Court Opinion

ID: 9925784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 23:01:11.500728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.935834
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD
    HUSAYN (ISN #10016),

                    Petitioner,
    v.                               Civil Action No. 08-1360
                                     (EGS)
    LLOYD AUSTIN, et al.,

                    Respondents.

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

         Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Compel

Respondent to Produce for the Court Complete and Unredacted

Copies of all CIA Documents, Records and Things Referenced in or

Otherwise Relied Upon by the Full Senate Select Committee on

Intelligence Torture Report and for Related Relief (“Pet’r’s

Mot.”), see generally ECF No. 540 1; which Respondents oppose, see

generally Resp’ts’ Opp’n, ECF No. 566; and to which Petitioner

has replied, see generally ECF No. 650. Upon careful

consideration of Petitioner’s motion, Respondents’ opposition,

the reply thereto, and for the reasons explained below, the

Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion.

1When citing electronic filings throughout this Opinion, the
Court refers to the ECF header page numbers, not the page
numbers of the filed documents.
     Petitioner moves the Court to compel Respondent to deposit

with the Court Information Security Officer (CISO) “complete and

unredacted copies of all [Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA)]

documents, records and things referenced or relied upon by the

full [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee Study of

the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program (“SSCI Report”)],

plus the electronic ‘search tool’ provided by the CIA to the

SSCI, and all CIA documents, records and things comprising the

Panetta Review.” See Pet’r’s Proposed Order, ECF No. 540-1. The

Court will refer to the subject of Petitioner’s motion

collectively as “materials.”

     Petitioner contends that: (1) the records will be lost or

destroyed for political purposes, see Pet’r’s Mot., ECF No. 540

at 30; (2) “there is ‘a significant risk that the relevant

evidence will be destroyed,’” id. at 30-31 (citing Pueblo of

Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 138 (2004) and

Capricorn Power Co., Inc. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp.,

220 F.R.D. 429 (W.D.Pa. 2004)); and that the request is not

unduly burdensome, see id. at 31-33.

     The persuasive authority Petitioner cites in support of his

motion sets forth a two-pronged standard. First, Petitioner

“must show that absent a court order, there is significant risk

that the evidence will be lost or destroyed—a burden often met

by demonstrating that the opposing party has lost or destroyed

                                2
evidence in the past or has inadequate retention procedures in

place.” Pueblo of Laguna v. U.S., 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 138 (2004).

Second, Petitioner must show that the request is not overly-

broad. Id. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes

that Petitioner has failed to satisfy this standard.

     First, Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a

significant risk that the materials will be lost or destroyed,

nor that they will be lost or destroyed for political purposes.

The materials are subject to a number of preservation orders,

including the following. Since December 20, 2007, there has been

“an Agency-wide preservation directive [in place] which required

the preservation of all documents, information, and evidence

relating to any detainee held at the United States Naval Station

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and any detainee held by the CIA.” Decl.

of Milton R. Downs, Chief Data Officer (“CDO”), CIA (“Downs

Decl.”), ECF No. 566-1 at 23-24 ¶ 5. Additionally, since

“January 11, 2008 [there has been] a directive for the

preservation of any and all records, including media containing

video and/or audio recordings of detainee interrogations and all

documentation concerning the preservation or destruction of

recordings of detainee interrogations.” Id.

     Mr. Downs attests to the following regard the materials:

          All information and materials produced and
          preserved in accordance with the data calls
          and preservation directives and orders were

                                3
          collected and, except with respect to archived
          materials and audio and video files addressed
          below that are maintained at an off-site CIA
          facility, were stored in a repository called
          the Rendition, Detention and Interrogation
          Network (“RDINet”).

Id. at 25 ¶ 6. He further attests that

          These materials are considered to be permanent
          federal records under the Federal Records Act
          (FRA) and scheduled as P-11b, Significant
          Litigation Cases or Investigation Matters,
          under CIA’s Flexible Records Control Schedule
          (FRCS). The CIA, therefore, has a duty under
          the FRA to maintain the materials in the RDI
          data collection until they are transferred to
          the    National     Archives      and    Records
          Administration     (NARA)     for     indefinite
          retention. RDINet is a compartmented stand-
          alone   electronic   computer   database    that
          contains   millions    of  highly     classified
          documents, including emails, memoranda, and
          other sensitive records . . . .

