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., Re spo nde nt s.

OR DE R Petitioner seeks lea

ve to depose Robert M. Gate s, the Secre tary of the De partment of Def ense, or his designe e pursua

nt to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)( 6). Petitioner ar g ues that responde nts are in no position to repre sent to this C ourt, as they have, that respondents do not posses any

rec ording s of petitioner' s statements that they rely upon to justi fy

detention. Petitioner rea sons that respondents have not produc ed information about the circ umstances of
eac h interrog ation, as they are require d to under the Case Manag ement Or der ( "CMO" ), and he in fers th at r esp on den ts do no t kno w wh ich "in terrogat io ns " mat ch up wi th whi ch "s tat eme nt s. " Moreove r, petitioner r aises a spoliation issue. Petitioner cites to pre ss articles, a repor t produce d by Se ton Ha ll Univ e rs ity , a

nd a de c laratio n f

ro m a dif fe re nt Gua

nta namo d e ta ine e to s up po rt his argument that interrog ations were routinely rec orded. Petitioner r easons that if inter rog ations
we re re c or de d b ut r e c or din g s o f h is i nte rr og atio ns do no t no w e xist, the n th os e re c or din g s mu st have be en destroyed, per

haps in violation of a cour t order. Re spondents rebut pe titioner' s fac tual-2-

asser tions with declarations ex plaining that interrog ations were routinely monitored by

video but
on ly ra re ly re c or de d. Se e De c laratio ns of Pa ul B . Re ste r & Jef

fr e y Da vie s ( atta c he d to Respondents' Opp' n at Exhi bits A & B ). More over, r espondents ar g ue that a de position under the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure is i na pp ro pr iate in t

his ha be a s c a se and

that th e de po sit ion

fa lls well outside the scope of the CMO. Al tho ug h p e tit ion e r r a ise s v a lid c on c e rn s - - whic h r e sp on de nts on ly pa rt ia lly a dd re ss i n their dec larations -- he is not entitled to depose the Sec reta ry of De fense or his desig nee a bout interrog ation policies. Petitioner has not alleg ed that his interrog ations were videotaped; he relies on a

decla ration fr om another de tainee c laiming that de tainee' s interrog ations at Gu anta namo w e re vid e ota

pe d. With out so me so rt

of sh ow ingthat a

de po sit ion

-- wh ic h is beyond the scope of discover y contemplated in the CMO - - would substantially help this case, the Court wi ll n ot gra

nt s uc h a n o pe n- e nd e d, po te nti a lly burd e ns ome re qu e st. Suc h a re qu e st might b e wa

rr ante d h a d p e tit ion e r m a de a str on gsh ow ingthat on e of his int e rr og atio ns wa s in fac t rec orded. Mor eover , this Court has addresse d some of petitioner' s conce rns in its March 2, 2009 order

resolvingpetitioner' s motion t o compel complianc e with sec tion I .E.1(3) of the CMO. In that order , the Court require d responde nts to searc h for a dditional information and war ned that it anticipated that it would not allow responde nts at a later stag e to introduce new e vidence within the section I .E.1(3) r equest in an e ffor t to rebut petitioner' s fac tual asser tions. He nc e , th e Court

ne e d n ot, at th is s ta g e , a dd re ss t he fa c tua l a sse rt ion s r a ise d in pe tit ion e r' s mo tio n. Pe tit ion e r h a s n ot m a de a sh ow ingthat th e re qu e ste d d e po sit ion " is l ike ly to pr od uc e e vid e nc e that is e xcu lpator y or that w ill de mon str ate that th e pe tit ion e r i s n ot a n e ne my combatant." See CMO § I .E.2. Acc ording ly , petitioner' s motion for leave to depose Sec reta ry-3-

Gate s o r h is d e signe e is DE NI ED
. 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

rch 24, 2009