UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IMAD ABDULLAH HASSAN,

 Petitioner/Plaintiff,

 v.

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,

 Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. 04-1194 (TFH)

ORDER

On July 25, 2014, Petitioner 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 Officer (SMO) at Guantanamo who held the position throughout 2013 until

February 2014;1 the current SMO; and General John F. Kelley, Commander of the U.S. Southern 

Command. Id. at 6-8. On July 30, 2014, respondent filed its Opposition. [ECF No. 1053]. Upon 

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

ORDERED, that Petitioner’s Motion for Limited Discovery in Aid of Application for 

Preliminary Injunction is denied. This Court finds that, at least at the Preliminary Injunction

stage of the proceedings, Petitioners have not met the requirements of the Case Management 

Order (CMO).

 1 The current and former 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 evidence that demonstrates” 

that Petitioner 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 Petitioner’s questions are extremely broad. See, 

e.g., Pet. 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 

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

to other detainees. See, e.g., Pet. Ex. F, Questions for Previous SMO, at 3 [ECF No. 1062-6] 

(“During your service as SMO, was any detainee enterally fed nutrient and/or water at a rate 

greater than 250 ml per 15 minutes?”). Though Petitioner purports to challenge “the force 

feeding procedures currently in place for Mr. Hassan and others on hunger strike at 

Guantanamo,” Pet. Mot. at 2 (emphasis added), Petitioner only has standing to challenge the 

conditions of his own confinement—not that of other prisoners. 

To the extent the questions do relate to Petitioner’s current condition 2 or force-feeding 

practices as applied to him, Petitioner’s request still does not satisfy the CMO. The questions 

concern information personally known to Petitioner and/or information contained in his alreadydisclosed medical records. See, e.g., Pl. Ex. G (“Has Mr. Hassan been diagnosed with 

 2 This Court has already found that Petitioner’s historical health condition and previous medical records “are at most 

indirect evidence that Respondent is carrying out Petitioner’s enteral feeding in a manner which would entitle 

Petitioner to a preliminary injunction against Respondent’s current enteral feeding practices.” 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 Petitioner’s questions would be entirely

irrelevant in full trial on the merits. However, the “purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely 

to preserve 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 affidavits on which the plaintiff intends to rely. . . . Supplemental affidavits 

either to the application or the opposition may be filed only with permission of the court.”). The 

discovery Petitioner is seeking does not justify delaying this case any longer. It is further 

ORDERED, that a hearing on Petioner’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 of acquiring evidence regarding conditions and practices at 

Guantanamo Bay. But it is somewhat puzzling that Petitioner’s counsel has chosen to seek depositions of high level 

officials, who would have little or no personal knowledge of Petitioner’s condition, instead of the individuals at 

Guantanamo Bay who personally treated and interacted with Petitioner.