Id. Finally, he attests that

          I ensure CIA compliance with the records
          preservation requirements of the Federal
          Records Act, as explained above, and any
          existing preservation directives and orders
          and directive pertaining to the entire RDI
          data collection, which includes millions of
          documents . . . (contained within RDINet), as
          well as audio and video files associated with
          the RDI program. Under the authority of the
          CDO, the RDI data collection is preserved as
          a discrete and unedited dataset which is
          routinely backed up on stable media.

Id. at 26 ¶ 7. In sum, the Chief Archivist of the CIA has sworn

under oath that the CIA has preserved, and will continue to

preserve, the materials Petitioner seeks.

                                 4
     Rather than rebut Respondents’ explanation for why it is

unnecessary for the documents to be produced, Petitioner argues

that the risk of loss or destruction should be assessed with

reference to the importance of the evidence to the Petitioner.

Reply, ECF. No. 650-1 at 1-2. Petitioner points to the CIA’s

prior destruction of the videotapes of his “brutal detention,

interrogation, and torture.” Id. at 2. Petitioner also points to

the CIA’s “spying” on legislative staffers working on the

“Torture Report.” Id. at 4. Petitioner concludes his response

stating “[w]ith all due respect to Mr. Downs, given the CIA’s

checkered history where the RDI Program is involved, having a

CIA official as the chief custodian of the evidence that is so

vitally important to Petitioner, does cause him a certain sense

of unease.” Id. at 6. Petitioner’s argument fails to rebut

Respondents’ explanation for why it is unnecessary for the

documents to be produced in light of “the statutory requirements

of the Federal Records Act and current applicable preservation

directives and orders.” Downs Decl., ECF No. 566-1 at 27 ¶ 9. As

Respondent points out, “Petitioner has not posited any scenario

that would lead to the intentional or accidental destruction of

th[e] materials, which are regularly backed up to stable storage

media.” Opp’n, ECF No. 566-1 at 13. Petitioner has therefore

failed to satisfy the standard that he himself cited—that “there

                                5
is significant risk that the evidence will be lost or

destroyed.” Pueblo of Laguna, 60 Fed. Cl. at 138.

     Second, Petitioner has not shown that the request is not

unduly burdensome. Respondent has explained the “significant

logistical difficulties and administrative and security burdens

on both the CIA and the Court” were the Court to compel

production of the materials. Downs Decl., ECF No. 566-1 at 27 ¶

9. Respondent also points out that it is not possible for the

CIA to fully comply with Petitioner’s proposed order, stating

that “[t]hese gaps would render Petitioner’s requested order

ineffective as a means of preservation, and the alternative

methods of submitting the materials to the CISO would be unduly,

indeed, enormously burdensome.” Opp’n, ECF No. 566-1 at 13-14.

Petitioner again fails to rebut Respondents’ explanation,

responding to Respondents’ explanation as follows:

          Petitioner’s counsel has reviewed carefully
          Respondent’s classified, redacted Opposition,
          especially the Declaration of CIA CDO Milton
          R. Downs. While counsel might quarrel with
          various points asserted by Mr. Downs, a single
          reality exists that both parties very likely
          agree upon. Plainly, and this comes as no
          surprise, the CIA has vast resources at its
          disposal, including intellectual resources.

Reply, ECF No. 650-1 at 6. Petitioner has failed to rebut

Respondents’ explanation for why producing the materials would

be unduly burdensome therefore has failed to satisfy the

standard that he himself cited. See Pueblo of Laguna, 60 Fed.

                                6
Cl. at 138. The Court has reviewed the classified portions of

Respondents’ briefings and of Mr. Downs’ Declaration and is

satisfied that Respondent has adequately explained the

“significant logistical difficulties and administrative and

security burdens on both the CIA and the Court” were the Court

to compel production of the materials.

     For the reasons stated above, it is hereby

     ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Respondent to

Produce for the Court Complete and Unredacted Copies of all CIA

Documents, Records and Things Referenced in or Otherwise Relied

Upon by the Full Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Torture

Report and for Related Relief, ECF No. 540, is DENIED.

     SO ORDERED.

Signed:   Emmet G. Sullivan
          United States District Judge
          January 22, 2024

                                7