Court Opinion

ID: 9398338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 21:01:33.980309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:32.832734
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.

                                   ORDER

         Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for

Declassification, Classification Review, Release of Unclassified

Material, and Related Relief, see generally Pet’r’s Mot., ECF

No. 342; 1 which Respondents oppose, see Resp’ts’ Opp’n, ECF No.

376. Upon careful consideration of Petitioner’s motion,

Respondents’ opposition, the reply thereto, the applicable law,

and for the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART,

DENIES IN PART, AND FINDS AS MOOT IN PART, Petitioner’s motion.

         The Court denies Petitioner’s request “to take Judicial

Notice of the fact that Petitioner’s own account of his torture,

treatment, conditions of confinement, and transfer is

unclassified.” Pet’r’s Mot., ECF No. 342 at 1. Petitioner has

1 When citing electronic filings throughout this opinion, the
Court cites to the ECF header page number, not the original page
number of the filed document.
provided no legal argument or authorities in support of the

Court taking such Judicial Notice.

     Petitioner’s request for dissemination of unclassified

documents containing information about his own account of his

torture, treatment, conditions of confinement, and transfer is

moot. See Reply, ECF No. 391 at 2.

     Although it does not appear that there has been a pattern

of inordinate delay, the Court grants Petitioner’s request that

Respondent promptly process his requests for classification

review. The Court expects Respondent to process the requests of

Petitioner in this case in the same manner as it does in any

other Guantanamo case.

     The Court denies Petitioner’s request that the “Court order

the government to stop imposing restrictions on the type, form,

and intended use of” materials submitted for classification

review. Respondent has provided a sworn affidavit from the then-

Team Lead of the Privilege Team confirming that “it is not the

present practice of the Privilege Team to ask questions about

the intended use of a document submitted for either

classification review or declassification.” Privilege Team

Declaration, ECF No. 376-1 ¶ 7.

     The Court denies Petitioner’s request to categorically bar

the Privilege Team from applying the “For Official Use Only”

(FOUO) marking to documents containing potentially sensitive

                                  2
information and directing counsel not to disseminate the

information for the reasons stated in Respondent’s Opposition.

See Resp’ts’ Opp’n, ECF No. 376 at 16-19. That said, the Court

expects Respondent and Petitioner to determine on a document-by-

document basis whether documents marked as FOUO can be released

by Petitioner.

     In view of the many competing demands on the government’s

classification-review resources, and the discovery currently

being produced in this case, see Minute Order (July 12, 2022),

the Court denies Petitioner’s request to order Respondent to

conduct an expedited classification review for all court records

in this proceeding. The Court notes that it has previously

ordered classification reviews of filings related to pending

motions in this case. See Minute Order (Apr. 22, 2016); Minute

Order (June 10, 2016); and Minute Order (Mar. 6, 2019).

     Finally, the Court denies Petitioner’s request that the

TS/SCI Protective Order governing this case (and the other

Guantanamo cases before this district) be amended. Petitioner

has pointed to no other Guantanamo case where Petitioner sought

and received amendment of the TS/SCI Protective Order. To the

extent Petitioner seeks to amend the TS/SCI Protective Order to

require documents be portion marked, there are other avenues for

Petitioner to obtain the relief he seeks. See Resp’ts’ Opp’n,

ECF No. 376 at 24-25.

                                3
     For the reasons stated above, it is hereby

     ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Declassification,

Classification Review, Release of Unclassified Material, and

Related Relief, ECF No. 342 is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART,

AND FOUND AS MOOT IN PART.

     SO ORDERED.

Signed:   Emmet G. Sullivan
          United States District Judge
          May 30, 2023

                                4