IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION
MOTION for Order -- CONSOLIDATED ORDER REGARDING TASK FORCE DISCOVERY by BARACK OBAMA, DONALD RUMSFELD, JAY HOOD, ZAKER CHAN, WADE F. DAVIS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order 1, # 3 Text of Proposed Order 2, # 4 Exhibit Guerra Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Olsen Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Benkert Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Cummings Declaration, # 8 Exhibit Hackett Declaration)(Henry, Terry)
IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ___________________________ IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION Misc. No. 08-442 (TFH)
04-cv-1194, 05-cv-1487, 05-cv-2384, 05-cv-2386, 05-cv2387, 06-cv-1690, 06-cv-1761
RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDERS REGARDING DISCOVERY FROM THE GUANTANAMO REVIEW TASK FORCE AND MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATED ORDER REGARDING TASK FORCE DISCOVERY
Respondents respectfully move for reconsideration of recent Court orders regarding discovery from the Guantanamo Review Task Force. Some of the Court's orders require that information "collected," "compiled," or "obtained" by the Task Force must be reviewed for exculpatory evidence or other information subject to Respondents' discovery and disclosure obligations under the Amended Case Management Order (CMO); or, to the same effect, must be presumed or considered "reasonably available" for purposes of automatic disclosure or discovery under §§ I.D.1 and/or I.E.1 of the CMO, or as otherwise ordered by individual Members of the Court.11 Others appear to require, in effect, that the Task Force pass on to Respondents for review and production any exculpatory material or other discoverable evidence that is "identified" or "discovered" by the Task Force staff as they conduct their reviews.22 For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, Respondents respectfully submit that, insofar as these orders address discovery of Task Force information, the orders should be withdrawn. Respondents further move the Court to
See, e.g., Dokhan v. Obama, 08-987 (JDB), Mar. 4, 2009 (Dkt No. 89); Khan v. Obama, 081101 (JDB), Mar. 4, 2009 (Dkt. No. 85); Zaid v. Obama, 05-1646 (JDB), Feb 9, 2009 (Dkt. No. 146); Hamlily v. Obama, 05-763 (JDB), Feb. 27, 2009 (Sealed Order); Alhami v. Obama, 05359 (GK), May 11, 2009 (Dkt. No. 189); Razak v. Obama, 05-1601 (GK), May 11, 2009 (Dkt. No. 209); Abdah v. Obama, 04-1254 (HHK), April 8, 2009 (Dkt. No. 477); Alsawam v. Obama 05-1244 (CKK), April 6, 2009 (Dkt. No. 158); Alsawam v. United States, 05-1244 (CKK), April 17 (Dkt. No. 156) Al Odah v. United States, 02-828 (CKK), April 7, 2009 (Dkt. No. 531); Omnibus Order (05-520, 05-526, 05-993, 05-1220, 05-1429, 05-1607, 05-1983) (RMU), April 23, 2009 (Dkt. No. 144 in 05-1983); Amended Omnibus Order (06-1767, 08, 1237, 08-1805, 081828) (RMU), April 23, 2009 (Dkt. No. 145 in 05-1983). See, e.g., Al Halmandy v. Obama, 05-2385 (ESH), April 27, 2009 (Dkt. No. 238) (ISN 900); Ameziane v. Obama, 05-392 (ESH), April 30, 2009 (Dkt. No. 198); Al Halmandy v. Obama, 052385 (ESH), April 30, 2009 (Dkt. No. 242) (ISN 570) and Al Halmandy v. Obama, 05-2385 (ESH), April 30, 2009 (Dkt. No. 243) (ISN 078); Al Halmandy v. Obama, 05-2385 (ESH), May 4, 2009 (Dkt. No. 245) (ISN 510); Zuhair v. Bush, 08-864 (EGS), May 1, 2009 (Dkt. No. 179); Omnibus Order, (04-1164, 05-883, 05-891, 05-999, 05-1493, 05-1667, 05-2104, 05-2386, 061675, 06-1690, 07-1710, 08-2019) (RBW), April 27, 2009 (Dkt. No. 221 in 04-1164).
enter a consolidated order, in the form attached herewith, regarding discovery of Task Force information in the Guantanamo habeas cases.33
May 12, 2009
Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL F. HERTZ Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOSEPH H. HUNT (D.C. Bar No. 431134) Director, Federal Programs Branch /s/ James J. Gilligan /s/ Terry M. Henry JAMES J. GILLIGAN TERRY M. HENRY Assistant Branch Directors United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883, Washington, DC 20044 Phone: (202) 305-0037 Fax: (202) 616-8470
Attorneys for Respondents
Given the unique circumstances of this filing -- including the substantial number of counsel involved -- Respondents respectfully request leave to pursue a modified procedure for with respect to Local Rule 7(m). Until the date of this filing, Respondents were not in a position to meaningfully confer with each of Petitioners' counsel regarding the relief sought by Respondents or Respondents' proposal regarding discovery. Likewise, Respondents were not in a position to share information in many of the accompanying declarations. Given these circumstances, Respondents request leave to confer with counsel pursuant to Rule 7(m) and report back to the Court within one week of this filing as to the results. In the meantime, Respondents would agree that Petitioners' time to respond to this motion be tolled. This requested procedure is outlined in an accompanying Proposed Order Regarding Local Rule 7(m) Procedure.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?