UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________________________________ M. GREGG BLOCHE, M.D. and JONATHAN H. MARKS, Plaintiffs, v. 1:07-CV-2050 (FJS) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; COUNTERINTELLIGENCE FIELD ACTIVITY; DEFENSE ADVANCE RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY; DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; and OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, Defendants. ______________________________________________________ APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ADERSON BELLEGARDE FRANCOIS, ESQ. REPRESENTATION Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW Suite 312 Washington, D.C. 20001 Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO, AUSA OF JUSTICE KRISTINA ANN WOLFE, AUSA Civil Division, Federal Programs SUSAN K. ULLMAN, AUSA Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 7000 Washington, D.C. 20530 Attorneys for Defendant Air Force SCULLIN, Senior Judge MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment against Defendant United States Air Force and Defendant United States Air Force's cross-motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 See Dkt. Nos. 38, 43. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are bioethics experts who have written about the ethical issues that arise from the participation of healthcare personnel in the interrogation of military prisoners and other detainees. See Dkt. No. 38 at 2. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., Plaintiffs submitted four separate requests for information concerning the government's use of interrogation tactics that medical professionals designed and implemented. Plaintiffs sent these requests to United States Department of Defense, Counterintelligence Field Activity, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, United States Air Force, Central Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (collectively, "Defendant Agencies"). 1 Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Defendant Department of the Navy and two units of Defendant Department of Defense, i.e., the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Office of the General Counsel. See Dkt. No. 52. Defendants Department of the Navy and Department of Defense collectively cross-moved for partial summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 61. In light of the parties' representation that the Court's decision regarding the cross-motions of Plaintiffs and Defendant United States Air Force will serve as a "bellweather" for the remainder of this litigation, see Dkt. No. 38 at 2; Dkt. No. 72, this Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses only these "bellweather" motions. -2- Specifically, Plaintiffs' first request, dated June 26, 2006, "sought records addressing the duties and roles of healthcare personnel involved in interrogations, the policies for healthcare personnel involved in interrogations, the contents of specifically identified videoconferences regarding interrogation strategies, and the legality or ethics of using healthcare personnel in interrogations." See Dkt. No. 38-1 at ¶ 4. Plaintiffs' second request, dated July 3, 2006, "sought contracts between the [Defendant Agencies] and healthcare personnel involved in interrogations, as well ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals