F or me r P re sid e nt G e or g e W. B us h w a s n ame d a s th e or ig ina l le a d r e sp on de nt i n th is 1 c a se . Purs ua

nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 25 (d), the Court a uto matic a lly

su bs tit ute s h is su c c e sso r, Pr e sid e nt B ara c k H . O bama , a s th e ne w l e a d r e sp on de nt. 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 vilAc ti on N o. 05 -1 64 6 ( JD B) BARACK

H. OBAMA, et al., 1 Re spo nde nt s.

OR DE R Be fore the Court is respondents' motion for rec onsideration of the Court's January 22, 20 09 or de r. Th e Janu ary

22 or de r a dd

re sse d p e tit ion e r' s mo tio n to c omp e l c omp lia nc e wi th section I .E.1(2) of

the Case Ma

nag ement Or der in this case (" Z aid CMO") . The Court re jected
re sp on de nts ' int e rp re tatio n o f s e c tio n I .E .1 (2 ) - - whic h r e qu ir e s p ro du c tio n o f " a ll s tate me nts , in wha tev er fo rm , m ade o r ado pt ed b y pet it io ner t hatth e governm entrel ies onto ju st if y det ent io n"

-- a s to o n arr ow . T he Court or de re d r e sp on de nts to i nf or m th e Court

wh e the r t he y po sse ss
cer tain forms of pe titioner' s statements. After responde nts filed their motion for re consideration, they filed a r esponse to the January 22 order (" Gov' t Resp.") which, base d on a re view of the
c on so lid ate d r e c or ds re a dil y ava ila ble , id e nti fi e d th os e fo rm s o f p e tit ion e r' s st ate me nts c ur re ntl y in their possession. Respondents ag ain ar gue that the Court has misconstrue d its own Case Manag ement Or de r. As a

thr e sh old matte r, re sp on de nts ov e rs tate the ir su c c e ss i n p e rs ua din gJudg e Ho g an toIn any event, Judge Hog an' s Case Mana g ement Or der doe s not control in this case. As 2 the Z a id C MO no te d, " [t]his c a se -s pe c if ic Ca se Ma

na g e me nt O rd e r s up e rs e de s th e Ca se Manag ement Or ders e ntere d by J udg e Hog an . . . ." Z aid CMO at 1 n.1.

-2- rec onsider his ea

rlier c ase ma

nag ement orde rs in these Gua ntanamo B ay

habea s case s. Wherea s

2 his or ig ina l c a se mana g e me nt o rd e r p ro vid e d f or a uto matic dis c ov e ry

of " a ll s tate me nts , in whateve r for

m, made or a dopted by

the petitioner that re late to the information contained in the fac tual return," see Judge Hog an' s Initial Case Manag ement Or der § I .E.1(2) ( emphasis adde d), up on re c on sid e ratio n h is a

me nd e d o rd e r p ro vid e d f

or a uto matic dis c ov e ry

of " a ll s tate me nts , in whateve r for

m, made or a dopted by

the petitioner that the g overnme nt relies upon to justify detention," see Judge Hog an' s Final Case Manag ement Or der § I .E.1(2) ( emphasis adde d). To be sure, the a

mended or der r educe d responde nts' a utomatic discovery

burden unde r sec tion I .E.1(2) -- but not as much a s responde nts claim. Un d er re s p o n d en t s ' re ad i n g, s ec t i o nI
. E
. 1 (2 ) r equ i re s o n l y th atth ey p ro d u ce p et i t i o n er 's state me nts in t

he fo rm a lr e a dy inc lud e d in

the fa c tua l r e tur

n. Th is i nte rp re tatio n is inc or re c t. First, the phr ase " in whateve r for m" in sec tion I .E.1(2) pla inly modifies "a ll statements." The sentenc e would have to be re written to support responde nts' r eading , to wit: "all statements made or ad op tedby

pet it io ner i n wh ate ver f

orm th at t he gov ernm entrel ies up onto ju st if y det ent io n. " Second, re spondents' interpre tation would obviate sec tion I .E.1(2) be cause under the ir rea ding section I .E.1(2) w ould be satisfied by production of the f

actua l return itself, with its attache d statements. B ut production of the f actua l return is a se parate re quirement in these ha beas c ases. Se e July 11 , 2 00 8 Sc he du lin gOr de r at 3- 4. He nc e , th e Court ha s n ot m isc on str

ue d it s o wn

Ca se Manag ement Or der a

nd to the extent respondents claim otherw ise, their motion for
re c on sid e ratio n is DE NI ED
.-3-

