Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zemiri v. Obama

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

September 9, 2015

AHCENE ZEMIRI, Petitioner,
v.
BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., Respondents

          For AHCENE ZEMIRI, KARINA DERESHTEANU, as next friend of Ahcene Zemiri, Petitioners: Debra A. Schneider, Dulce J. Foster, James E. Dorsey, John W. Lundquist, Neil H. Koslowe, Nicole M. Moen, LEAD ATTORNEYS, FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A., Minneapolis, MN.

         For GEORGE WALKER BUSH, President of the United States, Timothy Burke Walthall, Secretary, United States, JAY HOOD, General, Army Brigadier, NELSON J. CANNON, Army Coloniel, Respondents: Nicholas J. Patterson, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC; Paul Edward Ahern, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Department of Justice, National Security Division, Washington, DC; Scott Michael Marconda, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC; Terry Marcus Henry, Timothy Andrew Johnson, LEAD ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, Washington, DC; Timothy Andrew Johnson, Federal Programs Branch, David Hugh White, Michael Thomas Koenig, Robert J. Prince, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC; Julia A. Berman, Timothy Burke Walthall, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Washington, DC.

         For BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, Respondent: Julia A. Berman, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Washington, DC; Olivia R. Hussey Scott, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division, Civil Trial Section, Central Region, Washington, DC; ASSOCIATED PRESS, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, USA TODAY, Movants: Jeanette Melendez Bead, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP, Washington, DC.

Page 186

         MEMORANDUM OPINION

         COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         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 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'

Page 187

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, 382 U.S. App.D.C. 233 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 787 F.Supp.2d 5 (D.D.C. 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.' 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, 382 U.S. App.D.C. 233.

         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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.