Zemiri v. Obama , 128 F. Supp. 3d 185 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    AHCENE ZEMIRI,
    Petitioner,
    v.                                            Civil Action No. 04-2046 (CKK)
    BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,
    Respondents.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    (September 9, 2015)
    Presently before the Court are Respondents’ [236] Consent Motion to Deem Protected
    Information Highlighted in the Accompanying Proposed Factual Finding Return for ISN 533, and
    Respondents’ [252] Renewed Motion to Deem Protected the Designated Information in
    Respondents’ Proposed Public Version of Petitioner’s Traverse. Respondents seek to have certain
    portions of the factual return, originally filed under seal on September 27, 2011, 1 and the
    Petitioner’s Traverse, filed under seal on March 20, 2013, deemed protected. Petitioner consents
    in part and takes no position in part to Respondents’ motions.
    Respondents previously filed a motion requesting that certain information within the
    Petitioner’s Traverse be deemed protected. With respect to that motion, the Court requested that
    Respondents answer three specific questions regarding the proposed protected material in the
    Traverse. Respondents provided responses to those questions in two pleadings, their Supplement
    1
    Respondents filed a revised version of the proposed factual return in this matter alongside
    its Ex Parte, In Camera Supplement to Respondents’ Consent Motion to Deem Protected
    Information in the Accompanying Proposed Public Factual Return for ISN 533, on March 20,
    2013. See Notice of Ex Parte, In Camera Filing, ECF No. [251].
    1
    to Respondents’ Consent Motion to Deem Protected the Designated Information in Respondents’
    Proposed Public Version of Petitioner’s Traverse and their Ex Parte, In Camera Supplement to
    Respondents’ Consent Motion to Deem Protected the Designated Information in Respondents’
    Proposed Public Version of Petitioner’s Traverse.        See Notice of Filings, ECF No. [249].
    However, after reviewing these documents, the Court denied Respondents’ motion without
    prejudice and indicated that it would consider both supplements when reaching its determination
    on Respondents’ renewed motion which is currently pending. Moreover, Respondents also filed
    an Ex Parte, In Camera Supplement to Respondents’ Consent Motion to Deem Protected
    Information in the Accompanying Proposed Public Factual Return for ISN 533, supplementing its
    motion to request that additional information in the Public Factual Return be deemed protected.
    See Notice of Ex Parte, In Camera Filing, ECF No. [251]. The Court has reviewed and considered
    both motions as well as the supplemental information provided by Respondents. Upon
    consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court
    shall grant both motions for the reasons set forth below.
    DISCUSSION
    Judge Thomas F. Hogan previously held that the six categories of protected information
    relied upon by Respondents in the present motions provide a valid basis for withholding sensitive
    but unclassified information from the public under the framework established by the United States
    Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Parhat v. Gates, 
    532 F.3d 834
    (D.C. Cir.
    2008). In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., Misc. No. 08-442, ECF No. [1981] (D.D.C. May
    12, 2011) (“Hogan Opin.”). In addition to relying on these six categories, the Respondents propose
    categorizing certain types of medical information and certain information that describes force-
    protection measures taken by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay as protected. Resps.’
    2
    Mot., Ex. 1 at ¶ 6, ECF No. [236-1]; Resps.’ Renewed Mot., Ex. 2 at ¶ 7, ECF No. [252]. The
    Court finds that the Respondents have proffered a sufficiently tailored rationale for protecting these
    two general categories of information from public disclosure. Hogan Opin. at 14; see generally
    Parhat, 
    532 F.3d 834
    .
    The Court shall first address Respondents’ Motion to Deem Protected Information
    Highlighted in the Accompanying Proposed Factual Finding Return for ISN 533, to which
    Petitioner consents. Respondents also made additional requests for specified information to be
    deemed protected in its Ex Parte, In Camera Supplement to the Motion. Petitioner takes no
    position as to the requests in the Supplement. Upon review of the Proposed Public Factual Return,
    attached as Exhibit 3 to Respondents’ Motion and the revised version attached to Respondents’ Ex
    Parte, In Camera Supplement, the Court finds the information highlighted in green or gray in the
    Proposed Public Factual Return properly falls within the six categories of protected information
    previously found to establish a valid basis for withholding, or within the category of medical
    information proffered by Respondents, and is therefore protected pursuant to paragraphs 10 and
    34 of the Protective Order governing this proceeding.          Accordingly, the Court shall grant
    Respondents’ Consent Motion to Deem Protected Information Highlighted in the Accompanying
    Proposed Factual Finding Return for ISN 533 as well as Respondents’ additional request to deem
    protected certain information identified in the Ex Parte, In Camera Supplement to Respondents’
    Consent Motion.
    The Court shall next address Respondents’ Renewed Motion to Deem Protected the
    Designated Information in Respondents’ Proposed Public Version of Petitioner’s Traverse.
    Petitioner consents to the Court’s designation of the majority of the information identified by
    Respondents as protected. However, Petitioner takes no position as to Respondents’ request to
    3
    deem information in Paragraphs 11 through 16 of the Appendix to the Traverse as protected. Upon
    review of the Proposed Traverse, attached as Exhibit 1 to Respondents’ Renewed Motion, the
    Court finds the information highlighted in the dash-line boxes in the Proposed Public Traverse
    properly falls within the six categories of protected information previously found to establish a
    valid basis for withholding, or within the category of medical information or information that
    describes force-protection measures proffered by Respondents, and is therefore protected pursuant
    to paragraphs 10 and 34 of the Protective Order governing this proceeding. Moreover, the Court
    has reviewed the information provided by Respondents in their supplements to the pending
    motions and is satisfied that the designated information falls within the purviews of protected
    information based on the explanations provided. As such, the Court shall also grant Respondents’
    Renewed Motion to Deem Protected the Designated Information in Respondents’ Proposed Public
    Version of Petitioner’s Traverse.
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Respondents’ [236] Consent Motion to
    Deem Protected Information Highlighted in the Accompanying Proposed Factual Finding Return
    for ISN 533, and GRANTS Respondents’ [252] Renewed Motion to Deem Protected the
    Designated Information in Respondents’ Proposed Public Version of Petitioner’s Traverse.
    Accordingly, Respondents shall file on the electronic docket a public version of the factual return
    from which the information highlighted in green or gray in the Proposed Public Factual Return has
    been redacted, and a public version of the Traverse from which the information highlighted in the
    dash-line boxes has been redacted.
    4
    An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    ____/s/______________________________
    COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2004-2046

Citation Numbers: 128 F. Supp. 3d 185, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119510, 2015 WL 5297694

Judges: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

Filed Date: 9/9/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/7/2024