Nonethele ss, respondents ra ise a va lid point t hat re quires grantingtheir motion in part. They point out that "there are consolidated a ssemblag es of infor mation on eac h detainee from tw o c omp on e nts of

the De pa rtme nt o f D e fe ns e , whic h w e re re vie we d b y De pa rtme nt o f D e fe ns e and De partment of Justice attorney s in preparing the fac tual returns." See Respondents' Motion for Rec onsideration at 13 ( emphasis in orig inal). These files wer e compiled - - over the cour se of hund re ds of tho us and s o f h ours -- by

the Joint Inte lli g e nc e Gr ou

p ( " JI G" ) o f t

he Joint Ta sk For ce- Guantana

mo (" J TF- GTMO" ) and the Offic e for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Ene my

Combatants (" OARDEC" ). I d. (citingDec laration of Gordon Eng land ¶ 7). Neve rtheless, these files ar e not fully compre hensive -- "the y

do not nece ssarily

contain eve ry document re levant to the petitioner [] or every rec ording , summary , set of conte mporane ous notes, or iteration of the petitioner' s statements." I d. (empha sis in original). I n prepa ringthe fac tual returns, r espondents re lied only on these c ompilations. R espondents propose an int e rp re tatio n th at w ou ld l imi t se c tio n I .E .1 (2 ) a uto matic dis c ov e ry

to s e arc he s o f t

he se "c onsolidated assemblag es of infor mation." See id. at 14 n.9. Under responde nts' pr oposal, then, they would not be re quired to look beyond the consolidated JTF-GT MO and OA RDEC files unless the Court g rants a spe cific discove ry reque st under sec tion I .E.2 of the Z aid CMO. Respondents' proposed modification is sensibl e. It would significa ntly reduc e the bur den
a br oa de r i nte rp re tatio n o f s e c tio n I .E .1 (2 ) m ight o the rw ise imp os e . M or e ov e r, it w ou ld d o s o without retreating f

rom the principles that prompted the Court to include sec tion I .E.1(2) in the Z aid CMO in the first place . The purpose of sec tion I .E.1(2) w as to ensure that petitioner has
a c c e s s t o a l l v e r s i o n s o f

h i s o wns t at e m e n t s th atr e s p o n d e n t s r e l y u p o nt o j u s t i f

y d e t e n t i o n . In other wor ds, section I .E.1(2) is intended to pr event the attorney s putting tog ether the g ov e rnme nt' s argume nt i n th e se ha be a s c a se s f

ro m se le c tin g , a

nd he nc e pr od

uc ing , o nly

tho se-4-

versions of pe titioner' s statements most helpful to the g overnme nt's c ase a nd ignoring a ll the rest. I f re spondents rely

only on the information conta ined in the consolidated f iles to justi fy pe tit ion e r' s d e te nti on , th e n o nly the ve rs ion s o f p e tit ion e r' s r e lie d- up on state me nts fo un d in

tho se files nee d be produc ed to petitioner a s a matter of course under se ction I .E.1(2). I f petitioner believes that other ver sions of statements existand would be e x culpatory or demonstrate that he is not an enemy

combatant, then he may

resor t to section I .E.2 to obtain additional discovery . To the e xtent r e sp on de nts ' mot ion fo r r e c on sid e ratio n p ro po se s a n inte rp re tatio n th at w ou ld l imi t
sear ches f or sec tion I .E.1(2) material to the c onsolidated files compiled by J TF- GTMO and OA RD EC, the n, re sp on de nts ' mot ion is G RA NT ED
. This compromise is not as uncontrove rsial as it might sound. Petitioner would no doubt argue that sec tion I .E.1(2) r equire s a broa d rea ding be cause the proc ess of c ompiling the "c onsolidated assemblag es" was itself one -sided and a g enda- driven. That is, in compil ing the
co n s o l i d at edfi l es , J T F- GT M O an d OA RDE C m ay

h av e l ef to utv er s i o n s o f p et i t i o n er 's statements that ar e dama g ing to r espondents' case . Moreove r, sec tion I .E.2 is not a prac tical method of obtainingexcluded versions of pe titioner' s statements. Section I .E.2 requir es petitioner to " explain why the re quested discove ry

will not unfairly

disrupt or unduly

burden the g overnme nt." B eca

use sea rche s beyond the consolidated f iles will necessa

rily be burde nsome, the argume nt g oe s, pe tit ion e r m ay e ff e c tiv e ly be fo re c los e d f

ro m ob ta ini ngve rs ion s o f s tate me nts
e xclu de d f

ro m th e c on so lid ate d f

ile s. The dilemma this argument poses is miti g ated in par t by the fa ct that the new

