Dhiab v. Obama
70 F. Supp. 3d 486
D.D.C.2014Background
- Intervenors seek to intervene and unseal 28 videotapes from Guantanamo habeas proceedings.
- Dhiab consents to intervention and does not oppose unsealing; government opposes unsealing.
- Video footage comprises forced-feeding and forcible cell extraction (FCE) records kept under seal as classified.
- Court previously ordered preservation and disclosure procedures; tapes were filed under seal with a protective order.
- Court applies a two-step test (experience and logic) to determine public access to judicial records, including classified materials.
- Court grants Intervenors’ intervention and unsealing with modifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Intervenors have a First Amendment right to access the tapes. | Intervenors argue public access extends to the sealed videotapes. | Government contends classification and security interests preclude access. | Yes; qualified First Amendment right applies to the videotapes. |
| Whether the government can seal the videotapes under governing standards. | Government must provide tailored rationale and specific item-by-item designation. | Sealing necessary to protect national security and personnel. | No; government failed to provide properly tailored, specific justifications for sealing. |
| What standard governs unsealing in detainee habeas cases involving classified materials. | Public access should be considered under press-Enterprise two-prong test. | Secrecy for national security controls should prevail. | Press-Enterprise II standard applies; public access is favored with narrowly tailored protections. |
| What limits, if any, may be imposed on unsealing to protect sensitive information. | Unsealing with edits can protect identities and sensitive details. | Edits insufficient to address security concerns. | Edits and redactions are permissible; complete sealing not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (public access to court proceedings generally guaranteed)
- Washington Post Co. v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (court should balance First Amendment access against compelling interests)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (two-part 'experience and logic' test for access to proceedings and records)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (common law right of access to judicial records; First Amendment provides stronger protections)
- Bismullah v. Gates, 501 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (court retains discretion to seal a judicial record; government cannot unilaterally decide protection)
- Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (requires tailored rationale for protecting information; cannot rely on broad claims)
- Ameziane v. Obama, 699 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (two-part sealing test: tailored rationale and precise designation of items)
- Detainee Lit. I, 624 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2009) (recognizes public access to habeas proceedings and applies Press-Enterprise II to detainee cases)