gilmore v. palestinian authority district court opinion
TRANSCRIPT
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 1/52
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 2/52
I
BACKGROUND
A Factual Background
Pla in t i f f s ' family member Esh
Kodesh
Gilmore ( Gilmore )
was
a
United Sta tes na t ional
who made
his
home in Mevo Modi'im,
an I s rae l i neighborhood near the West
Bank.
See
SOMF
a t 1 1-
2.
He was ki l l ed on October 30, 2000, in a shooting a t tack a t a
branch of f ice of the
National Insurance
In s t i tu te ( NII )
in
East
Jerusalem,
where he worked as a secur i ty guard. Id. a t 2
3
The
a t tack
occurred
a t the beginning of the
Second
In t i fada , a period of sustained violence and unres t
in I s rae l
and
Pales t ine .
2
According
to an informational re lease issued by
1
The
fac ts
are drawn from the Pla in t i f f s '
Counter-Statement of
Material Facts
to
Which There Are Genuine
Issues
( SOMF ) [Dkt.
No. 335-4] and accompanying exhibi ts .
Resolut ion
of
t h i s
Motion
tu rns ent i re ly on whether
cer ta in
i tems of
evidence
are
admissible
under the
Federal Rules
of
Evidence, which i s a
matter to
be
determined
so le ly by
the Court
and
does not present
any quest ions
that
would
otherwise be
submit ted
to a
jury. See
Fed. R.
Evid.
104. Consequently, the Court includes fac ts
that
provide
the basis for i t s evident iary rul ings , even i f disputed.
Other
than
the date,
loca t ion,
and
fac t of Gilmore 's death, the
fac ts
are disputed unless
otherwise sta ted.
2
According to
a
Report issued
by
the
United
Sta tes S ta te
Department,
the
susta ined
violence
between I s rae l i s and
Pales t inians . . broke out on September
28,
2000, and by the
end of
July,
2001, more than 6,000 ser ious inc idents
of
violence
in
the
West. Bank, Gaza, and I s rae l had
been repor ted . See
Second
Corrected
Declarat ion
of
Robert J . Tolchin ( Tolchin
Decl.
) ,
Ex.
6
(United Sta tes S ta te
Department
Report on the
. - 2 -
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 3/52
t h e I s r a e l Minis t ry o f Fore ign
Affa i r s
( IMFA
11
, the
shoot ing
was
pe rpe t ra t ed by
a
so le
gunman who
en te red the
NII
shor t ly
a f t e r noon,
f i r ed a number
o f
sho ts a t
c lose
range a t
the two
s ecu r i t y guards
in
the w ai t in g room, and f l ed on foo t . See
Second Correc ted Decl .
o f Rober t J . Tolchin
( Tolch in Decl .
11
) ,
Ex.
62
(IMFA
webpage
d a ted Sept .
23,
2013) [Dkt.
No. 333-21] .
Gilmore
died upon
a r r i v a l
a t
the
hosp i ta l . Id .
Although
t i s
undispu ted t h a t the Sta t e o f I s r a e l neve.r
p ro secu ted
o r
convic ted
anyone
in
connect ion wi th
the
a t t ack ,
SOMF
4,
P l a i n t i f f s
be l i eve the
a t t a ck was planned and ca r r i ed
out
by
a t e r r o r i s t
c e l l
c o n s i s t i n g o f o f f i c e r s
in
a
PA
s ecu r i t y
u n i t
known
as the P r es id en t i a l
Secu r i ty Serv ices , o r
Force 17,
11
and members
o f
an armed
PLO fac t ion
ca l l ed Tanzim.
See
Complaint ( Compl.
11
) 17-30 [Dkt. No.
1] .
S p ec i f i c a l l y ,
t hey
a l l eg e
t h a t the
gunman who sho t Gilmore was a
Force
17 o f f i c e r
named
Muhanad
Abu
Halawa. Id . 26, 27, 28.
3
Abu Halawa
was
k i l l e d by I s r a e l i Defense Forces (
IDF) on
o r about March 5,
2002. SOMF 6.
Sta tus of the PLO
Commitments Compliance
Act
( PLOCCA
11
, dated
Dec.
15,
2000
- June 15,
2001)
a t
2
[Dkt.
No.
334-1
a t
3] .
3
Due to the t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n o f hi s name from
Arabic
to English ,
t he
name Abu Halawa i s somet imes w r i t t e n
as
Muhannad Abu
Halaweh
and Muhand
Abu Haliwa.
He
was a l so known
as
Muhannad Sa 'eed Munib D ei re i a .
11
-3 -
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 4/52
Pla in t i f f s
claim tha t [b) etween September
2000 and
his
death in March 2002,
a
t ime per iod dur ing which
he was
employed
ful l - t ime
i n P res iden t i a l Secur i ty /Force 17,
Abu
Halawa spent
much i
not most
of his
t ime
executing t e r r o r i s t at tacks
toge ther with
a
mix
of
other P
and
Fatah
off i cers ,
leaders and
operat ives
a l l
of
whom
were convicted of car ry ing out
numerous vio lent t e r r o r i s t a t t acks [ . ]
SOMF a t
8
JI
16
They
fur the r al lege tha t ,
in car ry ing
out the
a t t ack
a t
the
NII, Abu
Halawa
ac ted
under
a
di rec t
order
of
Force
17
regional
commander
Mahmoud
Damara and pursuant to
a
broad di rec t ive i s sued by
former Pales t in ian
leader Yasser
Arafat to organize , plan
and
execute widespread ac t s of t e rror i sm agains t
c i v i l i ans
in
I s rae l , Gaza
and
the West Bank. Compl. JI JI 23, 25, 28,
29.
Pla in t i f f s ' theory t ha t Abu
Halawa
perpet ra ted
the a t t ack
i s
based in
large
par t on two se t s of custodia l
sta tements
al legedly given to I s rae l i pol ice by h i s a ssoc ia t es .
4
The f i r s t
i s a
January
18,
2001,
wri t ten
s tatement of Tanzim
member
Mustafa Maslamani ( Maslamani )
5
descr ib ing
a
conversa t ion he had
4
Pla in t i f f s
also
re ly on
a
passage
from
the book The Seventh
War, How
We
Won and Why We
Lost the War
with the Pales t in ians
(2004) ( The Seventh War ) by Avi Issacharoff and
Amos
Harel and
reports i ssued
by
the I s r a e l i
government, which
are discussed in
more
de ta i l
in f ra .
5
Maslamani
i s sometimes re fe r red to
as
Misalmani.
-4 -
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 5/52
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 6/52
The second
se t
of custodia l s tatements on which
Pla in t i f f s
re ly consis t s
of
four separa te wri t t en s tatements made by
Force
17 off icer Bashar Al Khatib ( Al Khatib ) to
I s r ae l i
pol ice in
Apri l 2002.
Each
of
these
s tatements i s di f fe ren t . In the
f i r s t s tatement , given
Apri l
11, 2002,
Al
Khatib
confessed
involvement in
the previously
mentioned
French
Hil l shoot ing
and
th ree
other
shoot ing inc idents but did not menti6n any
par t i c ipa t ion
in
the NII a t tack.
See Tolchin Decl . ,
Ex. 9
(cus todia l
s tatement
of
Al
Khatib,
dated
April
11,
2002) [Dkt
No 331-9] .
In the second
s tatement , given
a day
l a t e r on
Apri l 12,
2002, Al Khatib s ta ted
t ha t
he was
prepared
to t e l l you what I
did not say
yes terday ,
and went on
to
say that , on a di rec t
order
from
Damara, he
had accompanied
Abu Halawa and another
ind iv idual named Omar Karan to
East
Jerusalem where the
NII was
loca ted and served as a lookout
while
Abu Halawa ca r r ied out the
a t tack
on
the
NII.
Tolchin
Decl . ,
Ex. 10
(cus todia l
s tatement
of Al
Khatib,
dated Apri l 12, 2002) a t 1-3 [Dkt. No 331-10].
In
his
t h i rd statement , given April
23, 2002,
Al Khatib
recanted the Apri l
12
s tatement
in
i t s
en t i r e t y
as
t
re l a t ed
to
the
NII
shoot ing and denied any connect ion to t ha t a t tack .
See
Tolchin Decl . , Ex. 11
(cus todia l
s tatement of Al Khatib, dated
-6 -
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 7/52
April 23, 2002)
[Dkt. No.
331-11] a t
4
( In my previous
statement to
the pol ice
I
sa id tha t
I
par t ic ipa ted
in
the
shooting a t tack
a t
the
nat ional
insurance off ice
in East
Jerusalem, but t h i s i s not cor rec t , I did not par t i c ipa te in
t h i s
a t tack and
I
jus t
s ta ted
th i s and
I have
no
connect ion
to
th i s a t tack . ) .
Final ly , in h is four th statement , on
April
24, 2002, Al
Khatib
again disclaimed a l l pr i o r s tatements regarding the NII
a t tack
and gave
yet
another
vers ion
of
his
connect ion
to
the
a t tack.
In t h i s
version,
he wrote
tha t
Abu Halawa phoned him on
October 30, 2000,
to ask
for ass is tance t ransport ing
a
vehicle
through
an
I s rae l i
checkpoint .
e
s ta ted fur ther
tha t
when
he
met
with Abu Halawa l a t e r tha t day, Abu Halawa to ld
him
tha t he
Abu Halawa),
had carr ied out an a t tack a t the NII
with
two
other ind iv iduals a t
the
di rec t ion
of
regional Force 17
commander Mahmoud Damara
( Damara ).
See Tolchin
Decl. ,
Ex. 12
(cus todia l
s tatement of
Al
Khatib, dated April
24,
2002)
a t
1-2
[Dkt. No. 331-12].
Like Maslamani, Al Khatib subsequent ly denied the t r u th of
his custodia l
s tatements
as
they
re la ted
to
the
NII
a t tack .
e
t e s t i f i ed
a t his deposi t ion in t h i s case
tha t
he provided
the
statements
to I s rae l i pol ice because
I was
under to r ture , and I
-7 -
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 8/52
was threatened
regarding my
wife and
kids.
So
tha t was
the only way out for
me
i s to wri te t h i s [ . ] Tolchin Decl . , Ex.
E
(deposi t ion t r . of Al
Khatib,
dated Dec. 5, 2011) ( Al
Khatib
Tr. ) a t
25:21-25 [Dkt. No.
330-5].
When asked
whether he had
had any communication with
Abu
Halawa
about
[the
NII]
opera t ion , he responded, No. Not
not
once, and fur ther
s ta ted t ha t
the
ent i re National Insurance case, we have nothing
to
do
with
it. Id.
a t
24:4-6, 28:11-13.
Like
Maslamani,
Al
Khatib
was
prosecuted
and
convicted
for
his
involvement in
another a t tack involving I s r ae l i s but was
never
prosecuted for
or convicted
of
any involvement in
the NII
at tack . SOMF 13.
B
Procedural Background
On Apri l
18,
2001, Pla in t i f f s f i l ed th i s act ion agains t
Defendants P and
PLO, as
well as eleven of t he i r current and
former
employees
( the Indiv idual Defendants ) ,
seeking
compensation for Gilmore ' s death under
the
T
and var ious
common
law theor ies . See
genera l ly
Compl.
Defendants
P
and
PLO
and
the
Indiv idual Defendants
i n i t i a l l y
f a i l ed
to
answer
the
Complaint, prompting
the
Court
to
en te r
a
defaul t .
On January 29,
2002,
however, they appeared
through
counsel and
moved to
vacate
t he i r
defaul t and
to
dismiss
-8 -
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 9/52
the
Complaint
pursuan t to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b) .
After gran t ing
the Motion
to
Vacate , the Cour t
denied Defendants P
and PLO s
Motion to Dismiss but g ran ted the Ind iv idua l Defendants '
Motion
to
Dismiss fo r
l ack
of personal
j u r i s d i c t i on . See
Gilmore v.
Pales t in ian Auth . , 422 F.
Supp. 2d
96 (D.D.C. 2006).
Defendants
P
and
PLO
then f i r e d
t h e i r
a t to rneys and f a i l e d
to
f i l e an
Answer to the Complaint , prompting the Court to
en t e r
a
second
d e f au l t
aga ins t them
on January 29, 2007 [Dkt. No. 92] .
They
subsequen t ly
re t a ined new
counsel
and,
on
November
15,
2007, f i l e d a Motion to Vacate · t h e second
en t ry
o f
d e f au l t ,
which
the Cour t
gran ted on
December
28, 2009.
See
Gilmore v .
Pales t in ian
Auth. ,
675
F. Supp. 2d
104, 111-13 (D.D.C. 2009)
( Gilmore
I ) .
The
pa r t i e s then en te red
a
two and-a -ha l f
year p e r i o d
o f
discovery , dur ing which P l a i n t i f f s t ook nine depos i t ions , e ig h t
o f
which were
non-par ty wi tness depos i t i ons conducted
p u rsu an t
to the Hague
Convention
on
the
Taking
o f
Evidence Abroad in
C i v i l o r Commercial Matters ( Hague Convention ) . These
inc luded
t h e December 2001
depos i t ions
o f
Maslamani, Mahmoud
Mater ,
and
Ziad
Wahadan;
the
December 2011
depos i t ions o f
Al
Khat ib ,
Damara, Abdel Karim
Aweis
( Awe i s ) , and Nat ional
Insurance I n s t i t u t e designee Ya'
akov
Aravot ;
and
the
June
2012
-9 -
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 10/52
deposi t ion
of
I s r ae l i
j ou rna l i s t A
v i I s sacharo f f
( I ssacharoff ) , co-author
of the
book The
Seventh War,
ow We
Won and Why We
Lost
the
War
with the Pales t in ians ( The Seventh
War ), which, as discussed in f ra , conta ins
a
passage impl ica t ing
Abu Halawa
as
the gunman in
the
NII
a t t ack .
On August 9, 2012, Defendants f i l ed the ins tan t Motion for
Summary Judgment,
arguing,
i n t e r a l i a , tha t
a f t e r
more than two
years of
fac t
discovery,
Pla in t i f f s '
only
evidence
to support
t he i r
core
theory
tha t
Abu
Halawa k i l l ed
Gilmore
i s
inadmiss ib le
hearsay. See
genera l ly
Defs. ' Mot. [Dkt.
No
285].
Pla in t i f f s
did
not immediately oppose Defendants ' Motion
but ins tead , on September 6, 2012,
moved
under Fed.
R
Civ.
P.
56(d) for add i t iona l t ime to complete discovery.
See
genera l ly
Pls . '
Mot.
for Rel ief Pursuant
to Rule 56
(d)
[
Dkt.
No 2 90]
They explained
t ha t
they were in the process
of
moving, in
I s rae l i
cour t ,
to
compel Issacharoff
to
d isc lose
the i den t i t y of
sources
who
a l l eged ly
to ld him t ha t Abu
Halawa was
the gunman in
the
NII a t tack .
Id .
a t
1-2, 4,
6,
7-8, 10-11. They
a l so argued
tha t an extens ion of t ime
was necessary
because exper t
discovery
has
not
s t a r t ed
yet
and
p la in t i f f s
wil l
oppose
defendants '
c la im
tha t
the ex i s t ing
sta tements
i den t i fy ing
Abu
Halawa
as the murderer are
inadmiss ib le ,
with
exper t
-10-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 11/52
foundational
test imony showing
tha t they
are adm issible. Id.
a t
2,
10-11.
n September 19,
2012,
the Court
granted
Pla in t i f f s Motion
for Rel ief
Pursuant to
Rule 56(d)
and
extended the i r t ime to
oppose
Defendants ' Motion for Summary
Judgment
un t i l a f t e r
the
completion
of
expert
discovery
and
I s sacha rof f s depos i t ion [Dkt.
No
297].
Six months l a t e r , on March
19,
2013, Defendants
moved to
resume
br ie f ing
on
t he i r
Motion
for
Summary Judgment, not ing
tha t Pla in t i f f s
had withdrawn
the i r
motion
in
the
I s rae l i
cour t
to compel Issacharoff to
reveal
his
sources and
that
expert
discovery was
a t
a s tands t i l l
because Pla in t i f f s
had not
provided
any exper t disc losures [Dkt.
No
298].
While
tha t motion was pending,
on April
19'
2013,
Pla in t i f f s f i l ed
a Motion to Compel Production of Late-Disclosed
Documents [Dkt. No 303].
n June
6, 2013,
a f te r
reviewing
in
camera
the
documents
Pla in t i f f s sought
to compel,
the Court
denied
the
Motion to Compel
and
se t
dates for the completion of
summary judgment
br ie f ing [Dkt. No 314]
6
Thereaf ter , on
6
Pla in t i f f s also f i l ed a Renewed
Motion to
Compel GIS
documents
on December
23,
2013
[Dkt. No 352], which
the
Court
t rea ted as a
motion for
reconsiderat ion and denied [Dkt. No
365]. See Gilmore v. Pales t inian
In ter im Self-Government
Auth.,
No 01-853,
2014 W
1193728
(D.D.C. Mar.
24,
2014)
( Gilmore
.D_ ).
-11-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 12/52
October 1,
2013,
Pl a i n t i f f s f i l ed t he i r
Opposit ion
to
Defendants ' Motion for
Summary
Judgment
[
Dkt.
No. 32 9] .
On
October 25, 2013, Defendants
f i l ed
t he i r Reply [Dkt. No. 341].
I I . LEG L ST ND RDS
A
The
ATA
The
c i v i l
l i a b i l i t y
provis ion
of the ATA s t a t e s t ha t any
United Sta tes na t iona l
who
i s in ju red
by
reason
of an
ac t
of
i n t e rna t iona l t e r ro r i sm,
or t ha t
indiv idua l ' s
e s ta te ,
survivors ,
or
h e i r s ,
may
sue
in
any d i s t r i c t
cour t
of
the
United States
and s ha l l
recover
t h ree fo ld the damages
he
or she
sus ta ins .
18
U.S.C. §
2333(a).
An
ac t
of
i n t e rna t iona l
te r ror ism i s
def ined
to include a c t i v i t i e s tha t :
A)
involve
v io len t
ac t s
l i f e tha t are a
v io la t ion
United Sta tes
or
of any
cr imina l
v io la t ion
i
j u r i s d i c t i on of the United
or ac t s dangerous to human
of the c r imina l laws of the
Sta te , o r t ha t would be a
committed
within the
Sta tes
o r
of
any Sta te j
B) appear to be
in tended ( i )
to
in t imidate
or
coerce
a
c iv i l i an populat ion;
i i ) to inf luence the
pol icy
of a
government by in t imida t ion
or
coercion; or
( i i i ) to
a f fec t the
conduct of a government by mass
des t ruc t ion ,
assass ina t ion , or
kidnapping;
and
C) occur
pr imar i ly
outs ide the
t e r r i t o r i a l
j u r i s d i c t i on
of the
United Sta tes
or
t ranscend
na t iona l
boundaries
in
terms
of the
means
by which
they are accomplished, the
persons
they appear
in tended to
in t imida te
or coerce[ . ]
18 u.s.c. §
2331(1) .
-12-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 13/52
In
o t h e r words,
to
p r ev a i l [on a c i v i l T c la im] , a
p l a i n t i f f must
prove
t h a t the defendant would
have
v i o l a t e d
any
one o f a se r i e s o f pred ica t e cr imina l laws
had
the defendant
ac ted
with in the j u r i s d i c t i o n
of the United
S t a t e s .
Esta te o f
Parsons v. Pales t in ian Auth. , 651 F.3d
118,
122 (D.C. Cir . 2011)
( Es ta te
o f Parsons I I ) .
In add i t ion , the
p l a i n t i f f must meet
the
t e r r i t o r i a l
requirements
se t fo r th in Sect ion
2331
1) C)
and prove t h a t t h e conduct co n s t i t u t i n g the pred ica t e cr imina l
offense
s a t i s f i e s one
o f
t h ree
i n t e n t
requ i rement s
in
Sect ion
2331
(1)
(B).
18 U.S.C.
§ 2331 (1) .
B
Standard
on Summary Judgm en t
Summary judgment should be gran ted only i t h e movant
es t ab l i s h e s
t ha t
the re i s
no
genuine
di spu te as to
a
mate r i a l
f ac t and t h a t the case may be reso lved as a mat te r o f law. Fed.
R. Ci
v P.
56
a)
A f ac t
i s
mate r i a l i a d i s p u t e over it
might a f f e c t
t h e outcome
of the
s u i t under
governing
law; a
dispu te
i s
genuine i the evidence i s such t h a t ' a reasonab le
j u ry could r e tu rn a v e r d i c t fo r the nonmoving p a r t y . ' Holcomb
v . Powell ,
433 F.3d
889, 895 (D.C.
Cir .
2006)
(quot ing
Anderson
v .
Liber ty
Lobby,
Inc . ,
477
U.S. 242,
248
(1986)) .
A summary judgment movant may ca r ry its i n i t i a l burden by
poin t ing out
t h a t
t he re
i s an
absence o f
evidence to
-13-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 14/52
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 15/52
Sur. Co.,
604
F. 3d
625, 631 (D.C.
Cir . 2010)
(a
mere
pos s ib i l i t y t ha t
a
ju ry
might specula te
in
the p l a i n t i f f ' s
favor i s not s u f f i c i en t to defea t summary
judgment) .
As the Supreme Court
s t a t e d
in
Celotex Corp . ,
the pla in
language of Rule 56(c) mandates the
en t ry
o f
summary judgment,
a f t e r
adequate t ime
fo r
discovery
and upon
motion,
aga ins t
a
par ty
who f a i l s to
make
a showing s u f f i c i en t t o e s t ab l i sh
the
ex i s t ence of an element es s en t i a l
to
t ha t p a r t y ' s case ,
and
on
which
t ha t
par ty
wi l l
bear
the
burden
of
proof
a t
t r i a l .
477
U.S.
a t
322.
C
videntiary rinciples
As our
Court
of
Appeals
has
observed,
[v] erd ic t s cannot
r e s t
on
inadmiss ib le
evidence .
Gleklen v. Democratic Cong.
Campaign Comm. 199
F.
3d
1365,
1369 (D.C. Cir .
2000) .
Therefore , while
a
pa r t y
opposing summary
judgment i s not
r equ i red to produce
evidence
in a form
t ha t
would be
admiss ib le
a t t r i a l , the
evidence
st ll
must
be capable
o f being
conver ted
i n t o
admiss ib le evidence .
Id. (emphasis in
or ig ina l ) .
I f t
were otherwise , the ob jec t ive o f summary judgment - to prevent
unnecessary t r i a l s
omi t ted) .
would
be
undermined.
-15-
Id.
(c i t a t i ons
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 16/52
In
ru l ing
on summary judgment motions, the
court decides
questions
of
evident iary admiss ibi l i ty , and in
so
deciding, i s
not bound by the Rules of Evidence, except
those
of pr iv i lege .
See Fed. R.
Evid.
104
(a) . Matters
perta in ing to
the
admiss ib i l i ty of evidence must
be
establ i shed by
a
preponderance
of evidence.
Daubert v. Merrel l ow Pharmas., Inc . , 509 U.S.
579, 592 n.10 (1993).
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence,
hearsay
i s not
admissible unless
an
except ion
appl ies .
Fed.
R
Evid.
802.
Hearsay
i s an out -of-court sta tement offered to· prove
the
t ru th
of
the matter asser ted , unless
t
i s
a pr ior inconsis tent
sta tement of a witness,
a par ty admission,
or
depos i t ion
test imony offered
under the
circumstances set for th in Fed. R
Evid.
32.
See
Fed.
R Evid.
801
(c)- (d);
Fed.
R. . Civ. P. 32.
Our
Court of Appeals
has
held tha t ,
absent
an appl icable
exception, hearsay i s not capable
of
being conver ted in to
admissible
evidence
and
therefore ' counts for nothing '
on
summary judgment.
Greer v. Paulson , 505
F.3d
1306, 1315 (D.C.
Cir .
2007) (c i ta t ion
omit ted) .
Consequently, t i s proper
for
the
Court
to
rule
on
the
admiss ib i l i ty
of
hearsay evidence
in
the
context of a motion
for
summary
judgment
and to grant the
-16-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 17/52
motion i f t f inds
tha t
Pla in t i f f s ' proffered evidence consis ts
only of inadmissible hearsay.
As to expert test imony, as
the Supreme
Court held in
Daubert v.
Merrel l Dow
Pharmaceut icals , the t r i a l judge also
performs a gatekeeping funct ion
to
ensure
that
such test imony
both res t s on a re l i ab le foundation and i s relevant to
the t ask
a t hand.
509
u.s. 579,
597 (1993).
Thus,
t i s also
proper
for the
t r i a l
judge
to screen
out inadmissible exper t tes t imony
on
summary
judgment.
Strauss
v.
Credi t
Lyonnais,
S.A.,
925 F.
Supp.
2d 414,
125
F.3d
55,
437 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
66 (2d Cir. 1997)).
(c i t ing Raskin
v.
Wyatt Co.,
This i s
t rue
even i f the
exclusion of expert test imony would be outcome determinat ive.
Id. (c i t ing
Gen.
Elec. Co.
v.
Jo iner ,
522 U.S.
136,
142-43
(1997)).
I I I
DIS USSION
Defendants
advance
two
se t s of
arguments
in support
of
summary judgment: f i r s t ,
that
Pla in t i f f s lack any admissible ,
nonhearsay evidence to support
t h e i r
lynchpin theory tha t Abu
Halawa ki l led Gilmore; and second, tha t even i f Pla in t i f f s
possessed admissible proof
tha t
Abu
Halawa
ki l l ed
Gilmore,
there
i s
no basis
under
the
T on
which to
hold
Defendants
l i ab le
for
his
conduct
vicar ious ly or
otherwise. Because,
as
discussed
-17-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 18/52
below,
Pla in t i f f s f a i l
to i den t i f y any
admissible evidence
suppor t ing t h e i r core
theory
t ha t bu
Halawa ki l l ed
Gilmore,
and
the re fo re cannot prevai l on t he i r claim, the
Court
need not and
sha l l
not reach
Defendants
second
se t of arguments.
A
P l a i n t i f f s
ail
to Ident i fy Admissible Evidence
to
Support
the ir Theory
that bu
Halawa
Kil led
GiLmore
Pla in t i f f s
do
not disagree t ha t , in
order
to
survive
summary
judgment, they must produce admissible
evidence
t ha t bu
Halawa k i l l ed
Gilmore. See
P l s .
Opp n
a t
2.
They
cla im to
possess four types of such
evidence:
(1)
I s r ae l i government
reports ;
2
a
passage in
the book The Seventh War;
3
test imony
given by
Al Khatib
a t
the mil i ta ry
t r i a l of Damara in
2009;
and (4) Maslamani s 2001
cus tod ia l
s tatement .
P l a i n t i f f s
also r e ly
on
the opinion of
t he i r
exper t , former
IDF
depar tment
head
and
Lieutenant
Colonel,
Alon
Eviatar ,
which
Defendants
argue
i s
inadmiss ib le under Federal Rule of Evidence
702.
At the ou t se t ,
the
Court
notes tha t , al though P l a i n t i f f s
sought
and
rece ived
more· than a
year- long
extens ion of t ime to
f i l e
t h e i r Opposi t ion
to the i n s t an t
Motion,
t he i r
Memorandum
of
Law conta ins
only
nine
pages, i s almost
en t i r e l y
devoid of any
c i t a t i ons to t h e i r Statement
of
Undisputed
Mater ia l
Facts or
the
record,
cons i s t s l a rge ly of conclusory asse r t ions , and,
in
many
-18-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 19/52
places , lacks any explanat ion whatsoever. As our
Court
of
Appeals recent ly observed:
In
t h i s
c i rcu i t , t
i s
not enough merely to mention a
possible
argument
in
the
most
ske le ta l way,
leaving
the
court
to
do counsel s
work,
crea te
the
ossature
for the argument, and put
f lesh
on
i t s
bones.
Two
sentences
of argument, a threadbare
conclusion,
and a
handful of marginal ly re levant c i t a t ions do not
provide us
with
enough to adequately
assess the
s t rength
of
the i r lega l conclusions.
Alla i th i v. Rumsfeld, No. 13-5096, 2014
W
2575417, a t *6
(D.C.
Cir.
June
10,
2014)
(c i t ing
Davis
v. Pension
Benef i t
Guar.
Corp. ,
734 F.3d 1161,
1166-67
(D.C. Cir.
2013)
( interna l
quotat ion marks omitted) . Pla in t i f f s '
fa i lu re
to proper ly
c i t e
or even
to
quote the documentary sources
on
which
they re ly
in
the i r Memorandum
of
aw i s
compounded
by
the
fac t tha t they
f i l ed an
overwhelming
2500-plus pages of documents
annexed as
exhibi ts to
the i r
Opposit ion
br ie f .
See
Bombard
v.
Fort
Wayne
Newspapers,
92 F.3d 560, 562 (7th Cir .
1996) ( I t i s not our
funct ion
to scour
the
record in
search of evidence to defeat a
motion for
summary judgment;
we
re ly
on the
nonmoving par ty to
iden t i fy with reasonable
pa r t i cu l a r i t y the evidence
upon
which
he r e l i e s . ) .
7
7
Defendants argue
tha t approximately nineteen of Pla in t i f f s '
nine ty-s ix exhib i t s
are
inadmissible under Fed. R.
Civ.
P.
37(c) 1) because
they were
produced
to
Defendants for the
f i r s t
time in oppos i t ion to th i s
Motion. See
Defs .
Reply
a t 3 3.
-19-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 20/52
With
these
observat ions in mind,
the
Court
considers
whether
Pla in t i f f s
have iden t i f i ed
any
admissible evidence to
support the i r theory tha t Abu Halawa ki l led Gilmore.
1 srae l i Government Reports
Pla in t i f f s f i r s t re ly on two I s rae l i
government repor t s ,
which
they claim
iden t i fy
[]
Force 17 and
Abu Halawa as having
executed the murder.
Pls . '
Opp'n
a t
2. These
reports are
ac tua l ly
press
re leases appearing
on the
IMF
webpage
tha t
purport
to
t ransmit
informat ion
from an
unident i f ied
IDF
Spokesman. Tolchin Decl. 26.
The
f i r s t
repor t
i s
captioned
Force
17
Background
Mater ial March 2001. I t
does not
even mention Abu Halawa
but
ra the r
accuses
Damara of
having
di rec ted a t e r r o r i s t ce l l
responsible
for
numerous t e r ro r i s t
a t t acks ,
including a
shooting
a t tack in Jerusalem, in which a secur i ty guard was
Defendants did not, however, support th i s asse r t ion with
an
at torney a f f idav i t , and
Pla in t i f f s
have not had an opportunity
to
respond
to t due to the fac t tha t
Defendants
made t
for the
f i r s t t ime on reply. For these
reasons, and because
Defendants
do
not
res t on the i r
Rule 37
(c) argument,
but
ra the r
chal lenge
a l l of
Pla in t i f f s '
evidence on
i t s
meri t s , the Court sha l l
assume, for purposes of
t h i s
Motion only, tha t the exhib i t s
Defendants iden t i f ied
as
la te-produced
are
admissible .
-20-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 21/52
ki l l ed
and
another wounded
( 30
October)
.
See Tolchin
Decl . ,
Ex. 60 [Dkt. No.
333-19]
.
8
The second report
i s
capt ioned
"Force
17
Ter ror i s t
Mohand
Said Muniyer Diriya
5 -
Mar
2002."
I t announces IDF'
s
assass ina t ion
of
Abu Halawa
and
claims
tha t
he was a "member o f
a
Ramallah-based t e r ro r i s t ce l l
who
personal ly took par t in
a
l st
o f
twelve
a t t acks , inc luding the NII a t t ack .
See Tolchin
Decl . ,
Ex.
61
[Dkt.
No. 333-20].
Pla in t i f f s
argue
tha t
these
IMFA
repor t s
are
admiss ible
under
Federa l
Rule of Evidence 803
(
8),
9
which
s t a t e s
tha t
a
record
or
s tatement
of
a
publ ic of f ice
i s
admiss ible i f :
(
1)
t
se t s out e i t he r "a mat te r
observed
while under
a
l ega l duty to
repor t [ ] or
fac tua l
f indings
from a
l ega l ly author ized
inves t iga t ion ,
and (2) ne i the r
the
source
of
informat ion nor
other
circumstances
ind ica te
a
l ack of t rus twor th iness .
