                                    UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE




                                                                                      FILED WITH THE

                                                                                    C::G!Md::­
                                                                                       G.
                                                                                    DATE:  cr     I   <t/(J
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                                      "        I
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA




 WALEED SAID BN SAID ZAID,
         Petitioner,
                v.                                            Civil Action No. 05-1646 (JDB)

 BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,
         Respondents.


                                             ORDER

       Before the Court is petitioner's renewed request for discovery under § I.E.2 of the CMO.

Petitioner previously made the following document request:

               If and to the extent any interrogator ... worked without a
               translator, documents sufficient to identify that interrogator and
               documents describing the relevant qualifications and translation
               experience of the interrogator at that time.

On March 24,2009, the Court denied the request without prejudice, noting that

               petitioner does not identify interrogations that may have been
               conducted without an independent translator. Ifpetitioner can
               point to specific statements as to which there is some evidence to
               suggest that an independent translator was not present, then this
               request may be sufficiently narrow to warrant further consideration.

       On May 6,2009, petitioner renewed his request for discovery. He avers that "he was

interrogated roughly fifteen times over the course of approximately a month" while detained at

Kandahar, Afghanistan. See Declaration o~at , 51 (attached to petitioner's traverse

as Exhibit 1). Of those fifteen interrogations, eleven were conducted by a particular interrogator

without the aid of an interpreter. See Attorney Notes o~(attached to petitioner's reply

brief as Exhibit A); Attorney Notes o f _ (attached to petitioner's reply brief as Exhibit




                                     UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
                                      UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE




B). Petitioner asserts that information from these eleven interrogations is contained in at least

two intelligence reports relied upon by respondents to justify petitioner's detention. Respondents

counter that petitioner has neither pointed to "specific statements" nor provided "some evidence"

to justify discovery under § I.E.2. They contend that petitioner's request is vague and non­

specific. Moreover, they argue, the "some evidence" standard is not met because petitioner

provides only his self-serving recollection of the interrogations. Because the intelligence reports

are more detailed -- and hence, respondents argue, more reliable -- than the representations

recently made by petitioner to his counsel, the recent representations should be given little

weight.

          In the particular circumstances of this case, respondents' arguments are not persuasive. In

detennining whether petitioner's showing is sufficiently specific, the Court cannot expect

petitioner to have taken and retained detailed records of interrogations that took place more than

seven years ago in Kandahar. His recollection that roughly fifteen interrogations took place over

the course of a month, and that eleven interrogations were conducted by a specific interrogator

without an interpreter present, is adequate to meet the standard the Court set forth in its March 24

Order. To be sure, the evidence petitioner provides is his own recollection, which in other

contexts might be discounted as self-serving. But here, refusing to give weight to petitioner's

recollection would beg the question: aside from his own recollection, how else could petitioner

identify instances where he was interrogated without an interpreter present? Moreover, the

discovery petitioner seeks is not extensive. He seeks the identity and qualifications of a single

translator who interrogated him approximately eleven times at a single place over a one-month


                                                  -2­




                                       UNCLASSIFIEDII FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
                                    UNCLASSIFIED" FOR PUBLIC RELEASE




time period.

        Accordingly, petitioner's motion is hereby GRANTED. Respondents shall produce -- by

not later than July 8, 2009 -- documents sufficient to identify the interrogator specified by

petitioner in his motions, as well as documents that describe the interrogator's qualifications and

translation experience.

        SO ORDERED.

                                                          lsI
                                                      JOHN D. BATES
                                                 United States District Judge


Date:    June 19, 2009




                                                -3­




                                     UNCLASSIFIED" FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
