The Court notes that petitioner' s motion seeks a " rule to show ca use." The motion more 1 proper ly seeks a n "or der to show c ause." That Orde r wa s issued by Senior J udg e Hog an in his capa city as coor dinating judg e for 2 the Guanta

namo B ay

detainee case s. This Court consulted with J udg e Hog an and c oncluded that it will address petitioner' s motion. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
AB DU L HA M ID AL -G HIZ Z AW I, P etitioner , v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 05 -2 37 8 ( JD B) BARACK

OBAMA, et

al., Re spo nde nt s.
OR DE R Cur re ntl y be fo re the Court

is [2 57 ] pe tit ion e r' s mo tio n f or an o rd e r to s ho w c a

us e a g a ins t 1 responde nts for violatingthe Court' s Order of June 1, 2009. That Orde r re quired the 2 g ov e rnme nt to e ith e r ( i) pu

bli c ly fi le a de c la ssi fi e d o r u

nc la ssi fi e d f

a c tua l r e tur

n o r ( ii) fi le under se al with the petitioner' s counsel and the appropr iate Mer its J udg e an unclassified f

actua l return hig hlightingwith a colore d marke r the e x act wor ds or lines the g overnme nt seeks to be de emed pr otected, a s well as a me morandum explaining why

eac h word or line should be protec ted. J une 1, 2009 Or der at 1-2. Respondents wer e re quired to comply by J uly 29, 2009. They

have purported to do so in this case . See Doc ket Entry No. 251, J uly

29, 2009. Petitioner contends, howe ver, that respondents' fac tual return did not comply with the Court ' s O rd e r. Spe c if

ic a lly , a c c or din gto p e tit ion e r, re sp on de nts " c ontin ue [d] to un ilate ra lly reda ct information it seeks to protect wi th a bs olute ly no atte mpt

to h ig hli g ht t

ho se mate ri a ls, toPetitioner and Respondents debate whethe r publicly -ava ilable information could e ver be 3 proper ly reda cted f

rom the public fa ctual re turns. Compare Pet' r' s Mot. at 7-8, with Resp' t's O pp. at 6-11. The Court need not re ach this issue bec ause r espondents have failed to c omply with the Court's O rder
. -2- me e t and c on fe r, or

to e xpla in t o th e Court

(a nd c ouns e l) why

the mate ri a l ( mos t of

wh ic h is al re ady i nth e p u b l i c d o m ai n ) s h o u l d

b e p ro t ec t ed
. " P et 'r's M o t . fo r Ru l e t o S h o w C au s e ( "P et 'r's Mo t." ) at 6. Ac c or din g ly , " the Go ve rnme nt [] d isr e g ard [ed ] the pr oc e dure s se t out in thi s Co ur ts [si c] Order

. . . ." I d. at 4. In response , responde nts maintain that they have in f act a bided by the Court' s Order . See Resp' t's O pp' n to Pet'r ' s Mot. for Rule to Show Cause (" Resp' t's O pp.") at n.2. They asser t that the " decla ssified retur

ns reda ct any

proper ly classified infor

mation, as well as infor

mation desig nated a s ' protec ted' , which while not cla ssified, implicates sig nificant sec urity or other interests." I d. at 4. As a r esult, "the decla ssified versions of the unclassified r eturns we re suitable for public r elea se." I d. For his part, petitioner c oncludes that re dactingprotec ted inf or matio n f ro m th e pu

bli c fa c tua l r e tur

ns vio late s th e Court ' s June 1, 20 09 Or de r. Se e Re ply to Pet'r ' s Mot. for Rule to Show Cause (" Pet'r ' s Reply ") at 4. Petitioner is corre ct. Respondents admit they filed public fa ctual re turns that reda cted 3 not only classified infor

mation, but also information desig nated a s protecte d. See Resp' t's O pp. at 4 & n.2. But the only

proce dure f

or re dactingprotec ted information in a public f actua l return
wa s p ur su ant t o o pti on

(i i) of the Court ' s June 1, 20 09 Or de r. Ye t r e sp on de nts did no t ava il themselves of this proc edure : they neither " highlight[ ed] . . . the exact words or lines" deeme d pro tec ted , n or f

il ed a "m emo randum ex pl ain in g why each w ordor l in e sh ou ldbe p rot ect ed. " J une 1, 2009 Or der at 1-2.-3-

Respondents' fac tual return is improper under option (i) a s well. Filingpursuant to option (i ) i s ava ila

ble wh e re a

pu bli c fa c tua l r e tur

n r e da c ts o nly

c la ssi fi e d in fo rm atio n. Re sp on de nts , howeve r, sug g est otherwise . They question whether

the Court would invite "highlighted r eturns to b e fi le d und e r s e a l in

e a c h o f o ve r 1 50 c a se s a

nd the lik e ly ro un ds of

lit ig atio n o ve r s pe c if

ic
re da c tio ns that w ou ld h ave fo llo we d s uc h s ub mis sio ns . . . . " Re sp ' t' s O pp . at n. 2. B ut t his
rea ding of

the J une 1, 2009 Or der is incor rec t. I f option (i) g overne d the filingof public fa ctual returns that reda cted pr otected inf ormation, option (ii) would be unnec essar y -- ther e would be no
rea son for the c umbersome pr ocedur es deta iled in option (ii). Theref ore, it is here by OR DE RE D that pe tit ion e r' s mo tio n f or an o rd e r t o s ho w c a

us e is G RA NT ED ; it

is further OR

DE RE D th atre s p o n d en t s mu s tfi l e afa ctu al re turn i nco m p l i an ce wi thth e C o urt 's J une 1, 2009 Or der. I f re spondents wish to redac t any information that is not classified, they must do so accor ding to the pr ocedur es set for th in option (ii ) of the O rder ; it is further OR DE RE D that r e sp on de nts sh a ll h ave until Oc tob e r 1 6, 20 09 , to c omp ly wi th t his Orde r. 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 Dated: Septembe r 24, 2009