Muhammad Husayn v. Gates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD
HUSAYN (ISN #10016),
Petitioner,
v. No 08-cv-1360 (EGS)
LLOYD AUSTIN,
Respondents
ORDER
Respondent filed an Ex Parte Motion to Withhold from
Disclosure Sensitive Classified Information in CIA Documents
Containing Petitioner’s Medical Records (“Ex Parte Mot.”) on
September 22, 2022. See Ex Parte Mot., ECF No. 612; Public
Version Ex Parte Mot., ECF No. 672. Thereafter, Petitioner filed
a motion seeking to prevent Respondent from proceeding on an ex
parte basis. See Motion For An Order: Barring Respondent From
Proceeding With His Original Motion Ex Parte; and (2) Requiring
Him To Re-File His Motion in Conventional Form Pursuant to Local
Rules 7(a)-(d), So That Petitioner May Assist the Court By
Asserting His Position On the Redactions Unilaterally Taken In
the CIA’s Medical Records, ECF No. 617; which Respondent
opposed, see Opp’n, ECF No. 620; and to which Petitioner
replied, see Reply, ECF No. 624.
On December 1, 2022, Respondent filed a redacted version of
the Ex Parte motion at the SECRET//NOFORM level and served a
copy on Petitioner’s counsel at the secure work facility. See
Notice, ECF No. 625. Thereafter, the Court directed the parties
to propose a schedule for Petitioner’s response to the Ex Parte
motion and for Respondent’s reply, see Minute Order (May 26,
2023); and the Court set a briefing schedule, see Minute Order
(July 25, 2023).
Before reviewing the redacted version of the Ex Parte
motion, counsel for Petitioner claimed that the provision of the
redacted version did not undermine his request for full access
to the Ex Parte motion because “neither the Court nor the
Petitioner has any information on the extent of the redactions .
. . .” Petitioner’s Notice, ECF No. 626 at 2. After reviewing
the redacted version, however, Petitioner provided objections to
Respondent’s redactions, see Petitioner’s Supplemental Report,
ECF No. 656-1; and Respondent replied to those objections, see
Respondent’s Reply, ECF No. 660-1. Specifically, Petitioner
provided both “[g]eneral criticisms,” 1 Petitioner’s Supplemental
1 Petitioner has not responded to Respondent’s response to
Petitioner’s contention that he was not provided the sample set
of documents showing Respondent’s proposed redactions, and so
apparently concedes that his contention is incorrect. See
Petitioner’s Supplemental Report, ECF No. 656-1 at 2-3;
Respondent’s Reply, ECF No. 660-1 at 4; and generally the docket
for this case.
2
Report, ECF No. 656-1 at 2-3; and criticisms of specific
redaction examples, see id. at 3-4. The parties’ briefing will
enable the Court to take Petitioner’s objections and
Respondent’s reply into consideration when ruling on the Ex
Parte motion. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the parties’
briefing on the Ex Parte motion has mooted the relief Petitioner
seeks in the instant motion because Petitioner was provided with
a redacted version of the Ex Parte motion at the SECRET//NOFORM
level and Petitioner has provided his objections to Respondent’s
redactions.
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion For An Order: Barring
Respondent From Proceeding With His Original Motion Ex Parte;
and (2) Requiring Him To Re-File His Motion in Conventional Form
Pursuant to Local Rules 7(a)-(d), So That Petitioner May Assist
the Court By Asserting His Position On the Redactions
Unilaterally Taken In the CIA’s Medical Records, ECF No. 617, is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
October 8, 2024
3