UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
)
DJAMEL AMEZIANE, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 05-392 (ESH)
)
BARACK OBAMA, et al., )
)
)
Respondents. )
__________________________________________)
ORDER
Upon consideration of petitioner’s classified motion for summary judgment (Feb. 12,
2009), the government’s classified opposition thereto (Feb. 27, 2009), petitioner’s classified
reply (Mar. 3, 2009), the government’s memorandum regarding the government’s detention
authority relative to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay (Mar. 13, 2009) (Dkt. 181), petitioner’s
response thereto (Mar. 24, 2009) (Dkt. 188), the government’s classified closing brief in
opposition to motion for summary judgment (Mar. 25, 2009) and petitioner’s classified closing
memorandum of law in further support of motion for summary judgment (Apr. 1, 2009), and the
entire record herein, and for the reasons stated during the classified proceeding held on April 29,
2009, the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on a
motion for summary judgment and must await a hearing on the merits. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the definition of “reasonably available evidence,” referred
to in the Court’s December 2, 2008 Order (Dkt. 124), as amended by its December 19, 2008
1
Order (Dkt. 134), includes, in addition to evidence discovered by government attorneys while
preparing petitioner’s factual return and litigating habeas corpus petitions filed by other
detainees, any evidence discovered during the ongoing review of Guantanamo cases ordered by
President Obama on January 22, 2009. See Executive Order 13,492, § 2(d) (ordering the
“prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of all
individuals currently held at Guantanamo, and of whether their continued detention is in the
national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of justice”);
see also id. § 4. This definition of “reasonably available evidence” applies to both the
government’s exculpatory evidence and automatic discovery obligations. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before May 18, 2009, the government shall file an
updated certification, signed by counsel, that indicates that it has complied with its continuing
obligation to produce exculpatory evidence and automatic discovery as required herein and in the
Court’s prior Orders. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall issue written discovery requests to the
respondents and shall confer with opposing counsel before submitting a motion for discovery
pursuant to ¶ I.E.2 of Judge Hogan’s Case Management Order (Dkt. 940, Misc. No. 08-442).
Petitioner’s motion for discovery shall be submitted on or before May 22, 2009. Petitioner’s
motion for discovery shall “(1) be narrowly tailored, not open-ended; (2) specify the discovery
sought; (3) explain why the request, if granted, is likely to produce evidence that demonstrates
that the petitioner’s detention is unlawful . . .; and (4) explain why the requested discovery will
enable the petitioner to rebut the factual basis for his detention without unfairly disrupting or
unduly burdening the government.” Id. at 2. The government shall file its opposition on or
before June 3, 2009. It is
2
FURTHER ORDERED that the next hearing is set for June 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
DATE: April 30, 2009
3