Fed.
R.
Evid. 803
(8)
A) ( i i) - ( i i i) , (B).
Pla in t i f f s
have
not provided one
i o t a
o f informat ion as to
how
the mater ia l in the IMFA webpages
was
compiled or from what
8
Although
Pla in t i f f s
al lege
tha t
Damara ordered or d i rec ted the
NII at tack , they have
not
at tempted to
prove
the PA's
re spons ib i l i ty for
the
a t t ack through him alone.
9
Pla in t i f f s
c i t e
"Rule
803
( 8) (C)," which, as Defendants
r igh t ly
observe, does not ex i s t . Defs . ' Reply a t
5. The
Court assumes
Pla in t i f f s meant to c i t e Rule 803(8) A) and (B)
-21-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 22/52
sources
t i s der ived.
As discussed,
the
webpages purpor t
to
re l ay informat ion from
an
IDF Spokesman but no informat ion has
been
provided as to who t ha t Spokesman
i s ,
where t ha t person got
his
or
her
informat ion,
or
for
what
purpose .
Plain ly ,
without
knowing
anything
about
the source of the
informat ion, the Court
cannot conclude
tha t
t se t s out mat te rs
personal ly
observed by any
I s r ae l i
of f ic ia l , no less
one
with a
l egal duty
to
repor t , or fac tua l f indings from a l ega l ly
author ized
inves t iga t ion .
10
See,
e .g . ,
United
Sta tes
v.
E l-
Mezain, 664 F. 3d 467, 497-507
(5th
Cir . 2011) (holding reports
inadmissible
under Rule
803 8)
absent informat ion as to where
or how [the declarant] obtained the
informat ion, the
circumstances
under
which the documents were created , the
duty
of the authors to
prepare such documents,
[or] the procedures
and methods used to reach the s ta ted conclus ions ) ; Gi l l
v. Arab
Bank,
PLC,
893
F.
Supp.
2d
542,
571
(E.D.N.Y. 2012)
( f inding
of f ic ia l reports
of
the
I s r ae l i Secur i ty Agency
inadmissible
10
This i s
espec ia l ly
t rue given tha t
the
Sta te of I s rae l never
prosecuted
anyone
for
the NII a t tack and a pol ice report
de ta i l ing the I s r a e l i Police depar tment 's
i nves t iga t ion
of
the
NII a t t ack
ne i the r
mentions
Abu
Halawa nor ind ica tes
tha t
I s rae l i
po l ice
made
any fac tua l f indings
re la ted to
the
i den t i t y
of the gunman. See Tolchin Decl . , Ex. 59 ( I s r ae l i pol ice report
t i t l e d Murder of Esh Kodesh Gilmore National Insurance
Ins t i t u t e Off ices -Eas t
Jerusalem, dated Nov. 22, 2000) [Dkt.
No.
333-18].
-22-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 23/52
under Rule
803(8)
because, i n t e r a l i a , they
re layed
informat ion
of uncer ta in provenance ) ; cf . Esta te of
Parsons
I I ,
651
F.3d a t
134
(Tatel , J . , concurring)
(accept ing asse r t ions in publ ic
record authored by unknown source as t rue
would
require
pi l ing
inference (about the r e l i a b i l i t y and
knowledgeabil i ty
of the
s ta tement ' s author) upon
infe rence (about when the s tatement was
wri t ten)
basis)
f inding ) .
upon inference
(about the s ta tement ' s
evident iary
akin
more
to specula t ion than to reasonable fac t -
Further , Rule 8 03 8) i s based on the not ion
tha t publ ic
records are r e l i ab l e because there i s a lack of
. motivat ion
on
the par t of the recording o f f i c i a l to do other than
mechanical ly r e g i s t e r
an
unambiguous fac tua l ma t t e r . E l-
Mezain, 664 F.3d a t 498-99
(5th
·c i r .
1985)
(quoting United
Sta tes
v.
Quezada, 754 F.2d
1190,
1194 (5th Cir .
1985)) .
Thus,
as
previous ly
s ta ted ,
the Rule
requires
t ha t
ne i the r
the
source
of informat ion nor other circumstances i nd ica te a lack of
t rus twor th iness . Fed. R. E ~ i d
803(8) (B).
The Court
obviously
cannot draw any
conclusions
about
the
mot iva t ion [s ]
of
the
recording
o f f i c i a l s
when
t
lacks
any
informat ion
about
wh
those of f i c i a l s
are , where they
got t he i r informat ion,
and under
what circumstances .
The
complete
absence of
such informat ion
-23-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 24/52
indica te[s]
a l ack
of t rus tworth iness .
Fed. R
Evict.
803(8)(B).
In sum, the Court
concludes
t ha t the IMFA webpages are not
admiss ible under Rule 803 (8) and,
the re fo re ,
do not
crea te a
genuine
f ac tua l
dispute t ha t
Abu
Halawa k i l l e d Gilmore.
2 Passage
from
The Seventh
ar
Next, P l a i n t i f f s re ly on
a passage
in
I s sacharo f f ' s book
The Seventh War.
The passage
s t a t e s
t ha t , a f t e r the
a t t ack a t
the
National Insurance
Ins t i t u t e ,
Abu
Halawa
phoned
Abdel
Karim
Aweis,
a member
of the General
In te l l igence appara tus from
Jenin
and
t o ld
Aweis t ha t he
wanted to announce
to
the
media
tha t he
assumed
r e s pons ib i l i t y
for the
East Jerusalem a t t ack on
behalf of
a new
m i l i t a ry
wing
of Fa tah . Tolchin Decl. Ex.
54
[Dkt. No. 333-12]. The passage
fu r the r repor t s t ha t
Abu
Halawa
and
Awe i s
conferred
on
a
name
in which
to
announce
re spons ib i l i ty for the
a t t ack
and eventual ly se t t l ed on the name
Al Aqsa Martyrs
Brigades ,
which
Aweis
a l leged ly p re fe r red
s ince t did not conta in
the
name Fatah , whose leadership
Indeed,
Pla in t i f f s had previous ly acknowledged tha t they were
not
aware
of
any ru le
of
evidence
t ha t
would permit the
admission a t t r i a l
of the
[
IMFA]
s tatement [s] . See Pls . '
Appl ica t ion for Issuance
of
a
Let t e r
of
Request fo r Jud ic ia l
Ass is tance
Pursuant
to the Hague Convention
a t
3
n.
4 [
Dkt.
No.
213].
-24-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 25/52
feared
being
iden t i f i ed
with
a t tacks . Id .
12
At his deposi t ion ,
Issacharoff
t e s t i f i ed tha t
t h i s
account
was based on
an
interview he
conducted
with Aweis in an I s rae l i pr ison in
2004.
Pla in t i f f s
concede, as
they must, tha t
to
admit the passage
as evidence tha t Abu Halawa k i l l e d
Gilmore,
they must es tab l i sh
a basis to admit
each
out -of-court s tatement embedded within it
namely: 1)
I s sacharo f f '
s wri t ten account, 2) we
i s '
s tatements
to
Issacharoff
a t
the
interview
in 2004,
13
and
3) Abu
Halawa's
s tatement
to
Aweis
a f t e r
the
NII
at tack .
Pls . '
Opp'
n
a t
3-4;
see
Fed.
R. Evid. 805 (excluding hearsay within hearsay unless
each
par t
of
the combined
s tatements
conforms
with
an
except ion
to the rule ) .
The
Court sha l l not reach whether I s sacha rof f ' s
wri t t en
account
i s
admiss ible
because, as discussed below,
12
Ear l i e r
in the passage,
the
book i den t i f i e s Abu Halawa as the
gunman in the NII a t tack , but Pla in t i f f s do not seek to admit
tha t port ion . See Pls . ' Opp'n a t 3.
13
Defendants argue t ha t
there
i s no
s ta tement
of Aweis because
the book paraphrases ra the r than
d i rec t l y quotes
the
content
o f
his
conversat ion
with Issacharoff . Defs . ' Mot. a t 21.
Assuming,
however, t ha t I s sacha rof f ' s wr i t t en account was
admissible , the
absence
of a
di rec t
quote
does not i t s e l f change
the analys is
under
the
hearsay rules . See
Harr is v.
Wainwright,
760
F.2d 1148, 1152 (11th
Cir .
1985) ( tes t imony implying t ha t
declarant
had furnished the
pol ice with
evidence
was
hearsay
al though not re to ld
verbat im);
Keith v.
Kurus,
No. 3:08 CV 1501,
2009 W 2948522, a t *17 (N.D. Ohio Sept . .
11,
2009)
( Paraphrasing or not repeat ing the witness ' s sta tement verbatim
does
not exclude
it from
being
hearsay. ) (c i t a t ions omit ted) .
-25-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 26/52
Pl a i n t i f f s
have not es tab l i shed a bas i s
to admit the s ta tements
of e i the r Abu Halawa or
Aweis.
i
bu Halawa s
Statement
Pl a i n t i f f s
argue t ha t Abu Halawa's s ta tement
to
Aweis t ha t
he wanted to
announce
to
the
media
t ha t
he
assumed
re spons ib i l i t y
for the
East Jerusa lem a t t a ck
on
beha l f
o f
a new
mi l i t a ry wing
of
Fatah i s a
s ta tement
aga ins t
penal
i n t e r e s t
admiss ib le under
Rule
804 (b) (3).
Rule
804 (b) (3)
provides
t ha t
an
ou t -o f -cour t
sta tement
i s
admiss ib le
i f :
(1)
the
dec la ran t i s
unava i lable
to
provide
tes t imony; and (2)
the
d e c l a ra n t ' s s ta tement
i s
so
cont ra ry to
the
d e c l a ra n t ' s p r o p r i e t a r y
or
pecuniary
i n t e r e s t or had
so
grea t a tendency
to expose
the
dec la ran t to c i v i l or
cr imina l
l i a b i l i t y t ha t
a reasonab le
person
in
the dec la ran t ' s
p o s i t i o n
would have
made
[ i t ]
only
if the
person
be l ieved
it to
be t rue [ . ] Fed. R. Evid.
804
(b)
(3) .
Because Abu Halawa
i s
deceased, he
i s
unava i lable within
the
meaning
of
Rule 804 (b) (3) . See Rule 804 (a)
4)
.