Ex ecutive B ra nc h a dmi nis tr atio n - - o n it s o wn ini tiativ e -- is s e e kin ginf or matio n a bo ut t he Gu anta

namo Ba y detainee s beyond the information pre sently contained in the c onsolidated files. In section 4(c) (1) of President Obama ' s Ex ecutive O rder reg ardingthe re view of Guantanamo Ba yThe Court does not know - - indee d, responde nts themselves may not know -- whe ther 3 President Obama

intends to crea

te new c onsolidated files for eac h petitioner or to supplement the exis ting c onsolidated files cr eate d by J TF- GTMO and O ARDEC. Whatever c ourse is take n, r e s p o n d e n t s s h o u l d

e x p e c tt o r e v i e wan d

r e p o rto nth e n e wi n f

o r m at i o na b o utp e t i t i o n e r , i f

any, that th e pr oc e ss o utl ine d in se c tio n 4 (c )( 1) of

the Exe c uti ve Or de r g athe rs . Pe tit ion e r h a s a lso fi le d a mot ion to c omp e l c omp lia

nc e wi th s e c tio n I .E .1 (3 ) o f t he Z a id 4 CMO . A s th is m oti on

is n ot ye t r ipe fo r r e so lut ion , th e Court do e s n ot a dd

re ss whe the r t

he Ap ri l 9, 2009 status report should also re port on materia ls responsive to sec tion I .E.1(3). -5- detainee s and dete ntion practice s, the President direc ts the Attorney Gene ral to: [A] ssemble all information in the possession of the F eder al 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. Al l e xec uti ve br anc h d e pa rtme nts and

a g e nc ie s sh a ll p ro mpt ly

c omp ly wi th a ny re qu e st o f t

he Attor ne y Ge ne ra l to pr ov ide inf

or matio n in the ir po sse ssi on

or c ontr ol p e rt a ini ngto a

ny su c h in div idu a l. See Exec. Orde r No. 13,492 at § 4(c)( 1), 74 F ed. Reg . 4897 (Jan. 22, 2009). The Executive Orde r will presumably

add to the consolidate d files now in re spondents' possession or cre ate a new, more compre hensive set of consolidated files f

or ea ch deta inee. The se files will be a new
so ur c e of e a sil y -a c c e ssi ble inf

or matio n a bo ut p e tit ion e r a

nd may inc lud e ve rs ion s o f s tate me nts not presently

included in re spondents' files. This is a resour ce the Court should not i g nore. To that end, re spondents are OR DE RE D to provide the Court, in writingand on Apr il 9, 2009, with a status repor

t. The status repor

t shall advise whethe r the proc ess outlined in section 4(c) (1) of President Obama ' s Ex ecutive O rder has proc ured a dditional information reg arding pe tit ion e r. Con sis te nt w iththi s Co ur t' s inte rp re tatio n o f s e c tio n I .E .1 (2 ), thestatus repo rt sh a ll 3 also advise whe ther re spondents have obta ined additional ver sions of "state ments . . . made or
a do pte d b y

the pe tit ion e r t

hat th e g ov e rnme nt r e lie s o n to jus tif y de te nti on ." Th is a

pp ro a c h w ill
a llo w p e tit ion e r' s c a se to p ro c e e d w ithmin ima l bu rd e n to the g ov e rnme nt ye t at th e same tim e enable petitioner to deve lop his case. 4-6-

Finally , there is the issue of what r espondents must now produce under se ction I .E.1(2). In revie wingthe consolidated f iles to respond to the Court' s J anuar y 22 order , responde nts found th atth e f i l es d o n o tco n t ai nau d i o o r v i d eo re co rd i n gs o r t ran s cr i p t s fo r any o f p et i t i o n er 's statements. Gov' t Resp. at 2-3. Respondents found, how ever , that the files do conta in other
re c or ds or

re po rt s ( i.e ., tho se ma de by pe rs on s o the r t

ha n th os e c re atin gthe re c or ds or repo rt s attache d to petitioner' s fac tual return) and that " it is probable that at lea st some roug h notes of
one or more interviews of the petitioner do e x ist." I d. at 3-4. Consistent with the approa ch described above , responde nts are ORDERED to p ro du c e a ll v e rs ion s o f p e tit ion e r' s st ate me nts that they rely upon in any

form in which those state ments exi st in the consolidated files -- including r ecor ds, repor

ts, and notes -- by

not later than F ebrua

ry 16, 2009. SO ORDERED.
/ s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Date: F ebrua

ry 9, 2009