ABDUSEMET v. GATES, 07-1509 (D.C. Cir. 10-22-2008)

Abdusemet, Petitioner v. Robert M. Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense, et al., Respondents.

No. 07-1509.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: October 22, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

BEFORE: Ginsburg and Griffith, Circuit Judges, and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge.

Per Curiam
Upon consideration of the renewed motion to designate as “protected information” unclassified information in the record on review and the accompanying declarations and marked copy of petitioner’s Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) record; the response thereto, stating that petitioner does not object to the government’s specific proposed designations; and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the renewed motion be granted. The government has requested that the court designate as “protected information” and thus bar from public disclosure the following nonclassified information in the CSRT record for petitioner Abdusemet: (1) the names of United States government personnel (three CSRT panel members, Abdusemet’s personal representative, the translator, recorder, and reporter) who participated in the CSRT proceedings and whose association with Guantanamo or detainee operations there has not previously been publicly disclosed; (2) the names and identifying information of United States government personnel (agents, law enforcement officers, and translators) who are involved in law enforcement activities relating to the detention of enemy combatants; and (3) Federal Bureau of Investigation case file numbers.

In accordance with the court’s instruction, the renewed motion supplies two declarations explaining why protected status is required for the information that has been marked.See Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834, 836-37, 851-53 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Although the government makes no claim that Abdusemet himself poses any threat to

Page 2

the safety or privacy of the individuals who participated in his CSRT proceedings, the declarations explain the risks of releasing the designated names and case file numbers to the public at large, and the government’s rationale is “specific to the information actually at issue in this case.” Id.
at 836. Petitioner’s counsel has advanced no countervailing factors that suggest that the court should not protect the information from disclosure. See id. at 853.

Based on this showing, the court concludes that the designated information qualifies for treatment as “protected information . . . in order to protect the security of United States Government personnel or facilities, or other significant government interests,” as defined in the protective order governing petitions under the Detainee Treatment Act, and the court will maintain this information under seal. SeeBismullah v. Gates, 501 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2007),reinstated, No. 06-1197 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 22, 2008), Protective Order §§ 3.F., 7.A (as amended Oct. 23, 2007);Parhat, 532 F.3d at 851-52. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, within 30 days of the date of this order, respondents submit for public filing the complete unclassified CSRT record and the transcript of the unclassified audio recording of the CSRT hearing, with only the redactions authorized by this order. The CSRT record and transcript must each bear a cover sheet containing the case caption and the title of the document (for example, “Record of Proceedings before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal — Public Unclassified Version”). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, within 30 days of the date of this order, respondents submit for public filing a copy of the renewed motion and the accompanying declarations (Attachments A and B only), with any sealed material deleted.