However,
h is
very des i re
to
assume re spons ib i l i t y for the NII
a t t a ck
sugges ts
t ha t
he
pe rce ived
publ ic
a t t r i bu t ion
fo r t he
a t t ack
to
be in his i n t e re s t ,
not
cont ra ry
to
it As
o ther
cour t s
have
observed, [u] nder the pe rve r se
assumptions of
t e r ro r i s t s ,
an
-26-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 27/52
armed
a t t ack on c iv i l i a ns r e f l ec t s glory . Taking ' c r ed i t ' for
such
an
a t t ack
i s
deemed
a
benef i t ,
not a
de t r imen t [ . ]
Gi l l ,
893 F. Supp. 2d a t 569; see also
Strauss ,
925 F. Supp. 2d
a t
449
( While
admit t ing to a
v io len t a t t ack on innocents t yp ica l ly i s
de t r imenta l
to a
dec la rant ' s
i n t e r e s t s ,
the
i n t e r e s t s and
motives
of
t e r r o r i s t s
are fa r
from t yp ica l . ) . Applying
t h i s
same reasoning;
the Court concludes t h a t
Abu
Halawa's
announcement to Aweis t ha t he
would assume r e sp o n s i b i l i t y
for
the
NII
a t t ack
was
a
pub l ic i ty - seek ing
e f f o r t
t ha t
was
not
con t ra ry to h i s perce ived
i n t e re s t s .
i s
not admiss ib le
under
Rule
804 (b)
(3).
Therefore , h is sta tement
ii Aweis s
Statements
Pl a i n t i f f s make two arguments for admi t t ing Aweis 's ou t -o f
cour t s ta tements to
I s sacharo f f , both
of which are s imi la r ly
unava i l ing .
Vicar ious Party Admission
Pl a i n t i f f s f i r s t
argue
t ha t
Aweis 's
s ta tements
are
admiss ible as
a
v ica r ious
par ty admiss ion
under
Rule
80l(d) (2)
D).
That ru le provides t ha t
a
s ta tement
of fe red
agains t
an
opposing
par ty
i s
not hearsay
i
it
was
made
by
the
p a r t y ' s
agent
or
employee on a mat te r
within
the
scope of tha t
re l a t ionsh ip and while
it ex is ted [ .
]
Fed. R
Evid.
-27-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 28/52
801
(d) (2) (D).
Thus, to es tab l i sh admiss ibi l i ty
under t h i s
except ion,
Pla in t i f f s
must
demonstrate
both tha t
Aweis
was
employed by the
P a t
the t ime of the interview with Issacharoff
and
tha t
the s ta tements concerned a matter within the scope of
his
employment.
I t i s undisputed tha t Aweis served as
an
in te l l igence
off icer in the PA's General Inte l l igence
Service
( GIS ) between
1998
and 2002, when he was a r res ted by I s rae l i author i t i es . I t
i s
fur ther
undisputed
tha t , a t
the
t ime
of
his
interview
with
Issacharbff , he
was
serving mult iple l i f e sentences
in
an
I s rae l i
prison for
his
involvement
in a number
of
t e r ro r i s t
a t tacks . See Eviatar Decl.
61
[Dkt.
No.
345] ; Defs. '
Reply a t
10. Pla in t i f f s argue,
however, tha t
he
was
st ll an employee
of
the
P a t the time
because the
P
has
a pol icy
of promoting
and paying i t s
of f i ce r s while they
are imprisbned in I s rae l i
custody. Pls . ' Opp'n
a t
3-4 .
The
Supreme Court
has held tha t where, as
here,
a rule
or
s ta tu te uses the term 'employee' without defining i t ,
t
should
be
construed to
descr ibe the
conventional master -servant
re la t ionship
as understood
by
common-law
agency
doc t r ine .
Nationwide Mut.
Ins .
Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S.
318,
322-24
(1992)
c i ta t ions omitted) . For purposes here , t i s suf f ic ien t to
-2 8 -
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 29/52
apply
the simplest formulat ion of
tha t doctr ine:
an employee i s
[a] person who works in
the
serv ice of another person (the
employer) under
an
express or implied
contrac t
of hi re , under
which the employer
has
the r igh t to
contro l the de t a i l s of work
performance. BLACK S L W DICTIONARY 602 (9th ed. 2009).
There i s
no evidence
t ha t Aweis performed any work or serv ices
for
the PA
while in pr ison .
While
he
t e s t i f i ed tha t he received
payments
from
the
PA while in pr ison , he s ta ted
tha t the
payments came
from
the Pr isoners
Club, not
GIS,
and
there
i s
no
ind ica t ion
t ha t he was required to perform any
serv ices in
ord€r
to recBive
them.
See Tolchin Decl . , Ex. G (deposi t ion t r .
of
Abdel Karim
Aweis, dated
Dec.
7, 2011) ( Aweis
Tr. )
a t 21:23-24
[Dkt.
No.
330-7] .
Further ,
al though the
PA
maintains a
po l icy
of
promoting
i t s
off i cers
who
are
imprisoned
in
I s r ae l i
custody, the
evidence
i nd ica tes t ha t
such
promotions occur automat ica l ly
with the
passage
of
t ime. See Tolchin
Decl . ; Ex.
F
(deposi t ion
t r .
of
Mahmoud Damara, dated Dec. 6, 2011) a t 8:20-9:17 [Dkt. No. 330-
6]
Q .
So
you were
promoted while you
were
in j a i l ,
cor rec t?
A Yes
And the
reason
i s
t ha t
our
mil i t a ry
ranks
are
subjec t
to
automatic
promotion
when the
t ime
fac tor
matures.
It s a l l
computerized
l i s t s . As
long
as
you
meet
the
-29-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 30/52
s tandards , you get promoted. ) . There i s no evidence t ha t Aweis
was
requi red
to do anything, or re f ra in
from doing
anything, in
order to
receive
the promotions.
14
Consequently, the record
does
not es tab l i sh tha t he cont inued to be employed by the PA for
~ u r p o s s of
Rule
80l(d) (2)
D) a t
the
t ime of
his interview
with
Issacharoff .
15
Even assuming Aweis
was
st ll employed by GIS while he
served out mult ip le l i f e sentences in an I s rae l i prison,
Pla in t i f f s
have
not
shown t ha t
his
s tatements
to
Issacharoff
f a l l within
the
scope o f t ha t employment.
There i s
no evidence
t ha t Aweis 's job func t ions included gather ing in te l l igence
re la ted
to t e r ro r i s t a t t acks genera l ly ,
much l ess tha t
the NII
a t tack was the type of a t tack he would have i nves t iga ted or
did
inves t iga te .
See
Alio t ta
v.
Nat' l R. R.
Passenger
Corp. , 315
14
Abu Halawa
was
promoted posthumously a f t e r his
assass ina t ion ,
c lear ly
i nd ica t ing
tha t
the mere
fac t
of a
promotion
does
not
imply the ongoing provis ion of se rv ices . See
Tolchin Decl . , Ex. 67 Abu
Halawa employment
records) a t 1 [Dkt.
No. 334-6].
Indeed,
15
Pla in t i f f s contend
t ha t
the
ra t iona le
underlying F.R.E.
801
D)
2) (d) [s ic]
i s
not the employee 's provis ion
o f
serv ices
to
the
employer
but the employee 's
dependence
on, and re su l t ing
loya l ty to ,
the
employer.
Pls . '
Opp'n
a t
3
(c i t ing
Nekolny
v.
Pain ter , 653
F.2d
1164,
1172
(7th Cir . 1981)). Loyalty may
be
one
of the
ra t iona les
underlying
Rule
801{d)
(2)
(D),
but
loyal ty
alone
does not suf f ice . The
Rule
requires
t ha t
the
employee
have made
the s tatement
while
[ the employment re la t ionship]
ex i s t ed .
Fed. R. Evid. 801
(d)
2) (D).
-30-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 31/52
F . 3d 7 5 6 , 7 6 2 (7th C r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( [ T ] he
sub
j e c t rna t t e r
of the
admission
[must]
match
the sub jec t
mat te r o f the employee 's job
d e sc r i p t i o n . ) ; Wilkinson
v.
Carn iva l Cruise Line_s, Inc . , 920
F.2d
1560, 1566-67
n.12
(11th
Cir . 1991) (holding t h a t
scope
o f cab in s teward ' s
employment
did not inc lude
knowing
whether
door
outs ide
his
work area
was de fec t ive without a showing t h a t
he [was]
ordered
to the a rea in ques t ion , or t o l d of the
problems
with the
doors
in connect ion wi th his du t i e s ) .
Pl a i n t i f f s
re ly
on
the Dec la ra t ion of
Majed
Fara j ,
Head
of
In t e l l i gence
fo r
GIS, to argue t ha t as
a
P i n t e l l i gence
o f f i c e r it was
Aweis ' job , by def in i t ion ,
to
l ea rn and obta in
informat ion
about t e r r o r i s t a c t i v i t y , such as the murder
o f
Mr.
Gilmore.
Pl s . ' Opp'
n
a t
4
(emphasis
in
o r ig ina l )
.
However,
Fara j ' s
Declara t ion merely descr ibes
the
genera l
func t ions
of
GIS as an
agency;
it does not mention Aweis o r any th ing about
h i s
sp e c i f i c
pos i t ion
as
an employee
o f GIS.
See P l s . ' Opp'
n,
Ex. 1 (Decl . o f
Majed
Faraj) 4-6 [Dkt.
No. 336-2] ) .
Fur ther , even i Aweis '
s
job
inc luded l e a rn ing and
ob ta in ing
in fo rmat ion
about t he
NII
a t t ack ,
h i s
s ta tements to
I s sacharo f f pe r t a ined to
se l ec t ing
a
name in
which
Abu
Halawa
would
assume r e sp o n s i b i l i t y fo r the a t t ack .
There i s no
evidence t ha t
he and
Abu Halawa ever d iscussed
any
i n t e l l i g e n c e
-31-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 32/52
re la ted t o a t t ack and
no suggest ion tha t his
profess ional
dut ies
included
media
announcements
ass igning
re spons ib i l i ty
for
t e r r o r i s t a t t acks . To
the
contrary , Abu Halawa
purportedly
wanted to take c redi t for the at tack , not
as
an of f i ce r of the
PA,
but on behalf
of a new
m i l i t a ry wing of
Fatahi suggest ing
tha t
both men
viewed
t he i r conversat ion as
re la t ing to
a c t i v i t i e s
independent of
t he i r
respons ib i l i t i es
as P
employees.
For
a l l
of these
reasons,
Pla in t i f f s
have
not
shown t ha t
Aweis ' s s tatements
are
admissible as a vicar ious par ty admission
under
Rule
80l(d) .
Statement
Against Penal In t e re s t
Pla in t i f f s '
second
argument for
the
admission
of
Aweis' s
statements
i s t ha t they were
cont rary to
his
penal i n t e re s t s
under
Rule 804(b)
(3).
As discussed, to
sa t i s fy th i s
except ion,
Pla in t i f f s must
show both tha t Aweis i s unavai lab le
and
tha t
his s ta tements
had
so great
a
tendency to
expose him to
cr iminal
l i a b i l i t y tha t
a reasonable person in
his
posi t ion
would
not
have made
them
unless
bel ieving
them to be t rue . Fed.
R.
Evid.
804
b)
3) .
