UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IMAD ABDULLAH HASSAN ,
Petit i o n er/ Plaintiff ,

v.
BARACK H. OBAMA, et al. , Respondents/ Defendant s . Civil Action No. 04

- 1194 (TFH)

ORDER

On July 25, 2014, P etitioner filed a Motion for Limited Discovery in Aid of Application
for Preliminary Injunction. [ECF No. 1062] (“Pet. Mot.”)

. Petitioner seeks answers to written
deposition questions from four individuals: Colonel John V. Bogdan, Joint Detention Group
Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo between June 2012 and June 2014; a former

Senior Medical Of ficer ( SMO) at Guantanamo who held the position throughout 2013 until
February 2014; 1 the c urrent SMO ; and General John F. Kelley , Commander of the U.S. Southern

Command. Id . at 6

- 8. On July 30, 2014, respondent filed i ts Opposition. [ECF No. 1053]. Upon

condera tion of the parties’ submissions and the entire record of this case, it is now

ORDERED , that P etitioner’s Motion for Limited Discovery in Aid of Application for
Preliminary Injunction is denied

. This Court finds that, at least at the Preliminary Injunct ion
stage of the proceedings, P etitioners have not met the requirements of the Case Management

Order (CMO).

1 The c urrent and f ormer Senior Medical Officers are not named in this public Order.2 Section I.E.2 of the CMO requires that all discovery requests must be “narrowly tailored”
and “explain why the request, if granted, would be likely to produce ev idence that demonstrates”

that P etitioner is entitled to the relief sought

. Order, Nov. 6, 2008 [ECF No. 285]; as amended by
Order, Dec. 16, 2008 [ECF No. 308] . Many of P etitioner ’ s questions are extremely broad. See
,

e.g ., P et . Ex. G, Questions for Current SMO, at 3 [ECF No. 1062

- 7] (“In your capacity as SMO,
as anyone ever instructed you to do anything that you considered to be unethical or unlawful; and
if so, what was it and did you refuse?”). The majority of the questions are not specific to

P etitioner’s conditions of confinement, but instead address general practices or incidents relating

to other detainees. See, e.g. , P et . Ex. F , Questions for Previous SMO, at 3 [ECF No. 1062

- 6]
(“During your service as SMO, was any detaine e enterally fed nutrient and/or water at a rate
greater than 250 ml per 15 minutes?”). Though P etitioner purports to challenge “the force
feeding procedures currently in place for Mr. Hassan and others on hunger strike at
Guantanamo,” Pet. Mot. at 2 (emph asis added)
, P etitioner only has standing to challenge the

conditions of his own confinement

— not that of other prisoners.

To the extent the questions do relate to P etitioner ’s current condition 2 or force

- feeding
practices as applied to him, P etitioner’s request still does not satisfy the CMO. The questions
concern information personally known to P etitioner and/or information contained in his already

disclosed medical records. S ee , e.g. , Pl. Ex. G (“Has Mr. Hassan been diagnosed with

2 This Court has already found that P etitioner’s historical health condition and previous medical records “ are at most indirect evidence that Respondent is carrying out Pet itioner’s enteral feeding in a manner which would entitle Petitioner to a preliminary injunction against Respondent’s curr ent enteral feeding p ractices.” Order at 2, July 21, 2014 [ECF No 1061].3 pancreatitis; and if so, how as the condition been treated?”). Questions of this nature are not
likely to produce any new evidence relevant for this stage of the proceedings

. 3

The Court does not now find that the answers to P etitioner ’ s questions would be entirely

irrelevant in full trial on the merits

. However, th e “purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely

to preser ve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held
, ” and is
therefore often based on an incomplete record. Natural Res. Def. Council v. Pena , 147 F.3d
1012, 1022 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting Univ

. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981 ) )

. Discovery during the pendency of a preliminary injunction is correspondingly “limited.”
Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. WMATA , 234 F.R.D. 4, 7 (D.D.C. 2006) ; see

also Local Rule of Civil Procedure 65.1(c) (“ The application [for a preliminary injunction] shall
be supported by all af fidavits on which the plaintiff intends to rely.

. . . Supplemental affidavits
either to the application or the opposition may be fi led only with permission of the court. ”). The
discovery P etitioner is seeking does not justify delaying this case any longer. It is further

ORDERED , that a hearing on P etioner’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF No.
1001] shall be held on August 27, 2014 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 25A.

SO ORDERED.

August 1 , 2014

_________________________ Thomas F. Hogan Senior United States District Judge

3 The Court is sympathetic to the unusually difficult task o f acquiring evidence regarding conditions and practices at Guantanamo Bay. But it is somewhat puzzling that P etitioner’s counsel has chosen to seek depositions of high level officials, who would have litt le or no personal knowledge of P etitioner’s condition, instead of the individuals at Guantanamo Bay who personally treated and interacted with P etitioner.