In Re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation
787 F. Supp. 2d 5
D.D.C.2011Background
- This case concerns Respondents' Motion to Amend and for Clarification of the Court's Jan. 14, 2010 Order Regarding Public Returns in Guantanamo habeas litigation.
- Respondents seek to designate six categories of unclassified information as
- protected under the Protective Order, to avoid public disclosure.
- The first and third relief requests (time extension and legal memorandum) are moot per the court; the court addresses the protective-designation issue.
- The six proposed categories cover: (A) identities of certain government personnel and detainee family members; (B) existence/focus/scope of operations and sources/methods; (C) names/locations of interest not publicly acknowledged; (D) knowledge of terrorist communication means; (E) effectiveness/implementation of certain interrogation techniques; (F) administrative data that could reveal sources/methods if aggregated.
- The legal standards come primarily from Bismullah, Parhat, and Ameziane, guiding a Parhat two-step analysis for protected information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the six proposed categories satisfy Parhat step one? | Pet'rs argue categories vague/overbroad and not tailored. | Resp'ts argue categories are sufficiently tailored to protect national security. | Yes, categories satisfy Parhat step one. |
| Do the six categories satisfy Parhat step two (case-specific narrowing)? | Category designations should be evaluated for each document, not generally. | A categorical approval suffices; later merits judges will assess specific items. | Step two requires case-specific analysis; cannot be satisfied by generic examples. |
| Should the motion be granted to the extent of categorically protected information? | Granted in part to the extent categories meet step one; not a blanket approval. | ||
| Are extensions or sanctions at issue? | Extension denied as moot; sanctions denied. | ||
| Is a separate memorandum justifying designations required if no dispute arises? | Denied as moot; not necessary where no dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bismullah v. Gates, 501 F.3d 178 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (protective designations must be tailored and court retains sealing authority)
- Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834 (D.C.Cir. 2008) (two-step Parhat test: category and case-specific application)
- Ameziane v. Obama, 620 F.3d 1 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (two-step Parhat test; deference to executive harm assessment when category satisfied)
- In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C.Cir. 1997) (privacy/national security privileges in law enforcement contexts)
- Machin v. Zuckert, 316 F.2d 336 (D.C.Cir. 1963) (government privilege to withhold information to protect national security)