Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia addresses a Guantanamo detainee’s motion for discovery, the government’s motion for an exception from disclosure of classified information, and the petitioner’s motion to compel a classified deposition. The court applies the Case Management Order, protective orders, and the D.C. Circuit’s standards governing disclosure of classified information in habeas proceedings. Based on its in camera review, the court grants the government’s exception from disclosure and denies the petitioner’s discovery and deposition motions in relevant part.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Duran was entitled under the Case Management Order to additional discovery concerning classified circumstances evidence related to statements relied on by the government.
- Whether respondents established grounds for an exception from disclosure of classified information to Duran's counsel.
- Whether the court could compel respondents to make former government employee Glenn Carle available for a classified deposition.
- Whether the court should authorize a subpoena for Carle's testimony under the Case Management Order.
Holdings
- A court may compel disclosure of classified discovery in a habeas proceeding only when the information is relevant and material in the sense that it is at least helpful to the petitioner's case, counsel's access is necessary to facilitate meaningful review of the habeas petition, and no effective substitute exists for unredacted access. Applying that standard, the court held that the withheld information need not be disclosed.
- Discovery is not required under the Case Management Order when the requested circumstances evidence is not exculpatory or material to the court's review of the basis for detention, even if it might permit an attack on the authenticity or reliability of a witness's statements.
- Circumstances evidence bearing on whether statements directly implicating the petitioner were produced by coercion or torture is material because indications of unreliability are at least helpful to the petitioner's habeas case, but disclosure may nevertheless be denied when the government provides adequate national-security justifications and effective substitutes support meaningful judicial review.
- The court lacks authority to compel respondents to make a former government employee who is not associated with a party available for a classified deposition.
- A subpoena for discovery is not warranted where the petitioner fails to show that the proposed testimony is likely to produce evidence demonstrating that detention is unlawful under the Case Management Order.
Key quotations
“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” (6)
“Thus, in order to compel the disclosure of the classified information at issue in the parties’ motions in this case, the Court must determine that (1) the information is “both relevant and material[] in the sense that it is at least helpful to the petitioner’s case[,]”” (7-8)
“Because the respondents have explained their justifications, which implicate serious national security concerns; provided disclosed redacted documents and a declaration to the petitioner; and provided the Court with unredacted copies of the documents at issue in camera, the Court concludes that granting the petitioner’s request for additional discovery as to this circumstances evidence is not necessary to facilitate the Court’s own “meaningful review” of the evidence.” (22)
Factual background
Duran was captured in Djibouti in March 2004, transferred into CIA custody, and later transferred to Guantanamo Bay in September 2006, where he remained detained without being charged. The government relied on statements and related records in support of his detention, while Duran sought circumstances evidence bearing on the reliability and voluntariness of those statements. The government withdrew reliance on some statements, produced recordings and other circumstances evidence, and sought to withhold additional classified information concerning sources, methods, and other sensitive matters.
Procedural history
Duran filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in November 2016. He later moved for discovery concerning statements relied on by the government and for a classified deposition of former CIA officer Glenn Carle. After supplemental submissions, in-camera review, and multiple hearings, the court denied the discovery motion, granted respondents' motion for an exception from disclosure, and denied the motion to compel or authorize a subpoena for Carle.