Paracha v. Bush ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
SAIFULLAH PARACHA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
V. ) Civil Action No. 04-2022 (PLF)
)
DONALD J. TRUMP, et�, )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on respondents' August 14, 2019 motion to
exclude six documents from the discovery obligations imposed by the Amended Case
Management Order in this matter, see Dkt. No. 219; the Court's May 30, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Scheduling Order, see Dkt. No. 515; and the Court's June 12, 2019 Discovery
Order, see 0kt. No. 517. Respondents' classified motion is ex riarte, in camera, and under seal;
it is reflected in a notice of filing on the public docket. See Dkt. No. 522. For the reasons
described below, respondents' motion is granted.
Section I.D of the Case Management Order, as amended, imposes on respondents
an ongoing obligation to disclose to petitioner all reasonably available exculpatory information;
Section I.E. imposes obligations to disclose certain other documents when requested by
petitioner. See Case Management Order, Dkt. No. 204, at 2-3; Amended Case Management
Order, Dkt. No. 219, at 2-3; Order, 0kt. No. 308, at 1-4 (revising certain provisions in the Case
Management Order). Under the Amended Case Management Order, respondents must provide
these disclosures to petitioner's appropriately cleared counsel even if the information is
classified. There is one exception, set forth in Section l.F: "If the government objects to
providing the petitioner's counsel with the classified information, the government shall move for
an exception to disclosure." See Dkt. No. 219 at 3. The Court recently granted respondents'
first ex parte Section I.F motion. See Dkt. No. 524.
In the present Section I.F motion, respondents seek additional exceptions from
disclosure with respect to six classified documents: five documents that were found during
respondents' ongoing searches pursuant to Section I.D of the Case Management Order, and one
document that the Court ordered respondents to produce in its June 12,2019 Discovery Order.
See Dkt. No. 517. Respondents have provided Mr. Paracha's appropriately cleared counsel with
classified summaries or redacted versions of each of these six documents. In the present motion,
respondents ask the Court for disclosure exceptions for the arguably exculpatory or otherwise
discoverable information that was redacted and/or substituted in the documents produced to Mr.
Paracha. Motion at 4.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
determined when a couft may order production of classified information in a civil matter over the
government's objection. See Al Odah v. United States, 559 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir. 2009). To order
production of such information, the Court must find (1) that "the information is both relevant and
material" - in the sense that it is at least helpful to the petitioner's habeas case, id. at 544; (2) that
"access by petitioner's counsel . . . is necessary to facilitate [meaningful habeas] review," id. at
545; and (3) that "alternatives to disclosure would not effectively substitute for unredacted
access," id. at 547. The materiality requirement is met only for "information that is exculpatory,
that undermines the reliability of other purportedly inculpatory evidence, or that names potential
witnesses capable of providing material evidence." Id. al 546. In a previous Memorandum
Opinion on the Case Management Order that applies to this matter, Judge Hogan ruled that "the
Al Odah framework . . . is applicable" to all of the Guantanamo habeas petitions consolidated in
2
this District. See In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, 634 F. Supp. 2d 17 ,24 (D.D.C.
2009).
The Court has scrutinized the complete and un-redacted versions of each of the
six documents at issue in the present motion, respondents' arguments and supporling
declarations, and the redacted versions and classified substitutions for each of the six documents
at issue in this motion. The Court finds that the redactions and substitutions that respondents
have produced to Mr. Paracha do provide sufficient alternatives for all of the relevant and
material information in the six documents at issue in this motion. Under the Al Odah standard,
the government may not be compelled to produce any of the classified information in these six
documents.
o With respect to the first document, see Motion at 15-18, the second
docunrent, see id. at 18*21, and the sixth document, see id. at 30-33: the
Court finds that the classified summary produced to petitioner's counsel
conveys the substance of all of the arguably relevant and material information
fhe summary provides an adequate substitute for full access to that
information, and the full docurnent need not be produced.l
a With respect to the third document, see Motion at 2l*25, the fourth document,
see id. at25*28, and the Fifth Document, s99. id. at28-30: the Court finds that
the maiority of the redactions made to the version of the document provided to
Mr. Paracha concern information that is neither relevant nor material to this
case. And the classified summary or substitute that Respondents provided
conveys the substance of the only material and relevant information that has
been redacted. Collectively, the redacted version of the document and the
classified substitute provide an adequate alternative to full access to the
document, which need not be produced.
In shoft, the Court finds that the redacted documents and classified substitutes or
summaries of the six documents at issue in this motion provide an adequate substitute for all of
the relevant and material information contained in the documents. Accordingly, it is hereby
' The Court addresses and identifies the documents by the order in which they
appear in respondents' classified motion, which more specifically details the identity and content
of the documents
3
ORDERED that respondents' August 14,2019 ex parte motion, see Dkt. No. 522,
is GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that respondents need not produce any further
information with respect to the six documents that are the subject of the motion.
SO ORDERED.
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: October 10, 2019
4