United States District Court, D. Columbia
Jihad Dhiab Detainee, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station,
Petitioner: Alka Pradhan, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEWIS BAACH PLLC,
Washington, DC; Clive A. Staffordsmith, REPRIEVE, LEAD
ATTORNEY, London Ec3p 3bz; Cori Crider, REPRIEVE, LEAD
ATTORNEY, London, Uk Ec4y 0ay; Elizabeth L. Marvin, LEAD
ATTORNEY, LEWIS BAACH PLLC, Washington, DC; Eric Leslie
Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEWIS BAACH PLLC, Washington, DC; Ahmed
Ghappour, REPRIEVE, London, Uk Ec4y 0ay; Jon B. Eisenberg,
Oakland, CA; Lisa Jaskol, Los Angeles, CA; Shayana Devendra
Kadidal, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, New York, NY; Tara
L. Murray, REPRIEVE, London Ec4p 4ws.
Shaker Aamer Next Friend of Jihad Dhaib, Petitioner: Shayana
Devendra Kadidal, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, New York,
George Walker Bush President of the United States, Donald
Rumsfeld Secretary, United States Department of Defense, Jay
Hood Army Brigadier General, Commander, Joint Task
Force-GTMO, Respondents: Scott Michael Marconda, Terry Marcus
Henry LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Washington,
DC; Alexander Kenneth Haas, Andrew I. Warden, August Edward
Flentje, David Hugh White, James J. Schwartz, Julia A.
Berman, Kathryn Celia Davis, Patrick D. Davis, Robert J.
Prince, Timothy Burke Walthall, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Associated Press, USA Today, Hearst Corporation, Abc, Inc.,
Associated Press, Bloomberg L.P., Cbs Broadcasting, Inc., The
Contently Foundation, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., First Look
Media, Inc., Guardian US, Mcclatchy Company, National Public
Radio Inc., New York Times Company, Reuters America LLC,
Tribune Publishing Company, LLC, USA Today, Washington Post,
Movants: David A. Schulz, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH
& SCHULZ, LLP, New York, NY; Julie B. Ehrlich, PRO HAC VICE,
LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP, New York, NY.
Kessler, United States District Judge.
October 3, 2014, this Court issued a decision to grant, with
specified conditions, the Motion of Press-Intervenors to
Unseal Videotape Evidence consisting of recent classified
videotapes of forcible cell extraction and force feeding of
Petitioner Dhiab, who had been detained for more than 12
years at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay [Dkt.
No. 349]. On October 15, 2014, the Government filed a Motion
to Stay that ruling, accompanied by two additional
declarations in support of the Motion [Dkt. No. 356], only
one of which related to harm the Government believed would
result from unsealing the tapes. On November 7, 2014, the
Court granted the Government's Motion to Stay until
midnight December 2, 2014 [Dkt. No. 367]. On November 10,
2014, the Government filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court
of Appeals [Dkt. No. 368]. On December 2, 2014, the
Government filed with this Court an Emergency Motion to
Extend Stay of Orders Unsealing Classified Videotapes Pending
Final Resolution of Appeal [Dkt. No. 375], and filed two
additional declarations in support of its Emergency Motion.
Redacted copies at Dkt. No. 375. On December 3, 2014, this
Court granted that Motion [Dkt. No. 378]. On December 5,
2014, the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals as
Case No. 14-5299.
29, 2015, the Court of Appeals, in a per curiam
Opinion, dismissed the appeal because this Court's Orders
were not final orders over which the Court of Appeals had
jurisdiction. In addition, it denied the request for a
writ of mandamus, and remanded the case back to this
Court. In that Opinion, the Court of Appeals noted that the
remand would give this Court " an opportunity to
consider the supplemental declarations that the Government
submitted in support of its motion to stay. When it ruled on
the Intervenors' motion to unseal, the district court did
not have an opportunity to consider those declarations which
set out the harm associated with release of the videotapes in
considerably more detail than the declarations the Government
submitted in opposition to the initial motion."
Dhiab v. Obama, 787 F.3d 563, 567 (D.C. Cir.
2015). The Mandate from the Court of Appeals
was issued on June 25, 2015 [Dkt. No. 385].
15, 2015, the Government moved for reconsideration of the
Court's October 3, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order
[Dkt. No. 388]. Both Petitioner and Press-Intervenors filed
Nos. 394, 396], and the Government filed its Reply on August
17, 2015 [Dkt. No. 397].
The Government Has Failed to Meet the Standard for Granting a
Motion for Reconsideration
the Government has not clearly identified the provisions of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which it is
applying for reconsideration, the Court will assume that it
is proceeding under Rule 54(b). See p. 19, n. 4 of Mot. to
is clear and well established as to what the basic
requirements are that must be satisfied in order to prevail
on a motion for reconsideration. They are: " (1) an
intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new
evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error of
law in the first order." In re Guantanamo Detainee
Litig., 706 F.Supp.2d 120, 122-23 (D.D.C. 2010)
(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A motion for reconsideration is not an 'opportunity to
reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already
ruled,' nor is it 'a vehicle for presenting theories
or arguments that could have been advanced
earlier.'" Gilmore v. Palestine Interim
Self-Government Authority,8 F.Supp.3d 1, 6 ...