Opinion ID: 149930
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenges to the Discovery Process

Text: The CMO requires the Government to provide on an ongoing basis any evidence contained in the material [it] reviewed in developing the return for the petitioner, and in preparation for the hearing for the petitioner, that tends materially to undermine the Government's theory as to the lawfulness of the petitioner's detention. Bensayah argues the district court abused its discretion by imposing upon the Government an impermissibly narrow obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence. He maintains the Government must search all reasonably available information and disclose not only information that tends materially to undermine the Government's theory as to the lawfulness of the petitioner's detention but also information that undermines the reliability of other purportedly inculpatory evidence or names potential witnesses capable of providing material evidence. Bensayah does not contend the disclosure requirement imposed by the district court is in any way unconstitutional. Nor has he shown that broader disclosure is required by any opinion of the Supreme Court or of this court. He cites Bismullah v. Gates, 503 F.3d 137, 138-39 (D.C. Cir. 2007), for the proposition that the Government must search all reasonably available information, but that decision was compelled by the terms of a statutory scheme not at issue here. He cites A1 Odah, 559 F.3d at 546, for the proposition that evidence may be material even if it is not directly exculpatory. The CMO is not, however, in tension with A1 Odah. Information that undermines the reliability of other materials, e.g., inculpatory evidence, see id. at 546, also tends materially to undermine the Government's theory as to the lawfulness of the petitioner's detention and hence must be disclosed by the Government. We therefore agree with the Government that the standard for disclosure ordered by the district court, coupled with the opportunity to make specific discovery requests, is consistent with the Supreme Court's directive in Boumediene that a detainee be provided with the opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of the Government's evidence and to supplement the record on review with additional exculpatory evidence. 128 S. Ct. at 2270,2274. Bensayah's primary concern seems to be that the disclosure requirement allows the Government to withhold exculpatory evidence because personnel from other agencies will pass only inculpatory evidence on to the attorneys actually developing the return and preparing for the hearing. That practice is not permissible, however, under the current disclosure requirement. Any information that has been strategically filtered out of the record in order to withhold exculpatory evidence is plainly material reviewed in developing the return -- and hence subject to the disclosure requirement - even if the individual doing the filtering works for a Government agency other than the Department of Justice. Bensayah next argues that the district court erred by placing upon him the burden of explaining why each of his discovery requests would be neither unfairly disruptive [nor] unduly burdensome to the Government. The district court did not abuse its discretion in structuring discovery this way. The Supreme Court specifically recognized the district court's discretion to accommodate the Government's legitimate interest in protecting sources and intelligence-gathering methods, acknowledging that [clertain accommodations can be made to reduce the burden habeas corpus proceedings will place on the military without impermissibly diluting the protections of the writ. Bournediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2276. It is not necessary to address Bensayah's specific discovery requests relating to because, as explained below, we hold this exhibit may not be relied upon by the district court on remand in the absence of additional corroborative evidence. Any discovery requests pertaining to new corroborative evidence should be decided by the district court in the first instance. Finally, we find no merit in Bensayah's claims the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for discovery into the treatment of or in allowing the Government to present rebuttal evidence.