Pla in t i f f s
argue
tha t
Aweis i s
unavailable
because a t his
depos i t ion
in
t h i s
case
he
could
not r eca l l
his
-32-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 33/52
conversa t ions[ . ]
Pls . '
Opp'n a t
3. A
declarant i s considered
to
be
unavailable i f ,
among
other th ings , he
or
she t e s t i f i e s
to
not
remembering the subjec t matter
of
the pr ior statement .
Fed.
R. Evid. 804 (a) (3).
Pla in t i f f s
do not , however,
spec i fy
which conversat ion
they
contend
Aweis could not reca l l the
conversat ion
with Issacharoff or the one with Abu Halawa. As
Defendants point
out,
Aweis
t e s t i f i ed tha t he did
remember
his
conversat ion with Issacharoff but
could
not reca l l spec i f i ca l ly
what
he
had
to ld
Issacharoff .
See
Aweis
Tr.
a t
40:20-24.
In any event ,
t h i s
def in i t ion of
unava i lab i l i ty appl ies
only
i the
declarant i s unable to remember the ' subjec t
mat te r ' of the statement ,
i . e . , i f 'he has no
memory
of the
events to which his hearsay statements re la te . ' The fac t tha t
the
witness does not
remember
making
the
statements
themselves
i s i r r e l evan t .
Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shut ters , Inc . , 711
F. 3d 1299, 1317
(11th Cir. 2013)
(c i ta t ions
omit ted) .
Consequently,
Aweis's
inab i l i ty to
reca l l
prec i se ly what
he sa id
to I s sacharo f f
does
not render him unavailable under Rule
804(a) (3)
so long as
he remembered the underlying subjec t matter
of
which
they
spoke.
Id.
a t 1317.
Aweis did not t e s t i f y to a lack of memory regarding the
subjec t matter of his interview with Issacharoff , which was his
-33-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 34/52
purported telephone
conversat ion
with Abu Halawa
immediately
a f t e r
the
NII
at tack .
To the contrary , when asked
whether
he
had
ever
discussed the NII
shoot ing at tack with
Abu
Halawa,
he
answered def in i t ive ly No,
no. Aweis Tr.
a t
41:21.
e also
t e s t i f i e d tha t
he
had no knowledge regarding the NII shoot ing
and
tha t he f i r s t met Abu
Halawa
in December
2001, more
than
one
year a f te r the
NII
a t t ack and
purpor ted
conversat ion took place .
Id. a t 41:4-17. Because
Aweis
did
not
t e s t i f y to a l ack of
memory
regarding the
al leged
conversa t ion
with
Abu
Halawa,
but
ra the r tha t t
never happened, he i s not
unavai lab le .
~ United Sta tes v. Uribe, 88 F. App'x
963,
964-65 (8th Cir .
2004) (holding tha t a
dec la ran t
who remembered what happened
i s not unavai lable under
Fed. R
Evict. 804(a) (3)) .
Pla in t i f f s
also
have not shown tha t Aweis 's s ta tements were
contrary
to
h is
penal
i n t e r e s t s .
Fi rs t , nothing about the
s tatement impl ica tes Aweis in ac tua l ly perpet ra t ing the at tack;
t merely gives
him
c redi t
for
helping
to
se lec t
the name in
which Abu
Halawa took
r e s pons ib i l i t y
for th€ at tack .
Second, a t
the t ime Aweis made
the
s ta tements , he was al ready s€rving
mult ip le
l i f e
sentences,
subs tan t i a l ly
diminishing
the
prospect
tha t he
would be de te r red from making
sta tements t ha t
could
expose him to
fur ther
cr imina l l i ab i l i t y .
Third, as
the
Court
-34-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 35/52
has already observed, ef for t s by known
t e r ro r i s t s
to associa te
themselves with
t e r r o r i s t ac t iv i t i e s are not perceived to be
against the i r in te res t s
and do
not qual i fy
under
Rule 804(b) (2).
See Gil l ,
893
F.
Supp. 2d a t 569; Strauss , 925 F.
Supp. 2d
a t
44 9.
In sum, even i f the passage in The
Seventh
War qual i f i es as
a recorded
recol lec t ion
of
Issacharoff '
s
interview with Aweis,
t
i s st ll inadmissible
for two
other
reasons,
namely tha t the
hearsay
sta tements of
both
Aweis
and
Abu
Halawa
embedded
in
I ssacharof f ' s
account are inadmissible.
Consequently,
the
passage
in The Seventh War cannot be used
to
prove tha t Abu
Halawa ki l l ed Gilmore.
3 Statements o Bashar Khatib
Next, Pla in t i f f s contend tha t Al
Khatib
t e s t i f i ed
under
penal ty
of perjury a t
Damar
a ' s mil i t a ry
t r i a l
on January 12,
2009,
tha t his sta tements
and handwritten
accounts
to
the
I s rae l i
pol ice
impl ica t ing Abu Halawa
in
the murder were t rue .
Pls . ' Opp'n a t 4.
They argue tha t
th i s
test imony i s admissible
under
Rule
801(d) 1) A) because Khatib repudiated t ha t
sworn
t r i a l
test imony
in
his
depos i t ion
in
t h i s
case .
Id .
16
16
Pla in t i f f s do
not argue
tha t
Al Khatib 's
four
custodia l
sta tements
are independent ly admissible . Our
Court
of Appeals
has
observed tha t
s tatements made
to inves t iga t ing of f ic ia l s
-35-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 36/52
Rule 8 01 (d) (1) (A)
appl ies
to p r i o r
i ncons i s t en t s ta tements
o f a witness . I t s e s se n t i a l requ i rements a re t h a t (1) the
dec la ran t t e s t i f i e s a t the tri l [or
depos i t ion] ;
(2) the
dec la ran t i s subjec t to
cross -examinat ion
concerning the
[pr ior ]
s ta tement ;
(3) the s ta tement
i s
incons i s ten t
with
h i s [or
her]
present
tes t imony; and (4) the p r i o r s ta tement
was
given under
oa th .
United Sta t e s
v. Emor, No. 10-298
(PLF),
2012 W
458610,
a t *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 13,
2012)
( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s omit ted) .
As
Defendants
poin t
out ,
P l a i n t i f f s
seek
to
r e l y
on
a
supposedly p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t s ta tement without
iden t i fy ing
the
s t a t ement .
Defs . '
Reply
a t 14.
P l a i n t i f f s have not
c i t e d
to
any
por t ion of the
Damara
tri l
t r a ns c r ip t in which Al Khat ib
admi t ted , as
they
contend,
t h a t h is s ta tements and handwri t t en
accounts
to
the s r a ~ l i po l i ce
impl i ca t ing Abu
Halawa
in
the
murder were t r u e [ . ]
Pl s . ' Opp'n
a t 4.
The
Court ' s
own review
o f
t h a t
t r a ns c r ip t revea ls
none.
Ins tead ,
P l a i n t i f f s
appear to
hang
t h e i r
ha t on a b r i e f
p o r t i o n
of the t r a n sc r i p t in which,
the p rosecu to r
asked, [ a ]
ccord ing to what I unders tand from
you,
everyth ing
t h a t
you
have
sa id about Muhannad
Abu
Halawa,
are gene ra l ly inadmiss ib le
under Rule 801 (d) (1) (A) unle ss made
in
t he
course o f formal proceedings in which c e r t a i n
guarantees
o f r e l i a b i l i t y are
present .
United Sta t e s v. Livings ton,
661
F.2d
239, 242-43 (D.C.
Cir . 1981)
( c i t ing
case s ) . As noted,
P l a i n t i f f s have
not shown t h a t such guaran tees
o f r e l i a b i l i t y
were
pre sen t
dur ing
Al
Kha t ib ' s i n t e r r o g a t i o n .
-36-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 37/52
about
Bashir Nafa, Omar Ka'adan, everything i s cor rec t but
whatever
i s
re la ted
to
[Damara] i s i ncor rec t .
Correct? and Al
Khatib
answered Yes. See Tolchin Decl . , Ex.
18 ( t r ansc r ip t of
mil i ta ry t r i a l of Mahmoud Damara, test imony of Bashar Al Khatib)
a t ECF
p.
18
[Dkt.
No 331-18].
During Al Khat ib s depos i t ion in
2011, P l a i n t i f f s counsel
did
not
confront
Al
Khatib
with t h i s
tes t imony
or
ask him to
expla in it
Pla in t i f f s counsel asked
Al Khatib
only
whether he
had
been
ques t ioned
about
his
cus tod ia l
s ta tements
a t
Damar
a s
t r i a l .
Tolchin
Decl . , Ex. E (Al Khatib t r . ) a t 29-31. He did
not fo l low
up by
asking
Al Khatib s pe c i f i c a l l y about his one
word
response
to the prosecu to r s ques t ion of whether every th ing
he had sa id in h i s pr io r
sta tements
about Bashir Nafa, Omar
Ka'adan,
and
Abu Halawa
was
cor rec t .
Because Rule 801(d)
(1) A)
requires
t ha t
a declarant be cross-examined about the
spec i f ic
s tatement sought to be in t roduced
as
inconsis ten t , t h i s f a i l u r e
alone
i s grounds to exclude the 2009 test imony on which
P l a i n t i f f s re ly . See Fed. R
Evict.
613(b), 801(d) (1).
Moreover, it i s
not
a t
a l l c lea r tha t , i n h i s response to
the
prosecu to r s
ques t ion
a t
Damara's
t r i a l ,
Al
Khat ib
unders tood
himself
to
be
af f i rming the
t ru t h of
h i s pr io r
s ta tements impl ica t ing Abu Halawa in the NII a t t ack (which i s ,
-37-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 38/52
of course, the only
way in
which
tha t
statement would
be
inconsis tent
with his
test imony in
t h i s
case) .
The
prosecutor ' s
quest ion
as
to whether everything he had previously sa id about
Muhannad Abu Halawa,
about Bashir
Nafa, Omar
Ka'adan,
[was]
correc t
d i rec t l y fol lowed quest ioning re la ted to an inc ident
other than the NII a t tack.
17
Ear l i e r in the same examination, Al
Khatib
t e s t i f i ed spec i f i ca l ly
about
the
NII
a t tack, and tha t
test imony
was
consis ten t with his test imony
in
th i s case. In
par t i cu la r ,
when
asked
what
he
knew
about
the
a t tack
a t
the
National
Insurance Ins t i tu te in East
Jerusalem[,] Al Khatib
answered:
The National
Insurance
In s t i tu te case has no connect ion to
us. I was
asked about t h i s
case. I was interviewed
about
i t ,
and
they were unable
to
prove
anything and
then they
threa tened
tha t
they would bring
in my wife, I don ' t
want
to t a lk about
the
nast iness
there .
I
did
not confess
to
tha t ,
t
had
nothing
to
do
with me
and
t
i s
not
in
my
record.
17
See
Tolchin
Decl . , Ex.
18 (Damara
Tr ia l Tr. of Al Khatib)
[Dkt. No 331-18
a t E F p. 18] ( Q.
