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 Respondents’ Motion for Partial 

Reconsideration of the Court’s Memorandum Order Compelling 

Disclosure of Documents in Unredacted Form. See generally

Resp’ts’ Mot., ECF No. 387. Upon careful consideration of 

Respondents’ motion, Petitioner’s opposition, the reply thereto, 

the applicable law, and for the reasons explained below, the 

Court GRANTS Respondents’ motion. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that “any 

order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates 

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer 

than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the 

claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the 

entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the 

parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 
2

The standard for determining whether or not to grant a Rule 

54(b) motion is the “as justice requires” standard. Jud. Watch 

v. Dep’t of Army, 466 F. Supp. 2d 112, 123 (D.D.C. 2006). Under 

this flexible standard, the Court considers “whether the court 

patently misunderstood the parties, made a decision beyond the 

adversarial issues presented, made an error in failing to 

consider controlling decisions or data, or whether a controlling 

or significant change in the law has occurred.” In Def. of 

Animals v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, 543 F. Supp. 2d 70, 75 

(D.D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also

Montgomery v. Internal Revenue Serv., 356 F. Supp. 3d 74, 79 

(D.D.C. 2019), aff’d, 40 F.4th 702 (D.C. Cir. 2022). 

The moving party has the burden of demonstrating “‘that 

some harm, legal or at least tangible, would flow from a denial 

of reconsideration.’” In Def. of Animals, 543 F. Supp. 2d at 76 

(quoting Cobell v. Norton, 355 F. Supp. 2d 531, 540 (D.D.C. 

2005)). “[E]ven if justice does not require reconsideration of 

an interlocutory ruling, a decision to reconsider is nonetheless 

within the court’s discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). However, this discretion is “limited by the law of the 

case doctrine and ‘subject to the caveat that where litigants 

have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither 

be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it 
3

again.’” Id. (quoting Singh v. George Wash. Univ., 383 F. Supp. 

2d 99, 101 (D.D.C. 2005)). 

In its October 1, 2009 Memorandum Order, the Court, among 

other things, ordered Respondents to produce to Petitioner’s 

counsel to share with Petitioner the Petitioner’s diaries. Mem. 

Order, ECF No. 643-1 at 11. In response to the Memorandum Order, 

Respondents provided, among other things, four diaries that 

Petitioner wrote after his capture while in U.S. custody. 

Resp’ts’ Mot., ECF No. 387 at 2. Respondents redacted 

information that identifies or describes individual U.S. 

Government personnel in the diaries. Id. Respondents request 

that the Court modify its Memorandum Order to permit these 

redactions, arguing that “[r]edaction of such identifying 

information is justified in light of the Government’s paramount 

interest in protecting the identities of its intelligence 

personnel and protecting them from risk of harm.” Resp’ts’ Mot., 

ECF No. 387 at 1. 

Petitioner objects, arguing that the identifying 

information will help Petitioner, who has a defective memory, to 

refresh his recollection and that “is precisely the type of 

information that [P]etitioner requires to collect the 

exculpatory evidence” that must be provided to him. Pet’r’s 

Opp’n ECF No. 430 at 3. Petitioner also notes that the none of 
4

the Central Intelligence Agency personnel involved in his 

torture and interrogation provided their real names to him. Id. 

The Court has previously approved redacting information 

from records produced to Petitioner that identifies government 

personnel. See Husayn v. Gates, Civil Action No. 08-1360, 2009 

WL 544492 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2009)(ordering the production of 

certain medical records with the treatment providers’ 

identifying information redacted); Husayn v. Gates, Civil Action 

No. 08-1360, 2020 WL 3035052 (D.D.C. June 6, 2020)(noting that 

the Court had agreed that it would be appropriate to redact 

identifying information). Respondents have identified the harm 

that could flow from the denial of reconsideration here—exposing 

Government personnel to risk of physical harm. Petitioner has 

neither addressed the harm nor provided any authority pursuant 

to which the Court would reach a different result here. 
5

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Partial 

Reconsideration, ECF No. 387, is GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that the Court’s Memorandum Order of October 1, 

2009 is modified to permit the Government to redact information 

identifying Government personnel as described in Respondents’ 

motion.

SO ORDERED. 

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan 

 United States District Judge 

 August 25, 2023