MUHAMMAD HUSAYN v. GATES

Filing 657

ORDER granting 387 Respondents' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum Order Compelling Disclosure of Documents in Unredacted Form. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 8/25/2023. (lcegs1)

Case 1:08-cv-01360-UNA Document 657 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ZAYN AL ABIDIN MUHAMMAD
HUSAYN (ISN #10016),
v.

Petitioner,

Civil Action No. 08-1360
(EGS)

LLOYD AUSTIN, et al.,
Respondents.

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Respondents’ Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the Court’s Memorandum Order Compelling
Disclosure of Documents in Unredacted Form. See generally
Resp’ts’ Mot., ECF No. 387. Upon careful consideration of
Respondents’ motion, Petitioner’s opposition, the reply thereto,
the applicable law, and for the reasons explained below, the
Court GRANTS Respondents’ motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that “any
order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates
fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer
than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the
claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the
entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the
parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

Case 1:08-cv-01360-UNA Document 657 Filed 08/25/23 Page 2 of 5

The standard for determining whether or not to grant a Rule
54(b) motion is the “as justice requires” standard. Jud. Watch
v. Dep’t of Army, 466 F. Supp. 2d 112, 123 (D.D.C. 2006). Under
this flexible standard, the Court considers “whether the court
patently misunderstood the parties, made a decision beyond the
adversarial issues presented, made an error in failing to
consider controlling decisions or data, or whether a controlling
or significant change in the law has occurred.” In Def. of
Animals v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, 543 F. Supp. 2d 70, 75
(D.D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Montgomery v. Internal Revenue Serv., 356 F. Supp. 3d 74, 79
(D.D.C. 2019), aff’d, 40 F.4th 702 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
The moving party has the burden of demonstrating “‘that
some harm, legal or at least tangible, would flow from a denial
of reconsideration.’” In Def. of Animals, 543 F. Supp. 2d at 76
(quoting Cobell v. Norton, 355 F. Supp. 2d 531, 540 (D.D.C.
2005)). “[E]ven if justice does not require reconsideration of
an interlocutory ruling, a decision to reconsider is nonetheless
within the court’s discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). However, this discretion is “limited by the law of the
case doctrine and ‘subject to the caveat that where litigants
have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither
be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it

2

Case 1:08-cv-01360-UNA Document 657 Filed 08/25/23 Page 3 of 5

again.’” Id. (quoting Singh v. George Wash. Univ., 383 F. Supp.
2d 99, 101 (D.D.C. 2005)).
In its October 1, 2009 Memorandum Order, the Court, among
other things, ordered Respondents to produce to Petitioner’s
counsel to share with Petitioner the Petitioner’s diaries. Mem.
Order, ECF No. 643-1 at 11. In response to the Memorandum Order,
Respondents provided, among other things, four diaries that
Petitioner wrote after his capture while in U.S. custody.
Resp’ts’ Mot., ECF No. 387 at 2. Respondents redacted
information that identifies or describes individual U.S.
Government personnel in the diaries. Id. Respondents request
that the Court modify its Memorandum Order to permit these
redactions, arguing that “[r]edaction of such identifying
information is justified in light of the Government’s paramount
interest in protecting the identities of its intelligence
personnel and protecting them from risk of harm.” Resp’ts’ Mot.,
ECF No. 387 at 1.
Petitioner objects, arguing that the identifying
information will help Petitioner, who has a defective memory, to
refresh his recollection and that “is precisely the type of
information that [P]etitioner requires to collect the
exculpatory evidence” that must be provided to him. Pet’r’s
Opp’n ECF No. 430 at 3. Petitioner also notes that the none of

3

Case 1:08-cv-01360-UNA Document 657 Filed 08/25/23 Page 4 of 5

the Central Intelligence Agency personnel involved in his
torture and interrogation provided their real names to him. Id.
The Court has previously approved redacting information
from records produced to Petitioner that identifies government
personnel. See Husayn v. Gates, Civil Action No. 08-1360, 2009
WL 544492 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2009)(ordering the production of
certain medical records with the treatment providers’
identifying information redacted); Husayn v. Gates, Civil Action
No. 08-1360, 2020 WL 3035052 (D.D.C. June 6, 2020)(noting that
the Court had agreed that it would be appropriate to redact
identifying information). Respondents have identified the harm
that could flow from the denial of reconsideration here—exposing
Government personnel to risk of physical harm. Petitioner has
neither addressed the harm nor provided any authority pursuant
to which the Court would reach a different result here.

4

Case 1:08-cv-01360-UNA Document 657 Filed 08/25/23 Page 5 of 5

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Partial
Reconsideration, ECF No. 387, is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Court’s Memorandum Order of October 1,
2009 is modified to permit the Government to redact information
identifying Government personnel as described in Respondents’
motion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
August 25, 2023

5