Is t correc t tha t
in
tha t
same year ,
2000-2001, you
heard
on the radio
tha t there were
confronta t ions
with I s rae l i army forces in the Ein Arik area and
you drove
there with Nasser Nafez Darama, and then he got out
and
s t a r t ed
shoot ing and
you got
angry
a t him?
A: Correct , but
these are
his
words,
not mine.
Q:
But
you sa id tha t
to the
pol ice . A:
In another
case.
Which i s unre la ted
to
th i s case
You are
ta lking
about something tha t
happened e ight
years
ago. Q: According to what I understand from you, everything
tha t you have sa id
about
Muhannad Abu Halawa,
about
Bashir Nafa,
Omar Ka'
adan,
everything
i s cor rec t but
whatever i s
re la ted to
the
Defendant
i s incorrec t .
Correct?
A:
Yes. )
-38-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 39/52
Tolchin Decl . , Ex. 18 ( t r . of
mil i t a ry
t r i a l of
Mahmoud Damara,
test imony of Bashar Al Khatib) a t ECF p. 16 [Dkt. No 331-18]
(emphasis added)
When asked again about the a t tack a t the
National
Insurance Ins t i t u t e in
East Jerusalem,
he responded
I
have no connect ion to tha t and
fur ther
t e s t i f i e d t ha t he only
signed the wri t t en s tatements because they th rea tened to
a t t ack
my wife .
Id. a t 17 (emphasis added).
In
sum, Al
Khat ib ' s
test imony a t Damara's t r i a l
was
genera l ly consis ten t , not
inconsis ten t ,
with
his
test imony
in
t h i s
case.
His
one
word
response
to a vague quest ion by
the
prosecutor
does
not change
t ha t equat ion.
Because Pla in t i f f s have not shown tha t Al
Khatib
gave
inconsis ten t test imony a t
Damara's
t r i a l ,
or
tha t they ever
cross
examined him regarding such test imony,
the
tes t imony i s
not admissible under
Rule
801 (d) (1) A) and
cannot
be
used a t
t r i a l
to
support
t he i r
theory t ha t Abu Halawa ki l l ed Gilmore.
18
4 Statements
o
Mas1amani
Fourth,
Pla in t i f f s
re ly on Maslamani' s
January
18, 2001,
custodia l
s ta tement tha t
Abu
Halawa took c re d i t for car ry ing out
18
Having so concluded, the Court need not address Defendants '
argument t ha t the Hebrew t r ansc r i p t from
the
Damara t r i a l
does not
even
conta in s tatements
of
Bashar Al Khatib
because
he
t e s t i f i e d in Arabic and the statements in the Hebrew t r ansc r i p t
are
those
of an
IDF
soldier
serv ing
as an
i n t e rp re t e r .
Reply
a t 14.
-39-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 40/52
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 41/52
(deposed declarant was not
unava i lable
under Rule 8 04
(a)
5)
because t ha t subsec t ion
i s
concerned
with
the absence of
tes t imony,
r a t h e r
than the phys ica l absence of the dec la rant )
(c i t a t ions
omit ted) .
P l a i n t i f f s
contend t ha t
Maslamani
never the less
i s
unava i lable
because they did not have
the oppor tuni ty
to
redepose him a f t e r he purpor ted ly agreed to
the
admission o f h is
January 2001 cus tod ia l
s ta tement as
evidence agains t him a t
h is
cr imina l
t r i a l
in I s r a e l
in
2003.
Pls . '
Opp
n
a t
5.
Even
i
t h i s was
r e levan t ,
Pl a i n t i f f s
do not c i t e
any evidence
ind ica t ing
t ha t
Maslamani agreed to
the admission o f his
s ta tement as
it
r e l a t e d
to the
NII
at tack , for
which
Maslamani
was
never charged.
As Defendants point
out , the
I s r a e l i
m i l i t a ry
t r i b u n a l
quoted in
i t s
en t i r e t y the
por t ion o f
the
Misalmani cus tod ia l
sta tement
deemed
admit ted
by
consent ,
and
it
did
not inc lude
the
por t ion r e l a t i ng
to
the shoot ing
of GilmoLe
a t the National Insurance I n s t i t u t e .
Rather ,
it r e l a t e s to
the
shoot ing
of
Ta l i a and Binyamin Kahane,
for
which Misalmani
was conv ic t ed .
Defs . '
Reply
a t
17 (c i t ing Tolchin Decl . , Ex. 7
(verdic t)
)
a t
5,
28-31) .
Nor do Pl a i n t i f f s
expla in
why
Maslamani s
agreement
to admit s ta tements inculpat ing Abu Halawa
a t his cr imina l t r i a l i s
su f f i c i en t l y
r e levan t
to
t h i s
case t ha t
-41-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 42/52
the i r inab i l i ty to redepose
him on
the subject
renders
him
unavai lable .
20
Second, even i f Maslamani was unavailable, as
Defendants
point out , the
par t
of
his sta tement
implicat ing Abu
Halawa in
the NII a t tack
was exculpatory,
not inculpatory .
Maslamani
did
not
confess
any re spons ib i l i ty for
the
NII a t tack; he
blamed Abu
Halawa. As the Supreme Court has
held,
Rule
804(b)
(3)
does not
allow admission
of
non-se l f - inculpatory s tatements , even i f
they
are
made
within
a
broader
nar ra t ive
tha t
i s
general ly
s e l f -
inculpatory . Williamson
v.
United
Sta tes ,
512 U.S. 594, 600-01
(1994); see also
Fed.
R. Evid. 804, Advisory
Committee
Notes to
exception 3 ( [A]
statement
admitt ing
gu i l t
and
impl ica t ing
another person,
made while
in custody,
may well be motivated
by
a desi re
to
curry favor with the
author i t i es
and hence
f a i l
to
qual i fy as agains t in te re s t . ) .
Because Maslamani
i s
avai lable
and his test imony about the
NII
a t tack was
not
contrary
to his penal
i n t e r e s t s ,
his
20
Pla in t i f f s
argue
that ,
under operat ion of
I s rae l i mil i t a ry
law,
Maslamani 's
admission
of the
sta tement cons t i tu ted an
endorsement
by
Maslamani
of
a l l the
fac ts contained
in the
s ta tement . Pls . '
Opp'
n
a t 5. Even
i f t h i s i s
t rue , and even
i f Maslamani agreed to the admission of the ent i re sta tement as
opposed
to
mere_ly the port ions
per ta ining to
the
a t tack
for
which he was convicted, Pla in t i f f s do
not
explain how the lega l
consequences
of tha t admission under I s rae l i mil i t a ry law i s
re levant to
the
admiss ibi l i ty of
the
sta tement
under the
Federal
Rules of Evidence.
-42-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 43/52
cus tod ia l s ta tement i s not admiss ib le
under
Rule
8 04 b)
3)
and
cannot be used a t
t r i a l
to prove t ha t Abu Halawa
k i l l ed
Gilmore.
21
5
The Expert Opinion
o Alon Eviatar
Fi f th and f i na l ly , Pl a i n t i f f s have re ta ined , as an expe r t
witness , former IDF
i n t e l l igence
of f i ce r and Department Head of
Pales t in ian Affa i rs ,
Alon Eviatar ,
who opines, among
o ther
th ings , t ha t it i s more
l i ke l y
than
not , tha t Muhanad
Abu
Halawa
ca r r i ed
out
the
October
30,
2000
murder
of
Mr.
Gilmore.
See Corrected Decl. of Alon Eviatar
( Eviatar Decl.)
33 [Dkt.
No 345 ]
P l a i n t i f f s argue tha t even
i
none of
the
foregoing
ev iden t ia ry
i tems
are admissible,
Evia ta r ' s
opinion i s
s u f f i c i e n t to
take
t he i r case to
a
jury .
Rule 702
of
the Federal Rules
of
Evidence
governs
the
admiss ib i l i t y of exper t test imony.
I t
provides t ha t a witness
who
i s
qua l i f i ed
as
an exper t
may t e s t i f y
in the
form
of an
opinion or otherwise i f : (a) the e xpe r t ' s
spec ia l i zed
knowledge
wil l
he lp
the t r i e r of fac t
to
understand the
evidence
or to
determine
a
fac t
in
i s sue ;
(b) the test imony
i s based on
su f f i c i en t
fac t s
or data ;
(c)
the
t e s t imony
i s
the
produc t
of
21
The Court also notes tha t even i
Maslamani'
s own s ta tement
was admissible ,
it i s
double hearsay because
it
merely recounts
Abu Halawa' s own out. , -of-court sta tement , which the Court has
a l ready
ru led i s
inadmiss ib le .
-43-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 44/52
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 45/52
cumulative experience and
knowledge
and profess ional ins t inc t s
and i n tu i t i on . " Eviatar Decl.
32.
Eviatar does not, however, even consider these variab les in
reaching his
conclusion
tha t " i t i s very l ikely , and cer ta in ly
more
l ike ly than
not,
that Muhanad Abu
Halawa
carr ied out
the
October 30, 2000
murder
of Mr. Gilmore.
Id. 33.
Instead,
his
analys is i s devoted ent i re ly
to
expla in ing why he bel ieves
Pla in t i f f s '
hearsay.
evidence i s re l iab le .
See id. 34-64.
His
Declarat ion contains
no
discuss ion of
the
var ie ty
and
divers i ty
of
the
sources and/or types of
information
and
data [ . ] "
Nor
does he explain how his cumulative
experience
and
knowledge
as
an
IDF
in te l l igence off icer ,
as
opposed
to
commonsense
and general
deductive
pr inc ip le s tha t any non-expert
f inder
of fac t
would re ly on,
lead him
to
the conclusion
tha t
Abu
Halawa
was the l ike ly murderer.
Because Evia tar fa i l s to
consider
the very fac tors he
claims should be considered in
determining the s t rength
{l ike ly
accuracy) of an assessment or
conclus ion ,
he
has
not " re l i ab ly
applied his own methodology to
the
fac t s of
t h i s
case and,
therefore , h i s
opinion
does
not
sa t i s fy
Rule
702(d).
See,
e .g . ,
Strauss , 925 F.
Supp.
2d a t 441 ( [I] t i s well se t t l ed tha t
' [u ]nder
Daubert
and Rule 702, expert test imony should be
-45-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 46/52
excluded i f the
witness
i s not ac tua l ly
applying
[the] expert
methodology. ' ) (c i t ing United Sta tes v.
Dukagjini,
326 F.3d 45,
54
(2d
Cir. 2003)).
Second, even
i f
Eviatar
had
f a i th fu l ly applied his own
methodology, his analysis i s based en t i r e ly on hearsay evidence
tha t the
Court has
already
ruled
i s inadmissible.
Evia tar Decl.
c n c n 34-64.
3
Although an expert
i s
en t i t l ed
to re ly
on
inadmissible
evidence in forming his
or her opinion, the expert
must
form
his
[or
her]
own
opinions
by
applying
his
[or her]
extensive
exper ience
and
a re l iab le
methodology
to
the
inadmissible
mater ia l s .
