UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD 

HUSAYN (ISN #10016), 

Petitioner, 

v. 

LLOYD AUSTIN, et al., 

Respondents. 

Civil Action No. 08-1360 

(EGS) 

ORDER

 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for 

Declassification, Classification Review, Release of Unclassified 

Material, and Related Relief, see generally Pet’r’s Mot., ECF 

No. 342;1 which Respondents oppose, see Resp’ts’ Opp’n, ECF No. 

376. Upon careful consideration of Petitioner’s motion, 

Respondents’ opposition, the reply thereto, the applicable law, 

and for the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART, 

DENIES IN PART, AND FINDS AS MOOT IN PART, Petitioner’s motion. 

The Court denies Petitioner’s request “to take Judicial 

Notice of the fact that Petitioner’s own account of his torture, 

treatment, conditions of confinement, and transfer is 

unclassified.” Pet’r’s Mot., ECF No. 342 at 1. Petitioner has 

1 When citing electronic filings throughout this opinion, the 

Court cites to the ECF header page number, not the original page 

number of the filed document. 
2

provided no legal argument or authorities in support of the 

Court taking such Judicial Notice. 

Petitioner’s request for dissemination of unclassified 

documents containing information about his own account of his 

torture, treatment, conditions of confinement, and transfer is 

moot. See Reply, ECF No. 391 at 2. 

Although it does not appear that there has been a pattern 

of inordinate delay, the Court grants Petitioner’s request that 

Respondent promptly process his requests for classification 

review. The Court expects Respondent to process the requests of 

Petitioner in this case in the same manner as it does in any 

other Guantanamo case. 

The Court denies Petitioner’s request that the “Court order 

the government to stop imposing restrictions on the type, form, 

and intended use of” materials submitted for classification 

review. Respondent has provided a sworn affidavit from the thenTeam Lead of the Privilege Team confirming that “it is not the 

present practice of the Privilege Team to ask questions about 

the intended use of a document submitted for either 

classification review or declassification.” Privilege Team 

Declaration, ECF No. 376-1 ¶ 7. 

The Court denies Petitioner’s request to categorically bar 

the Privilege Team from applying the “For Official Use Only” 

(FOUO) marking to documents containing potentially sensitive 
3

information and directing counsel not to disseminate the 

information for the reasons stated in Respondent’s Opposition. 

See Resp’ts’ Opp’n, ECF No. 376 at 16-19. That said, the Court 

expects Respondent and Petitioner to determine on a document-bydocument basis whether documents marked as FOUO can be released 

by Petitioner. 

In view of the many competing demands on the government’s 

classification-review resources, and the discovery currently 

being produced in this case, see Minute Order (July 12, 2022), 

the Court denies Petitioner’s request to order Respondent to 

conduct an expedited classification review for all court records 

in this proceeding. The Court notes that it has previously 

ordered classification reviews of filings related to pending 

motions in this case. See Minute Order (Apr. 22, 2016); Minute 

Order (June 10, 2016); and Minute Order (Mar. 6, 2019). 

Finally, the Court denies Petitioner’s request that the 

TS/SCI Protective Order governing this case (and the other 

Guantanamo cases before this district) be amended. Petitioner 

has pointed to no other Guantanamo case where Petitioner sought 

and received amendment of the TS/SCI Protective Order. To the 

extent Petitioner seeks to amend the TS/SCI Protective Order to 

require documents be portion marked, there are other avenues for 

Petitioner to obtain the relief he seeks. See Resp’ts’ Opp’n, 

ECF No. 376 at 24-25. 
4

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Declassification, 

Classification Review, Release of Unclassified Material, and 

Related Relief, ECF No. 342 is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, 

AND FOUND AS MOOT IN PART.

SO ORDERED. 

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan 

 United States District Judge 

 May 30, 2023