UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN RE: Misc. No. 08-0442 (TFH)
GUANTANAMO BAY Civil Action Nos.
DETAINEE LITIGATION
02-cv-0828, 04-cv-1136, 04-cv-1164, 04-cv-1194, 04-cv-1254,
04-cv-1937, 04-cv-2022, 04-cv-2046, 04-cv-2215, 05-cv-0023,
05-cv-0247, 05-cv-0270, 05-cv-0280, 05-cv-0329, 05-cv-0359,
05-cv-0392, 05-cv-0492, 05-cv-0520, 05-cv-0526, 05-cv-0569,
05-cv-0634, 05-cv-0748, 05-cv-0763, 05-cv-0764, 05-cv-0877,
05-cv-0883, 05-cv-0889, 05-cv-0892, 05-cv-0993, 05-cv-0994,
05-cv-0999, 05-cv-1048, 05-cv-1124, 05-cv-1189, 05-cv-1220,
05-cv-1244, 05-cv-1347, 05-cv-1353, 05-cv-1429, 05-cv-1457,
05-cv-1490, 05-cv-1497, 05-cv-1504, 05-cv-1506, 05-cv-1555,
05-cv-1592, 05-cv-1601, 05-cv-1607, 05-cv-1623, 05-cv-1638,
05-cv-1645, 05-cv-1646, 05-cv-1678, 05-cv-1971, 05-cv-1983,
05-cv-2088, 05-cv-2104, 05-cv-2185, 05-cv-2186, 05-cv-2199,
05-cv-2249, 05-cv-2349, 05-cv-2367, 05-cv-2371, 05-cv-2378,
05-cv-2379, 05-cv-2380, 05-cv-2384, 05-cv-2385, 05-cv-2386,
05-cv-2387, 05-cv-2479, 06-cv-1668, 06-cv-1684, 06-cv-1690,
06-cv-1761, 06-cv-1765, 06-cv-1766, 06-cv-1767, 07-cv-1710,
07-cv-2337, 07-cv-2338, 08-cv-0987, 08-cv-1101, 08-cv-1153,
08-cv-1207, 08-cv-1221, 08-cv-1224, 08-cv-1228, 08-cv-1232,
08-cv-1233, 08-cv-1235, 08-cv-1236, 08-cv-1237, 08-cv-1238,
08-cv-1360, 08-cv-1440, 08-cv-1789, 08-cv-1805, 08-cv-1828,
08-cv-1923, 08-cv-2019, 08-cv-2083, 09-cv-0745
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the government’s Motion to Amend the September 11,
2008 Protective Order and Counsel Access Procedures and the January 9, 2009 Amended
TS/SCI Protective Order and Counsel Access Procedures (“Motion to Amend”) (Dkt. No.
1684, 08-mc-0442). For the reasons given in the Memorandum Opinion filed herewith, the
Court
ORDERS that the motion is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. The
government’s proposal to amend the Protective Order, the TS/SCI Protective Order, the Counsel
Access Procedures, and the TS/SCI Counsel Access Procedures is denied. The government’s
request to modify the procedures for providing petitioners access to their respective protected
statements is also denied. To the extent the government’s motion seeks to modify the procedures
for providing petitioners access to their respective classified statements, it is granted. The Court
further
ORDERS the parties to comply with the following procedures if counsel for a petitioner
seeks to disclose the petitioner’s classified statements to that petitioner. If a petitioner’s counsel
seeks to disclose such statements to the petitioner, counsel must identify and list the classified
statements he or she seeks to share with the petitioner. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure
7(m), counsel must share the list of statements with the government and attempt to reach
agreement on which statements can be declassified and by what date. If the parties are unable to
reach agreement, counsel for a petitioner may file, with the appropriate Merits Judge, a Motion to
Disclose Petitioner’s Statements to the Petitioner, listing the petitioner’s statements that counsel
wishes to disclose to the petitioner and explaining why each statement is (i) material to the
petitioner’s case and (ii) necessary to facilitate meaningful habeas review. Within two weeks
after the filing of such a motion, the government shall file a response, specifically addressing
issues (i) and (ii) for each statement. In its response, the government must also submit an
alternative for each statement. If the government proposes to provide a declassified version of a
statement, the government must further indicate by when the declassified version can be
provided.
SO ORDERED.
July 10, 2009 /s/
Thomas F. Hogan
United States District Judge
2