United
Sta tes v. Mejia,
545
F.3d
179,
197
(2d
Cir. 2008)
(quotation marks and
in te rna l
c i ta t ions
omitted);
see a lso
Esta te of Parsons I , 715 F. Supp. 2d a t 33 ( Expert opinions may
be based on hearsay,
but they
may
not
be a conduit for
the
in t roduct ion of
fac tua l
asser t ions tha t are not
based on
personal knowledge. )
(c i t ing
Fed.
R. Civ. P.
56(e) (1));
S t rauss , 9 5 F. Supp. 2d a t 445 (expert testimony
cannot
be
used
as
an excuse
to introduce
and summarize s t ra ight forward
3
Eviatar
a lso re l i e s
sta tements Pla in t i f f s do
sta tements and an April
magazine, Humat al-Areen.
on two other
se t s
of out -of-court
not re ly upon: Al Khatib 's
cus todia l
2001
edi t ion of
Force
17 ' s of f i c i a l
Eviatar Decl.
c Hc H
34-64.
-46-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 47/52
fac tua l evidence
tha t
has not been admitted, such as
a
webpage
tha t says 'Hamas ca r r ied out a suicide bombing' ) .
Eviatar
has not applied any
specia l ized knowledge
to
the
hearsay mater ia l s
on which
he re l i e s . Instead, his analys is
consis t s ent i re ly of deductions and observat ions
tha t
flow
di rec t ly from
the
content of the hearsay sta tements
and would
be
se l f -evident to a layperson. For example,
he
suggests that
Al
Khatib 's four
cus todia l
sta tements should be believed ra ther
than
his
deposi t ion
test imony
in
th i s
case
because
a t
his
deposit ion, he did
not
seem to
have
been
a
neut ra l or
spontaneous witness , and his
test imony
was not continuous or
complete,
as t was in h is sta tements to I s rae l i pol ice .
Eviatar Decl.
51. Likewise, he
opines
tha t
Maslamani 's
custodia l sta tement i s re l i ab le because
t
i s fa i r ly de ta i led
in
respect
to both the circumstances in which Abu
Halawa
conveyed
the information to
Maslamani, and
the
par t i cu la rs
of
the
a t t acks .
Id.
56.
These are prec i se ly the type of
generalized
in ferences tha t a
l ay
person,
and the ju ry i t s e l f ,
could draw without
any
exper t ass is tance .
4
24
The
Court
a lso notes tha t
accepting
asser t ions would requi re the suspension of
example, he opines, without
any explanat ion
Khatib 's
cus todia l sta tements are
more
depos i t ion
test imony
because I s rae l i
pol ice
-47-
some o f
Evia ta r ' s
common sense. For
whatsoever,
tha t Al
re l iab le than his
in te r rogat ions
are
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 48/52
Evia tar '
s
discuss ion
of
the o ther evident iary
sources he
r e l i e s
on i s s imi la r ly generalized. He s ta tes
tha t
he has
followed
I ssacharof f ' s
work over the course of his career and
found
him to be
knowledgeable,
thorough, unbiased and
honest
and has
no
reason
to
doubt his account.
Id. < II
44.
He does
not, however, provide any fac ts regarding
the
basis of th i s
opinion much l ess re la te t
to
his spec i f i c experience and
exper t ise .
The
c loses t
Evia tar
comes
to
drawing
on
his
extensive
experience
as an in te l l igence of f i cer i s
his
se l f -serving
conclusory
sta tements
tha t t
i s
l ikely
tha t the
IMFA
webpages
would not have
been
i s sued
by the
Sta te
of I s rae l unless
I s rae l i
author i t i es had a high
degree
of cer ta in ty regarding
the
fac ts
repor ted .
Id. < II 37.
He
opines . that th i s i s so
because
the
I s rae l i government
takes formal , public accusat ions
of
t h i s
type as very serious
matters
tha t
place
[] I s r ae l ' s
c red ib i l i ty on
the l ine
in
the eyes of
the
in te rna t iona l
community
and carry
the
r i sk
of an
unnecessary esca la t ion
of
tens ions with the
Palest inians.
Id. JI JI 35-36.
Eviatar
f a i l s , however,
to
discuss the
spec i f i c
protec t ions
tha t const ra in
the
IDF's
and
IMFA s
decis ion to
publ ish
more
personal ,
pr iva te and calm and l ess t ense than a
c iv i l
depos i t ion .
Evia tar
Decl. < II
57.
-48-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 49/52
i n t e l l igence informat ion;
the
quantum
of
evidence
necessary
to
sa t i s fy the
IMFA s concerns
regarding
mainta in ing
i t s
c red i b i l i t y in the
i n t e rna t iona l community
and
avoiding
unnecessary
c onf l i c t
with
the
Pales t in ians ; from
whom in the IDF
the
IMFA
would have obtained i t s informat ion;
the
types of
sources
on which the IDF
would have
re l i ed ; and/or what
protocols
or
processes the IMFA
and IDF would have used to
confi rm
the accuracy
of
sources pr io r to
pub l ica t ion .
Because
Evia tar '
s
opinion
cons i s t s
en t i r e l y
of
genera l ized
and
conclusory asse r t ions
tha t l ack
any
bas i s in
h is spec ia l i zed
knowledge,
the
Court concludes tha t he i s simply repea t ing
hearsay evidence without
applying any exper t i se whatsoever,
a
prac t i ce
tha t
al lows
prohib i t ing hearsay .
[P la in t i f f s ]
to
circumvent
the
ru les
Mejia,
54 5 F.
3d a t
197
(quotat ion marks
and
i n t e rna l
c i t a t i ons
omitted)
.
In sum, Evia ta r '
s
opinion i s not based on any r e l i a b l e
pr inc ip les
[or]
methodology r e l i a b ly appl ied to
the
fac t s
of
the case, Daubert , 509 U.S. a t 595, and
does
not
draw
on any
spec ia l i zed knowledge t ha t would
be
he lp fu l
to the
jury , as i s
requi red by Rule 702.
Will iams v. I l l i n o i s ,
132
S . Ct. 2221,
-2-2-4-1---- -2-G-1-2--)-. - 1 R s ~ e a E i l le-merel-y---we±<jhs-
---t--he--ev-idenee----in
prec i se ly the same way as
would
a
t r i e r
of
fac t .
-49-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 50/52
I t has
long
been t he law
in
t h i s Circu i t t ha t
'where
t he
ju ry
i s
j u s t as
competent to
cons ider and weigh t he evidence as
i s
an exper t witness and
j u s t
as well q u a l i f i e d t o
draw
t he
necessa ry conc lus ions there f rom, t i s
improper to
use opinion
evidence fo r
the purpose . '
Evans v.
Wash.
Metro.
Area
Trans.
Auth . , 674
F. Supp. 2d
175,
179-80 (D.D.C. 2009)
(quot ing Henkel
v .
Varner,
138 F.2d 934,
935
(D.C.
Cir .
1943)) ; see a l so United
St a t e s v.
Boney, 977 F.2d 624, 628 (D.C.
Cir .
1992) ( [Exper t ]
t es t imony
should
ord i na r i l y
not
extend
t o mat t e r s
wi th in the
knowledge o f laymen. )
United
Sta tes v .
Far r e l l ,
563
F. 3d
364,
377 (8th Cir . 2009) (exper t
usurped
j u ry func t ion
when
she
opined
on the s t r eng th
o f
t he Government 's case and
the
c r e d i b i l i t y of ts wi tnesses ) .
Consequent ly , Evia ta r '
s
opinion i s
not admiss ib le to prove
t h a t
Abu
Halawa k i l l e d
Gilmore.
As
6 Pla in t i f f s Have Not Presented Any Admiss ible
Evidence that bu Halawa i l led
Gi1more
discussed
above,
E vi a t a r ' s
exper t
op in ion i s
i nadm iss ib le and P l a i n t i f f s ' on ly
o ther
evidence t h a t Abu Halawa
k i l l e d Gilmore i s shee r hearsay , which
' coun t s
fo r noth ing '
on
summary
judgment . Greer ,
505
F.3d a t 1315.
Nor
have
P l a i n t i f f s demonst ra ted t ha t any of the evidence on
which
they
r e ly i s capable o f being conver ted
i n t o
adm iss ib le ev idence .
-50 -
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 51/52
Therefore,
Pla in t i f f s have
not
iden t i f i ed
any admissible
evidence to bring t he i r
case to a
ju ry
on
t he i r
foundat ional
a l lega t ion tha t Abu
Halawa
ki l l ed Gilmore and summary judgment
must be granted
for
Defendants.
25
B Plaint i f f s Supplemental l a ~ s
Pla in t i f f s
do not di rec t ly
address
whether the i r
supplemental claims also
require
proof tha t Abu
Halawa
ki l led
Gilmore. They
argue
sole ly tha t the
federa l
T claim
requi res
p la in t i f f s
to
prove
more
elements
than
the garden-var ie ty
supplemental cla ims. Pls . ' Opp' n
a t
8.
However, Pla in t i f f s
do
not
explain
how
t he i r quantum of
proof di f fe rs
on the i r
supplemental claims, nor do
they suggest tha t
such claims
can
prevai l without proof tha t Abu Halawa ki l l ed Gilmore.
Because
the Court has concluded
tha t
Pla in t i f f s
have
not
presented
any admissible
evidence tha t Abu Halawa ki l led
Gilmore, and Pla in t i f f s
have
advanced no other
basis
to support
25
Defendants also argue
tha t ,
even i f Pla in t i f f s
could
prove
tha t Abu
Halawa
ki l l ed
Gilmore, they
cannot prevai l
because the
T does
not permit c iv i l
lawsuits based on vicarious
l i a b i l i t y .
Defs. '
Mot.
a t 22-29.
The T
does
not
specify
whether it
permits act ions based on vicarious l i a b i l i t y and tha t i ssue i s
unresolved in
th i s Circui t . See
Esta te of
Parsons
I I ,
651 F.3.d
a t 133 (Tatel ,
J. concurring) Because
the Court has already
concluded t ha t P l a in t i f f s
f a i l to
present any
proof concerning
an
essent i a l
element of [ the i r ] case , Celotex Corp. ,
4
77 U.S.
a t 323, it ~ s unnecessary to reach th i s
i ssue .
-51-
8/10/2019 Gilmore v. Palestinian Authority District Court Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gilmore-v-palestinian-authority-district-court-opinion 52/52
t he i r
supplemental cla ims,
summary
judgment sha l l be
granted
on
these claims as wel l .
IV. ON LUSION
For the foregoing
reasons,
Defendants Motion for
Summary
Judgment
sha l l
be granted
and the
case
sha l l
be dismissed
in
i t s
en t i re ty .
n
Order
sha l l accompany t h i s Memorandum
Opinion.
Ju ly 28, 2014
Copies to: at torneys
on
record via
E F