ur the r p ro c e e din g s. A c c o r d i n g l y, i ti s , th i s 7 thd ay o f Ap r i l , 2 0 0 9 , h e r e b y OR

DE RE D a s f

oll ow s: 1) M ot ion s. On or be fore April 10, 2009, the par ties shall submita Joi nt Status R eport that in c lud e s a

pr op os e d b ri e fi ngsc he du le fo r t he fo llo wi ngite ms:
! Mo tio ns in Limine , whic h c on c e rn e vid e nti ary

iss ue s in c onne c tio n w ith Petitioners’ merits hea

ring s, which would include motions to exclude specific ty

pes of e vidence (includingdates for oppositions and replies); and
! L eg al Motions, which conce rn non-e videntiary issues, such as the “pre sumption i n favor

of the Gove rnment’s e vidence ” or “ hear say ,” as contemplated in Sec tion I Iof the Case Manag ement Or der, a s amende d (includingdates for

oppositions and replies).The Court is unclea r as to whe ther Petitioners ar e ac ceptingthe Gover nment’s standar d 1 for “ prese nt purposes only ,” and if so, what implications are associate d with that positi on. For e xamp le –a s a

hy po the tic a l and

no t e xpre ssi ngany

vie w a s to the me ri ts o f P e tit ion e rs ’ detention–if the Court we re to a pply the Gover

nment’s standar d and the Gove rnment pre vailed, would Petitioners then move for ne w merits hea ring s pursuant to the def

inition t hey

have offe red? I f so, it would appea r that the Court nee ds to resolve the pa rties’ dispute conc erningthe proper scope of the Gover

nment’s detention author ity prior to the mer its hearing s in order f or the me ri ts h e ari ngto p ro du c e fi na l de c isi on s. 2 2) Stipul ations. The pa

rties’ Apr il 10, 2009 J oint St atus Report shall include a proposed date by which the pa

rties shall notify

the Court as to whethe r they have r eac hed any

stipulations in connec tion with P etitioners’ mer its hearing s, and to the extent no stipul ations have be en
re a c he d, the date by

wh ic h th e pa

rt ie s sh a ll s o in fo rm

the Court
. 3) Standard f

or De ter m inin g Legality of Detention. The pa rties shall confe r re g arding the prope r standar d for de terminingthe leg ality of Petitioners’ dete ntion. The Court is awar e that Re sp on de nts fi le d a

me mor and

um o n M arc h 1 3, 20 09 , r e fi nin gits po sit ion wi th r e sp e c t to its
a uth or ity to d e ta in t

ho se pe rs on s w ho are no w b e ing he ld at G ua

nta namo B ay . T he Court

is a lso
awa re that Petiti oners ha

ve sug g ested a

differ ent standar d in their consolidated tra verse s, but that their trave rses subseque ntly appea r to apply the Gover

nment’s standar d for de tention. To the 1 extent the parties ar e proposingthat the Court apply differ ent standar ds for the le g ality of Pe tit ion e rs ’ d e te nti on , th e pa rt ie s sh a ll i nc lud e a

pr op os e d b ri e fi ng

sc he du le on

thi s is su e in t

he ir Ap ri l 10 , 2 00 9 Joint Status Re po rt
. 4) Re dac te d Info r m at ion in C las sifie d F ac tu al R e tu r ns. Followinga pre liminary revie w of Petitioners’ Tr aver ses, it appea rs that ce rtain information in the ex hibits attached to the
c la ssi fi e d f

a c tua l r e tur

ns ha s b e e n r e da c te d a

nd ma de un ava ila

ble to t he Court and to P e tit ion e rs ’ counsel, e ven thoug h cer

tain of Petitioners’ ar guments appea r to direc tly

implicate the3

information. See, e .g. , Consol. Traver ses at 31, 54. B eca use the re dacte d information appe ars rele vant and potentially

helpful to Petitioners’ def ense, it also appe ars to the Court that the reda ctions impli cate the D.C. Circuit’s dec ision in Al Odah v. United States , 2009 U.S. App. L EXI S 4538 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 6, 2009). Ac cording ly , the par ties shall confe r and inc lude a proposed sc hedule f

or brief ing the issues associate d with these re dactions in their Apr il 10, 2009 J oint St atus Report, exc ept if (i) Petitioners ar e willing to withdra w any arguments impli cating the information that has be en re dacte d from the c lassified fa ctual re turns, or (ii) Responde nts are wi lli ngto d isc los e the re da c te d in fo rm atio n th at is imp lic ate d b y Pe tit ion e rs ’ a

rgume nts
. 5) Executive Order 13,492. President B ara ck H. Oba ma re cently

issued Ex ecutive Orde r 13,492, direc ting the A ttorney Gene ral to “[a]ssemble all information in the possession of the Fe dera l Governme nt that pertains to any individual curre ntly

detained at Guantanamo and that is releva

nt to determining the prope r disposition of any such individual.” To the e x tent that
mate ri a ls r e latin gto P e tit ion e rs have be e n c oll e c te d o r o the rw ise a sse mbl e d in c onne c tio n w ith this Ex ecutive O rder

(or that will be c ollected or otherwise a ssembled), such materials shall be produce d to Petiti oners’ counsel, provided such mater ials were not previously revie wed or produce d by

Respondents’ counse l in connection with any of their disclosure and discove ry obligations under the Case Ma nag ement Or der, a s amende d, or the Court’s subseque nt discovery
o rd er s . T h i s o b l i gat i o ns h al l b e i m m ed i at e a n d o n go i n g. SO ORDERED. Date: Apr il 7, 2009 / s / CO LLEEN K OLLA R- K OTEL LY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge