MOHAMMED ABDULLAH TAHA MATTAN, ET AL. V. BARACK H. OBAMA, ET AL., No. 1:2009cv00745 - Document 1260 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting in part and denying in part petitioner MOHAMMED AHMED SLAM AL-KHATEEB's Motion "to Compel or, in the alternative, Motion for Leave To Seek Discovery" (filed May 20, 2009). Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 6/22/09. (lcrcl2, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MOHAMMED ABDULLAH TAHA MATTAN, ET AL. V. BARACK H. OBAMA, ET AL. Doc. 1260 UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNITED SI'ATES DISTRICT corR'!.'· FOR TIlE DJ:'\TRICT OF COL.C\lBIA ) MOHA\1.!\1ED i\H\l[J) SLA..1Vl AL-KHATEEB (ISl\ 689), ) ~ I Petit i.on cr, ) ) ) Ci"il l\o. 09-745 (ReL.) ) BAlt·:\CK OBA.MA, e! al., ) ) Respondents. ) ---------------) MEl\'IORANDUM & ORDER Petitioner is challenging the legality afhis detention at the United States Naval Base in Gllantanamo Bay, C'llba CGuantanamo"}, Before the Court. is petitioner"st\lotion [J 186J tD Com pel or, in the i\ Ilernative, for Leave to Seek Discovery. As described herein, the Court shall grant petitioner leave tel seek certain discovery. 'fhe Court is operating under the Casei\1anagement Order ('"eMU') issued by Judge IJogan of this Court in the consolidated Guantanamo habeas cases (T'v'fisc. No. 08-4..2) on November 6, 2008, as amended on Decemher 16, 2008.! The subjects of petitioner's mOTion aloe I'f'he Amended CMO was later amended fUlther by Judge Walton of this Court. Gherebi Bush, Ci\'. "t\o. 04~1164, Order [797J (D.D.C. Dec. 19,2(08) (\Valton, J.).Because that Order was issued before petitioner's case ·was transfcn-cd from Judge Walton to the underslgned member of the Court, it is binding on petitioner's case. Ho\!,rever, Judge Walton's amendmems do not affect Amended CMO § I.E, which is the only section at issue for petitioner's requests. 1'. UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Dockets.Justia.com UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Petitioner's moti0D seeks to compel production, or, in the alternative, leave to seek discovery of three categories of evidence: A., Petitioner's l\lotioll to Compel Petitioner'S motion first seeks to compel respondents' production oftlle 1Petitioncr originally included a fourth request for "a \\Titten descri )tion of how the but that request was later withdra~'T1. (See Reply at 3 n.l.) 2 UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE under Amended C/\IO § I.E. 1. Section I.E. I requires the government tIl disc.lose. if requested by the petitioner. "any documents or objects in the govenl:11eITl's possession that the government relies (H110 JUSTify detention" lan1ong'ol,her thingsL P:::tili,mer B. Petitioner's Motion, in the Alternative, for Leave to Seek Discovel1' J UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE In the altcmaliv.:. petitioner tnDVCS J:,mended C\10; LE.2. Section I.E.2 Stlm~s 1eave to seek ,I i ~:t"t\','l"I"\' under that It]he !vlerits .Judge may, for good cause. permit the petitioner to obtain limitcO discovery beyond that described in [Section I.E.] I· Discovery requests shall .. (1) be Dnrruwly tailored, not open-ended; (:2 spec if) the soughr: :::: explain wh] the r"cquest, if gWI1I;:Q, is likely to pr()(!uce evidence that demonstrates lhal petitioner's detention is unltl\\'ful; and (4 e.xplain why the request..:d discovery \\ill enable the petitioner to rebut the factual basis [~~)," his detention \"'ithout unfairly disrupTing or unduly burdening the government. Amended C1\'IO § I.E.: Icitations omitted), Petitioner's discovery reques1 \vi 1I be evaluated according to this standard. Petitioner's request is certainly bOlh narrowly tniJoreJ and specitic. Petiti :mer is 'l.sking a finite number llsed OJ: a sped fie Dccasion with a single detainee. Petitioner's request alse appears not to be un lairly disruptive or unduly burdensome to the government: tl1;;' Rerum's i~)otnote nOled that th~accounl was accessible as as 2007, and respondents do not indicate that it is no longer accessible. The only remaining issue. then, is whether petitioner has 5ho\\"n that it is likely that his request, if granted, would produce evidence demonstrating that his detention is unl.awful. The Court concludes that. for a, least some of his requests, petitioner has met that standard. It is therefore likely that petitioner's request will produce evidence that will weaken the govcmment's justificati':"I!i f0r his detemiotl, However, not an of the specific requests made b~v petitioner are likely to show he is being unlawfully detained. UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Such broad disclosure would go beyond what is allovved by Amended CMO § I.E.2. To bring petitioner's discover)' requests within the confines of Amended C!'vfO § I.E,2, the Court will order the following: First.. if, using reasonably available4 information, respondents 41n accordance with the Court's other orders dealing \"lith discovery under Amel1ded CMO § I.E, the Court \vilI only grant discovery as to "reasonably available" evidence. In this context, "reasonably available" evidence means evidence contained in any information reviewed by attorneys preparing factual returns for all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay or any other tinited Stales military facility; it .is notlimited to the evidence discovered by attorneys preparing htcrual returns for this petitioner. See GJrerebi v. Bush, Civ. No. 04-1164, Order [797] (D.D.C. Dec. 19,2008) (\\'alton, J.) (amending slightly Amended CMO § LD.1). 5 UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE (referenced in Return Paragraph 25 IDutJ.101e 3.1 In accordance with the above \IenHlfandun1, it is ORDER}]) thai if, using reasonably anliJable inJe)fJ11J.l10n, respondents can determine _ ' a"o';, .~L. I ~ r 1" .. ; l t ll. · '!l/>l' L.. ' ORDERED rhm h all other rt:spects petitioner's !\/101il)l1 [1 186] is DE1\TED; and il is Ji.lrthcr ORDERED that all disclosures ordered in this Order shall occur within 30 days of thi:.~ date of this Order. so ORDERI::D. ~c~ ROY . C. LAMBERTII CHIEF JUDGE 6 UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
