Court Opinion

ID: 2668193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-04 14:54:38.530704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:24:08.527277
License: Public Domain

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                              )
JAWAD KARBAR SADKHAN,                         )
                                              )
              Petitioner,                      )
                                              )
               v.                             )       Civil Action No. 05·1487 (RMC)
                                              )
BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,                      )
                                              )
              Respondents                     )
------------)
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

              Jawad Kabbar SadkhanAl-Sahlani, a detainee       ~t   Guantanamo Bay, seeks additional

discovery from the United States beyond what is required by the Case Management Order, as

amended, issued by Judge Thomas F. Hogan (the "CMO"). Counsel state that Mr. Sadkhan is a

Shi'ite Iraqi who has been detained for over seven years because other detainees told interrogators

that he served as a Tal1ban leader in Northern Afghanistan. Mr. Sadkhan himself has repeatedly

denied the allegations against him on all but one occasion. His discovery requests will be addressed

in tum.

                                    I. LEGAL STANDARDS

               Discovery requests in these Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation proceedings are

governed principally by Sections LD.l, I.E.l and LE.2 of the CMO. Section I.D.l of the CMO

states:

               The government shall disclose to the petitioner all reasonably available
               evidence in its possession that tends materially to undermine the
               information presented to support the government's justification for
               detaining the petitioner. ... In this context, the term "reasonably
               available evidence" means evidence contained in any information
                                       UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

                reviewed by attorneys preparulg factual returns for all detaulees; it is
                not limited to evidence discovered by the attorneys preparing the
                factual return for the petitioner. The term also includes any other
                evidence the government discovers while litigating habeas corpus
                petitions fJ.led by detainees at Guantanamo Bay.... [D]isclosure [of
                such exculpatory evidence] shall occur within 14 days of the date on
                which the government files the factual return. By the date on which
                disclosure is to occur under this paragraph, the govenunent shall fJ.le
                a notice certifying either that it has disclosed the exculpatory evidence
                or t4at it does not possess any exculpatory evidence.]

Section I.E. 1 states:

                If requested by the petitioner, the goveinment shall disclose to the
                petitioner (1) any documents and objects in the government's
                possession that the government relies on to justify detention; (2) all
                statements, in whatever form, made or adopted by the petitioner that
                the government relies on to justify detention; and (3) information
                about the circumstances in which such statements of the petitioner
                were made or adopted.... [R]equested disclosure shall occur within
                14 days of the date on which the government fIles the factual return
                or within 14 days of the date on which the petitioner requests
                disclosure, whichever is later.

Section I.E.2 states:

                The Merits Judge may, for good cause shown, permit the petitioner
                to obtain limited discovery beyond that described in [Section I.E.I].
                . . . Discovery requests shall be presented by written motion to the
                Merits ~udge and (1) be narrowly tailored, not open-ended; (2) specify
                the discovery sought; (3) explain why the request, if granted, is likely
                to produce evidence that demonstrates that the petitioner's detention
                is unlawful ... ; and (4) explain why the requested, discovery will
                enable the petitioner to rebut the factual basis for his detention
                without unfairly disrupting or unduly burdening the government. ...
                The Merits Judge will set the date by which all discovery must be
                completed.

        IThe Government filed a motion for extension of tUne, from December 30, 2008 to January
.30, 2008 to produ'ce exculpatory evidence and to file its certification of compliance with Section
 I.D.I. To date, the Government has not yet filed a certifIcation regarding exculpatory evidence.

                                                  -2­

                                       UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE
                                       UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE

                                          III. ANALYSIS

               Mr. Sndkhan' s counsel argue that the Government has nol completed the mandatory

production of exculpatory evidence required under Section I.D.I or the production of evidence they

requested under Section I.E. 1. Mr. Sadldlan, through counsel, therefore moves the Court to compel

the Govermllent to comply with Sections l.D.l and I.E. I of the CMO, or in the alternative, seeks

pennission to obtain this discovery pursuant to Section l.E.2. Counsel also seek production ofMr.

Sadkhan's Medical Records pursuant to Section I,E.2 of the CMO.

       A.      Discovery Requests pursuant to Section LD.! and/or LE.2 of the CMO

               1.

               The Goverrnnent has produced the questions, answers and test result but objects to

producing the technical examiner's report on the basis that "it is very difficult to understand how a

technical report will help Petitioner materially undermine the basis for his detention" and, thus, it is

irrelevant. Resp'ts' Opp'n at 9-10. The Court disagrees. The full report may well assist :Mr.

Sad1 to a fishing expedition that is entirely inconsistent with these

proceedings and the CMO. The Government need not respond.

       C.	     DiscoverJ' Requests for Production ofMr. Sadkhan 's Medical Records pursuant
               to Section I.E.2

               Other jurists handling Guantanamo cases have, on occasion, ordered the Govermnenl

to produce medical records for a detainee. Building on these, counsel here ask for copies of Mr.

Sadkhan's medical records, as "important to an evaluation ofhis mental state and [to Jprovide context

for any statements" he made to interrogators. Pet'r's Mem. at 22. It may be that Mr. Sadkhan has

had a medical condition that could conceivably affect how he answered questions. It may not be.

Counsel provide no basis to know, one way or the other. Without some sort of comlection, this

request is merely a fishing expedition to which the Govemment need not respond.

               A memorializing order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: April 1, 2009                                                   /s/
                                                      ROSEMARY M. COLLYER
                                                      United States District Judge

                                               -11­

                                     UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR PUBLIC RELEASE