ALI v. OBAMA, 741 F.Supp.2d 18 (2010)
Court: District Court, D. Columbia
Number: infdco20100908660
Visitors: 28
Filed: Sep. 05, 2010
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2010
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge. Before the Court is petitioner Abdal Razak Ali's Motion for Additional Discovery. This Court held a hearing on August 26, 2010, regarding petitioner's motion and issued an oral order directing the respondents to review certain medical records and disclose certain information to petitioner's counsel. On September 1, 2010, the Court received notice from the respondents of their compliance with the Court's order. Paragraph I.D of the Case Manage
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge. Before the Court is petitioner Abdal Razak Ali's Motion for Additional Discovery. This Court held a hearing on August 26, 2010, regarding petitioner's motion and issued an oral order directing the respondents to review certain medical records and disclose certain information to petitioner's counsel. On September 1, 2010, the Court received notice from the respondents of their compliance with the Court's order. Paragraph I.D of the Case Managem..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge.
Before the Court is petitioner Abdal Razak Ali's Motion for Additional Discovery. This Court held a hearing on August 26, 2010, regarding petitioner's motion and issued an oral order directing the respondents to review certain medical records and disclose certain information to petitioner's counsel. On September 1, 2010, the Court received notice from the respondents of their compliance with the Court's order.
Paragraph I.D of the Case Management Order [# 1423] governing the procedures of this case specifically provides, inter alia, that any request for discovery "must: (1) be narrowly tailored; (2) specify why the request is likely to produce evidence both relevant and material to the petitioner's case; ... and (4) explain why the burden on the Government to produce such evidence is neither unfairly disruptive nor unduly burdensome to the Government." Because the petitioner has failed to meet these requirements, it is hereby
ORDERED that the petitioner's Motion for Additional Discovery is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
